Zionism’s Losing Battle

After years of effort to conclude the ongoing conflict between the Jews and the Arabs in Palestine, this labor has come to naught.  There is a lack of understanding of the reasons for continued Palestinian adversity to the Israeli state.  No solution so far has taken into consideration the rampant Palestinian poverty, and no one has suggested taking steps to eliminating this single obstacle to peace.  The elimination of Palestinian poverty lies in the hands of Israel, which is the single largest source of capital for the Palestinian working class.  However, Israel has continued to pursue a policy of segregation, guaranteeing poverty in Palestine.  However, Israel has come to a crossroad where it has become obvious that it cannot afford the government budget which is necessary to continue fighting wars in neighboring territories, and it must be realized that Zionism leads to a path of self-destruction.  The only solution to the conflict is the dissolution of government.

Israel as a welfare and warfare state

To one degree or another, the roots of Zionism began as early as the mid-19^th century when Jewish philanthropist Sir Moses Montefiore financed a number of programs in Palestine for the existing (and impoverished) Jewish communities which pocketed the territory.  During the 1880s, there was a spark of Jewish nationalism throughout Eastern Europe, catalyzed by the genocidal pogroms in Russia.  It was Theodor Herzl who founded the World Zionist Organization (ZO) in 1897, galvanizing a relatively minor movement into a state building ideological force.  Serious thoughts of a Jewish state in Palestine took form a few years prior to the First World War, which began in 1914, although the negotiations with the Ottoman Empire proved fruitless.  However, by 1914, there were at least 85,000 Jews in Palestine.

It was about this time when the first violence between Arabs and Jews erupted in the area.  As Jewish investors began to buy property—displacing Arab tenants—, forming socialist collectives hiring only Jewish workers, attacks by Arabs on Jewish property began to grow.  As a result, what was already a militant movement began to militarize further in the name of personal protection.  Fearing anti-Semitism and genocide, the Bar Giora—a military society—was founded in 1907.  Two years later, in 1911, the Ha-Shomer—a paramilitary force—was created.

The First World War was an important event in the history of the Zionist movement.  During the war the Ottoman government began persecution of their Jewish population, coercing them to work for the state either as labor or as soldiers.  A large amount of Jews fled Palestine during these years, and the Zionist movement found new strength in Great Britain.  Politically, Zionism and the British Empire shared the common objective of defeating the Ottoman Empire, creating the foundations of an early political alliance.  Although this alliance was bound to fall apart with British colonization of Palestine, it did favor further Jewish immigration into Palestine after the war.  After further development of the ZO during the inter-war years, the Second World War proved pivotal.  At the end of the war, in which an estimated six million Jews were murdered by the German Nazi government, a large number were allowed to immigrate into Palestine.

However, there was no immediate plan for a Jewish state.  The political struggle turned to war not soon after, with the Zionist movement turning to guerilla warfare—today considered “terrorism” —against British assets in Palestine.  A rising death toll caused London to turn the issue over to the United Nations, leading to the partition of the mandate into two separate states: one Jewish and one Arab.  And so, Israel was born.  From its very conception it was plagued by war: its declaration of independence in 1948 sparked a violent war between the Jewish occupants of Palestine and the Arab states of Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon and Iraq.  Israel has remained a violence-plagued state since then, and the main cause of this is no doubt the existence of Zionism.

As aforementioned, militancy was an early characteristic of the Zionist movement in Palestine.  This predilection towards relying on its military capabilities would follow Israel throughout its statehood.  The wars it fought with surrounding Arab countries in 1948, 1956, 1967 and 1973 served to shape it into one of the premier warfare states of the Middle East.  Indeed, the majority of Israel’s Prime Ministers had had a distinguished military career prior to their election into office.  Save for the projected 2009-2010 budget, which will see a ~$300 million reduction in allocation towards defense spending, the Israeli defense budget has been steadily on the rise.  The 2008-2009 budget set new records, at an estimated $11.9 billion.  According to the CIA website, in terms of percentage of gross domestic product (GDP) Israel’s defense budget is 7.3% (2006 estimate).  The same source shows that in terms of percentage of GDP, Israel has the sixth largest defense budget in the world.  Of the nations with a larger defense budget, only Jordan directly borders Israel, and the two countries have had a quiet de facto military alliance since the early 1990s.  In comparison, the United States has the largest nominal military budget in the world, but only the twenty-eighth largest in terms of percentage of GDP (4.06%).

The scheduled decreases in the defense budget, by the Netenyahu administration, have received much criticism.  Former Prime Minister Ehud Barak suggested that the new administration is effectively weakening the States’ defenses against the threat posed by the Palestinians, Hezbollah and Iran.  Ironically, the principle factor behind the Palestine “threat” is Israel’s increased militancy and her people’s incursions into demographically Palestinian territories in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank.

But Israel’s defense is not the only factor to take into consideration.  Israel’s large defense budget is a drain on the welfare of the average Israeli citizen.  Every shekel spent on defense is a shekel out of the pocket of the Israeli taxpayer.  The maintenance of a large military force also gives the State a tool to project its power, specifically in the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and southern Lebanon, costing the Israeli people even more over the long-run.  It gives the State a reason to inflate the money supply, which according to economist Henry Hazlitt is the “worst form of taxation”.  The costs of war are not confined to Israel itself.  The price of reconstruction has had quite a toll on the Lebanese government, and no doubt for the Palestinians.  This near-constant state of war has had a negative economic impact on both the Israeli and Arab populations, and especially in the case of the latter, it has exacerbated the problem.

Citizens of Israel have had their personal freedoms severely restricted in the name of national defense.  In 1945, the Defense (Emergency) Regulations was proclaimed by the British High Commissioner and later absorbed into Israeli State law in 1948.  This law gave the Israeli government the ability to severely regulate personal freedoms without first establishing a case for emergency.  In the event of the cessation of a state of emergency, the law also established that there was nothing forcing the government to rescind their enforced regulations on personal freedoms, economic freedoms and freedom of movement.  It is interesting to note, furthermore, that the state of emergency proclaimed in 1948 was never annulled.  In 1979, the Emergency Powers (Detention) Law was put into effect, which gave the Minister of Defense the capability to detain anybody for a period of up to six months, during a state of emergency, without due process of law.  In other words, the State of Israel has the power to effectively enforce any and all regulation it needs to and whatever time, without prior agreement by the people these regulations will restrict.

Fueled by paranoia, Israel has forged itself into one of the potentially most restrictive police states in the world—her saving grace is the assumption that these powers have not been abused, yet.  Besides that, the warfare state has exacted a heavy toll on the economic prosperity of the Arab population surrounding the country.  Should their disgruntlement with the Israeli State come as a surprise?  But, the price of war has also targeted Israeli citizens themselves, limiting economic prosperity.  To make matters worse, these economic limitations are not only a product of the warfare state, but of an extensive welfare state, as well.

Central planning has been a feature of Zionism since the very beginning of the Jewish return to Palestine.  Original Jewish settlements revolved around collectives, which accepted only Jewish labor.  Large amounts of those who lived in collectives also lived in poverty.  Zionism’s socialist tendencies brought early support from the Soviet Union for the objective of creating a Jewish state. Derek Penslar, in The Illustrated History of the Jewish People, writes: “No less crucial was the support of the Soviet Union, which saw in the Labor-dominated Yishuv a possible socialist ally in its search for a broad Middle Eastern sphere of influence.”  Since then, although the Jewish economy thrives in relation to the economies of its immediate neighbors, its economic growth is largely proportional to the extent of economic freedoms which exist in the country.  But, recently, the large government burden on the private sector has been an issue of concern.

The Israeli government subsidizes the purchase of housing by tenants of public houses, provides universal health care to all Israelis, and regulates the education industry by providing public education and oftentimes regulating school hours and even what is taught.  Many industries, especially agriculture, are heavily subsidized.  These programs have limited the country’s citizen’s economic freedoms.  According to the 2007 Economic Freedom of the World index, Israel is 44th for economic freedoms, with an average score of 7.1.  Countries with the same score are Spain, Georgia and Mexico, amongst others.  In credit market regulation, Israel is not even within the top one hundred, and is placed 54th in regards to labor market regulation.  It is 93rd in government size.  According to 2004 statistics, 55% of Isreal’s GDP is composed of the public sector, creating a heavy burden on the average Israeli taxpayer.  Israel’s national debt has been growing a quick rate, and according to a report by Jerusalem Institute for Market Studies the Israeli government has been paying debt by selling government bonds to raise money.  As a result, the State has created more debt in an effort to hastily pay off what it already owes.  The same report suggests that the States’ debt is worth 78% of the nation’s GDP.  In an effort to pay spiraling costs, there have been threats of rising taxes—especially given recent trends in decreasing tax revenue.  Efforts to decrease government spending have not been radical enough to displace the general impoverishment created by the public sector’s overburdening of the private sector.

Zionism’s obsession with the ideology of collective improvement of living standards has muddled the full picture.  The growth in the public sector has been done at the expense of the wealth of many Israelis.  Now, that is taking a toll on the viability of Israel as such an extensive welfare state.  A large portion of that spending, however, also comes as a result of the large active and reserve military wielded by the small Middle Eastern nation.  This spending has been fired by the assumed threat presented by the Palestinians, southern Lebanese and other neighboring Arabs.  These spending programs, which are ostensibly for the wellbeing of the Jewish people, are causing a terrible decay of the Israeli States’ integrity and survivability.  Besides Zionism’s integral socialist ideologies, it is the misconception of the threat posed by Israel’s Arab neighbors which is the root of the problem.

Palestinian dimension

As already alluded to, the Palestinian population of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip make difficult Israeli politics even more challenging.  Original hostility between Arabs and Jews stems back to the origins of Zionism in the territory of Palestine, where Jewish entrepreneurs purchased large tracks of land for Zionist collectives, forcing former Arab tenants to leave.  In this fashion, thousands of Arabs were displaced.  Although Zionists only purchased an estimated 12% of Palestine’s arable land, they were quickly linked to the growing impoverishment of the Arab peasant.  Furthermore, the Zionist Organization also posed a direct threat for post-colonial leadership of Palestine.  But, the dislike of the State of Israel, today, is attributed to other factors—including the continued occupation of the Gaza Strip and West Bank, for “self-defense” purposes.

Deep poverty is another factor.  According to the Palestinian Monitor, 46% of Palestinians cannot afford their suggested healthy intake of calories.  45.7% of the West Bank and 79.4% of the Gaza Strip live under the poverty line.  The combined GDP of the “Palestinian territories” has continuously decrease in the past decade, illustrating one of the worst cases of destruction of wealth by years of wars with Israel and between themselves.  Employed labor force, statistically, is only 40.6%.  Today, Hamas is one of the largest employers of Palestinian labor.  Hamas is also one of the greatest obstacles to peace.

Israel’s wall, separating the Jewish territories from the Arab lands (although, there are still Israeli settlements in Palestinian territory), has done more than just segregate two societies.  It effectively cut Palestinian labor from work within Israel, the single largest source of wealth for the average Arab laborer.  This has only served to exacerbate poverty and drive more and more Palestinians into the arms of Hamas.  And so, Israel’s xenophobic policies—in the name of self-defense—have only served to make Israel’s enemies stronger than they would have otherwise been.

Continued military aggression against Palestinian guerillas has inevitably affected civilian lives—whether by death or some “lesser” form of destruction.  On 10 January 2009, the very bright Fareed Zakaria published a very important and insightful column in Newsweek on Hamas.  In the article titled “What Makes Ahmadinejad Smile?”, he debunked the myth that continued Israeli operations in the Gaza Strip weakened the Palestinian resistance and Iranian influence in the territory:

Israel believes that the lesson of its 2006 war with Hizbullah was to improve its military tactics. And its superb defense forces have adapted well. But by crushing Gaza militarily, Israel might actually be giving Iran’s mullahs the ideological issue they thrive on. That might be the political lesson of this war.

He makes a valid argument, and it is applicable to Palestine and Hamas.  Evidence shows that the Israeli siege of the Gaza Strip in early 2009 did not severely weaken Hamas’ political power.  Destruction of any military power is difficult when Hamas’ military power depends entirely on the political influence they wield.  In the long run, destructive military incursions into the Gaza Strip only server to drive moderate Arabs to rally around the extremist flag.  And, Israel cannot fight a war of this type forever.  The Arab population is growing at a pace that the relatively small Jewish population cannot meet.  There has never been an instance in history where a smaller nation has been able to militarily occupy a larger population, except through integration.  Israel is fighting a war it cannot win.

There is only one solution

The current solution to the conflict is the so-called “two state solution”.  It entails the separation of Palestine and Israel as two sovereign states.  Besides the fact that there are a number of obstacles which make this “solution” very unlikely—claims for Jerusalem, Jewish settlements in Arab territory, Palestinian infighting, amongst others—the plan also fails to acknowledge the basic issue which encourages terrorism and hate.  That is, it fails to eliminate poverty in what would be the new Palestinian State.  There is no guarantee that the Palestinians would be able to work without restriction in Israel, the Gaza Strip and the West Bank would be geographically segregated, and there is no guarantee that the new sovereign Palestinian government would commit itself to respect the private property rights of its citizens.  This is especially true considering that to date there is no unified Palestinian authority.  Without a doubt, the two-state solution is not a solution at all.

Another “conventional” solution could be a “single state” whereas both the Arabs and the Israelis, as individuals, would have equal political power and representations into a unified parliament.  However, this ignores the reality that the Jewish population would never accept an Arab majority in its government.

The only perfect solution would be the complete dissolution of the state.  Large government is doomed to failure because of ideological differences, ingrained paranoia and continued distrust of one another.  Furthermore, only an end to government could return prosperity to Palestine in the short run.  A lack of higher authority with the ability to coerce its citizens into disadvantageous decisions would lead to the restoration of private property rights for all entrepreneurs alike, leading to a higher degree of investment.  Fruitful private enterprise would offer impoverished Palestinian workers a much needed opportunity to earn to bring food to their families’ tables.  The lack of a state would also eliminate the danger of racially motivated segregation and murder on a wide scale, making fears of a second holocaust or of continued Israeli oppression irrelevant.  It would solve the problem of out of control government spending and the crowding out of the private sector.  A return to wealth would make conflict of any type undesirable.  It would break the back of terrorist organizations, as they could no longer offer what capitalism could.

Self-defense would still be a concern, with salivating nations looking at what seems an indefensible group of people.  However, if the Middle East conflict has proven anything it is that a war against an entire people cannot be won.  To a large extent, these guerilla wars have been fought between professional armies and impecunious mobs of militants.  Even poor, these militias have access to some of the most advantage infantry weaponry available on the market.  A well-off, private security force would effectively be a private, professional military force, with capabilities similar or superior to public professional armies.  Inherently, they would be wealthier than the militias that have held off larger, superior professional armies.  Self-defense would not be an issue.

Anarcho-capitalism addresses the major impediment to peace in the Middle East: poverty.  Unfortunately, the idea of a prosperous anarchic society is not very believable within the general population.  It is regrettable that the only workable solution will never be pursued in our lifetimes.  A less ideal, although viable, solution would be a single-state with very limited government.  The purpose of this government would simply be to uphold basic laws as expounded by a definitive constitution.  Although a small government would inevitably grow in size, as suggested by Robert Higgs’ “ratchet effect”, this path may at least lead to the integration of Palestinian and Jewish cultures and society, and economic recovery, making a long-term peace more plausible between the two peoples.  But, most importantly, it should be realized that peace cannot exist without the dethroning of the existing Israeli and Palestinian governments.