The Author's Response 

by Daniel Ades, MALD '03

This is a counter-response to the Shirley Jean's letter on the article "An Alternative View of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict." First and foremost, I must react to the author's presumption that "her opinion" is unbiased.  In my editorial, I intended to show a view from a certain political perspective, but never asserting not to have a political inclination. Claiming that the economic downturn "is not my opinion, it is in fact what any true economist who studies the Occupied Territories (OT) would challenge" was simply pretentious. Moreover, simply using the word Occupied Territories in itself implies a political bias, as most academics referring to the region uses the terminology West Bank and Gaza Strip (WBGS). Having said that, I must refute her so-called "unbiased" view of the economic reality.

The claim that "from a purely academic perspective the economy of the Occupied Territories has not experienced a downturn" because it has never experienced an upturn is quite misleading. As a relative measure, going from a stagnant GDP per capita growth in the 1980s to a 35 percent decline in a little over six years is an economic downturn by most standard measures. The reasons for this decline may be multifaceted, but to argue that there was not a downturn is a naïve assumption. At the same time, I could not agree more with the assertion that any "positive trends in the GNP is a result of the growing small business, light manufacturing on the side of Palestinians who persevered against legal and economic barriers." The point is that these barriers were not only imposed by Israel but also by the temporary PA government, as I evidenced in my article.

The argument that Israel did not allow for the institution of a formal financial sector is fundamentally flawed.  The author states, "PALESTINIANS were not allowed to have their OWN bank". But, since when is financing dependent upon owning banks? As the author pointed out, Israel was not the only country allowed to own banks.  Every other country in the world, including Palestinian allies such as Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Lebanon owned banks. Moreover, the rationale behind not allowing Palestinians to own banks at this early stage of the interim government is not so far-fetched.  Financial services, which must be stringently regulated, could experience tremendous illegal activities if not properly overseen.  And effective oversight is a difficult task at such early stage of Statehood.

As for the argument that  "Job security in the 'Israeli industries' was virtually unknown given the chance that at any time workers were restricted from entering Israel proper, where these industries were really located" I ask the author why then did these industries exist before the halt of the peace agreements. These industries were actually thriving before the failed peace talks.  They have been shut down due to the violence. One should ask if these industries were shut down to purposely hurt the Palestinians or to maintain security. As the author claims to be an expert in economic theory, she should be very aware that free and peaceful trade between the two regions is important to both parties.  The closure of these factories, which are owned mostly by Israelis, was not only hurtful to the WBGS but also to the Israeli economy.

More importantly, Israel does not have "competing interests" with the Palestinians, as the author claims. Indeed, it is precisely her confrontational, zero-sum view that deters the progress of peace. Israeli policy does not aim to destroy Palestine. Rather the policy has been to make it a viable State that would be deterred from war because it would have a lot to lose. I make again my point that the only reason why there is so much suicide attacks is because the fundamentalists see no hope – to the point of not caring for their own lives. If there were hope and a thriving economy, why would they pursue such tactics?

Having said that, much more important to Israel than economic activity is the security of its own population. And the PA has refused to ensure such security for Israel. Peace cannot be one-sided.  It must be reciprocated with goodwill from the other side as well. I am always amazed how, after almost a decade of PA's authority, organizations such as the Tanzim, Fatah, and Hamas have not been outlawed, let alone prosecuted. How can Israel engage in peace conversations with a party that, in the interim talks, accepts political violence against its supposed negotiating partner? This certainly leaves very little space for trust and spirit of mutual cooperation.

As to the argument that "human capital is not destroyed by Islamic school, but rather in the torture chairs and the prisons" I must make two points. The first is that I am, as explicitly expressed in my article, in favor of secular and religious education. I believe that everyone should have the right to religious freedom and to have a religious education. But I do not, under any circumstance, agree with any type of education that trades ideals of religion for nurturing suicide attacks, fundamentalism, and extremism. Fundamentalist schools must be eradicated immediately for any hope of a long-lasting peace.

And as for the argument of "torture chairs and prison." I would point to the September 11 attacks that assaulted the soul of this nation. Suppose hypothetically that Bin Laden was captured in Afghanistan and a terrorist attack by Al-Quaeda is imminent on American soil as evidenced by intelligence information. Would you, as an American, be adamantly opposed to extracting information through violence? I remind you that we are not talking about people who hold opposing political views, but rather individuals that have killed many innocent civilians through cowardly terrorist acts. Why is it that the United States has been empowered to kill hundreds of civilians and displace a government in Afghanistan while Israel cannot even try to prosecute the terrorist groups that the PA refuses to bring to justice?

Last but not least, I believe that justifying the corruption of a state by asserting that other states are also corrupt is a poor argument. Especially because the corruption is inevitably leading to increasing violence as it fuels the thriving illegal arms trade in the region.  Most people who feel some kind of kinship with Israel feel great sorrow that its existence, and the struggle thereof, has caused such suffering to innocent people, Jewish and Muslim alike. What we must understand is that there are no good guys or bad guys in this conflict.

Having said that, arguing that the PA did not have a chance to be a State is nonsense. Had it worried with accountability, had it enforced security for its citizens and its neighbors, had it seriously hampered fundamentalism, had it not encouraged "stone throwing", had it sponsored secular education, and had it encouraged democracy, it would have not only proven worthy of running a state but also prevented the killings of many innocent Palestinians and Israelis.

Daniel Ades was member of a Jewish Youth movement in Brazil for ten years. He was editor of their weekly newspaper and representative to the South American Jewish Youth Council for the State of Sao Paulo. His current interests at Fletcher include corruption and development, as well as micro-credit.

Comments? Write us at letter@fletcherledger.com

[return to Home Page]