Lift the 'siege'?
By Daniel Pipes
The Jerusalem Post
March 14, 2001

Nearly six months of sustained violence against Israel has left 
the Palestinian Authority economically destitute. Per-capita 
income has fallen about one-third, from $2,000 to $1,400. 
The population living below the poverty line has gone up by 
50 percent. Unemployment has gone up four-fold, from 11% to 45%. 
Recipients of United Nations aid to alleviate hardship has
increased tenfold, from 8.5% to 85%.

US Ambassador Martin Indyk finds the Palestinian economy "on 
the brink of collapse." A UN source predicts that, if nothing 
is done, the PA "could collapse by the end of March." To prevent 
this, Israel is being pressed from all sides, in US Secretary of 
State Colin Powell's words, to "lift the siege."

The assumption behind this pressure, as explained by London's
Independent newspaper, is that economic problems are causing the 
PA territories to slide into an anarchy that undercuts PA Chairman 
Yasser Arafat's ability to negotiate with Israel "over restoring 
calm."

Implicitly, those calling on Israel to ease the economic 
pressure are saying that no matter what the PA does - break its 
word, incite hatred, sponsor violence - Israel's enlightened 
self-interest requires it to assure that Palestinians economically 
fare decently. 
This, to put it mildly, is a highly original argument.

When the UN had a problem with Rhodesia, South Africa, and Libya, 
it pursued exactly the opposite approach and imposed an embargo 
to cripple those countries economically. Similar embargoes remain 
in effect on Iraq and Afghanistan. The goals are multiple: weaken 
the military machine, punish the leadership, demoralize the 
regime's supporters, turn the population against its rulers. 
The US government uses the same tactics: generations-old embargoes 
remain in place on Cuba and North Korea.

Nor is this anything new, for conflict has always had an economic
angle. Ancient armies cut supply routes. Medieval cities were 
starved into submission. Two centuries ago, during the Napoleonic 
wars, the British Navy established a naval blockade to cut France 
off from supplies. World Wars I and II witnessed extensive use of 
economic deprivation.
What Israel is doing - withholding tax money, denying entry to
laborers, and restricting movement - fits into an ancient, 
sensible, and somewhat effective method of warfare. Why, then, 
is it expected to do otherwise?

The reason, ironically, has little to do with the UN or US and 
much to do with Israelis themselves. They developed the "new 
Middle East" notion (which others now echo) that Israel's 
long-term welfare and security lies, not in depriving its 
enemies of resources, but in helping them develop their economies. 
This, the American analyst Patrick Clawson writes, is "a vision
of the Middle East that looks for all the world like the French 
plan for Europe after World War II: use economic cooperation as 
the starting point for cementing ties and reconciling peoples, 
with the goal being a common market that in turn leads to close 
political ties."

But Germans were incorporated into the French vision, it bears 
noting, not while Hitler ruled, but after the Nazi defeat. The 
French plan built up the former enemy only after he was crushed, 
acknowledged his errors, and had a totally new government. 
By a similar token, American aid packages will flow to Iraq 
only when Saddam Hussein is history.

In contrast, the "new Middle East" idea offered economic help 
even before the war is over. It is tantamount to sending the 
enemy resources while fighting is still under way - not a hugely 
bright idea so long as, in Efraim Inbar's words, "Arafat and his 
coterie are part of the problem and not of the solution" 
("Chaos is not so bad," March 5). Accordingly, the strengthening
of Arafat will hardly "restore calm." Rather, it will provide him 
with the resources for a bigger arsenal and a more long-lasting 
intifada.

Until the Palestinians do give up their war against Israel, they 
need to be shown that aggression carries a heavy price. The higher 
that price, experience shows, the sooner they are likely to give 
up their hostile ways.

Thus all who hope for a resolution of the Palestinian problem 
should urge the Sharon government to squeeze the PA just as 
hard as it can. Ironically, this is in the long-term interests 
of everyone, including the Palestinians themselves.

(The writer is director of the Philadelphia-based Middle East Forum.
www.DanielPipes.org)