Larry Jankens's picture

    Fixing the Middle East: Simple Economics

    By Larry Jankens on Sat, 01/09/2010 - 1:12am | Politics
    There is no other force that can strike strong accord to the most disharmonious parties than money. For two basic reasons: 1) Money makes people content; and 2) Contentment breeds tolerance. Accordingly, the best foreign policy the United States can undertake is one that recognizes the awesome power of dolla-dolla billz y’all. Here’s why:

    If you were to give the average person the choice between spending their life murdering and evading murderers, constantly wondering when their family will be killed (like in many Middle Eastern countries) or being able to provide a decent life for their children and live in peace with your neighbors with money they make through an honest days work (like in many countries in the west), they will choose a decent life in peace to one of murder and anguish, regardless of ideology. When you give people economic opportunity you pacify them, because one doesn’t feel they have to run around orchestrating terrorist attacks they won’t. Why would they? They have their needs provided for? If people have economic opportunity they will naturally not commit acts of war against the establishment.

    One of the central causes of turmoil in the Middle East is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Money is the only way to get peace to the Middle East. Some might say that establishing a monetary relationship is too simple of a method to bring these two together; these people have been fighting and hating each other for thousands of years, and probably for another thousand. To which I say: poppycock.

    Look at the England and France. Those two hated each other for a long time. The hated each other so much that when they fought in The Hundred Years War it took them 116 years (1337-1453) to complete it because they couldn’t fit all of the fighting into one century. But these two haven’t engaged in any significant military conflicts against each other for nearly 200 years because they are in business together. They have established a positive fiscal relationship with one another so that attacking the other would be too costly. Bombings and war tend to make productivity in the commercial sector dip. The money they make with (the key preposition here is with) each other guarantees their continued peace.

    And don’t give me the bullsh*t that Muslims inherently hate Christians and Jews. The Ottoman Empire was run by devout Muslims and actively tolerated both Christians and Jews (it’s true, I read it on Wikipedia). There is nothing intrinsically violent and intolerant about the Muslim religion.

    I’m not saying it would be easy, or that if you just write the Palestinians a check they would automatically love everybody, but I am saying that if Israel and Palestine slowly built a mutually rewarding and equitable business relationship they would no longer want to kill each other. It would be a rough road, I’m sure, but there would come a point when a suicide bomber’s family will be pissed at him because his bombing f*cked up a business deal that would have netted the family a crap-load of cash. After a few years of making money off of the Palestinians the Israeli military will hesitate in blowing up sh*t up if it means lower productivity and lower profits. It’s simple economics.

    How do I know this? I just watched You Don't Mess With the Zohan - not only is it an awesome movie but it is an allegory for middle east peace. Think about it.

    Topics: 
    Politics

    Comments

    Larry, more power to you if you can draw political insight from an Adam Sandler movie, Actually, more power to you if you can sit through an Adam Sandler movie.

    To correct some of your math, Napoleon met his Waterloo in 1815, so that's nearly 200 years, not over 200. And you seem to accept as factual that the English and French have hated each other for thousands of years. But neither England nor France existed 2,000 years ago. Back then, both sides of the channel were populated by Celts, with ties of language, trade and culture.

    Jewish-Muslim animosity is likewise at most a century old. Jews were fully integrated into the various Arab empires, and shared similar fates at the hands of European Christians: massacred when Jerusalem fell to the Crusaders, expelled or forced to convert when Spain fell in 1492.

    People who argue the Israel-Palestine standoff is intractable often exaggerate the depths of its roots. But I read last year of a DNA study that suggested a large proportion of Palestinians (perhaps a majority!) are original inhabitants of that land who stayed behind and assimilated linguistically and religiously over the centuries -- and in fact genetically speaking are more "Jewish" than many recent returnees from the diaspora.

    Mindboggling, and shows how weird and surreal the whole I-P clash is.


    by acanuck on Sat, 01/09/2010 - 5:02am

    Yes, the English/French bit was too hyperbolic.  My point is: the English and French hated each other for a long time.  Now they tolerate each other because of a economically beneficial relationship.


    by Larry Jankens on Sat, 01/09/2010 - 7:51am

    I liked the Zohan. I thought it was good.

    by Larry Jankens on Sat, 01/09/2010 - 7:51am

    Hey Larry, I agree with the broad point that economic growth will help increase tolerance, but I think that details are much more complicated and that money alone won't solve the problems. You should read this article:

    Across the world, people believe that devotion to sacred or core values that incorporate moral beliefs — like the welfare of family and country, or commitment to religion and honor — are, or ought to be, absolute and inviolable. Our studies, carried out with the support of the National Science Foundation and the Defense Department, suggest that people will reject material compensation for dropping their commitment to sacred values and will defend those values regardless of the costs.

    In our research, we surveyed nearly 4,000 Palestinians and Israelis from 2004 to 2008, questioning citizens across the political spectrum including refugees, supporters of Hamas and Israeli settlers in the West Bank. We asked them to react to hypothetical but realistic compromises in which their side would be required to give away something it valued in return for a lasting peace...in general the greater the monetary incentive involved in the deal, the greater the disgust from respondents. Israelis and Palestinians alike often reacted as though we had asked them to sell their children. This strongly implies that using the standard approaches of “business-like negotiations” favored by Western diplomats will only backfire.

    And just when you thought that the article couldn't get more relevant to your post, it mentions the Hundred Years' War between the English and the French:

    Many Westerners seem to ignore these clearly expressed “irrational” preferences, because in a sensible world they ought not to exist. Diplomats hope that peace and concrete progress on material and quality-of-life matters (electricity, water, agriculture, the economy and so on) will eventually make people forget the more heartfelt issues. But this is only a recipe for another Hundred Years’ War — progress on everyday material matters will simply heighten attention on value-laden issues of “who we are and want to be.”

    The relevance ends, however, at the Zohan allusion. They don't go there.

     


    by Michael Wolraich on Sat, 01/09/2010 - 1:34pm

    The relevance ends, however, at the Zohan allusion. They don't go there.

    Which is why Larry's submission is, hands down, far superior.


    by Nebton on Sat, 01/09/2010 - 2:10pm

    True, all diplomatic problems can't be solved by throwing money at them.  They are solved by developing a genuine relationship built upon mutual respect.  However, a great way to develop those relationships is through monetarily engaging the two parties.  What Israel is doing right now will not work.  By treating the Palestinians like prisoners and not partners they only further the problem.


    by Larry Jankens on Sun, 01/10/2010 - 1:52am

    Latest Comments