Close economic cooperation between Israel and the Palestinians will only nurture Palestinian dependency and perpetuate frictions.
Shlomo Avineri is Herbert Samuel Professor of Political Science at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. He is former Director-General of the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
In the complex transfer of power between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), the world’s focus has been on the difficult, often violent issues of security that surround the creation of limited Palestinian autonomy in Gaza and Jericho. In this atmosphere, the economic agreement signed by the two parties in Paris on April 29, 1994, was hardly noticed. Amid the humdrum details, however, a conventional wisdom came to be shared by participants and observers alike, that a high degree of economic cooperation between Israel and the evolving Palestinian entity was a panacea for the region’s problems. Close cooperation between Israel and the nascent Palestinian economy has been universally heralded as a harbinger of a wider regional structure of economic cooperation, if not integration. The European Community is the model.
Like all conventional wisdom, however, this hypothesis should be tested, and the analogy with the European Community should be looked at more carefully. Even a superficial glance at the main ingredients of such a vision raises doubts about its applicability.
A COMMON MARKET
A Middle Eastern common market was a concept often used by the discussants during the Paris talks. It was premised on what appeared to be the obvious: shared economic interests, a high degree of cooperation and mutual interdependence, and a desire to raise living standards, especially among the Palestinians, all of which were viewed, almost without demurral, as the best guarantees of stability and peace in the area. Did not the French and Germans bury the hatchet, overcome generations of strife and build, on a foundation of coal and steel, a durable peace in Europe? If so, why not Jews and Arabs?
This is a premium article
You must be a Foreign Affairs subscriber to continue reading. If you are already a print subscriber, click here to activate your online access.
Log In
Buy PDF
Buy a premium PDF reprint of this article.Related
Despite the hectic diplomatic activity of the last few months, peace in the Middle East seems as elusive today as ever. Sadat's dramatic visit to Jerusalem less than a year ago appears now as a semi-legendary event that must have happened eons ago, hardly related to the real texture of Israeli-Arab relations. Both sides have reverted to accusations and counter-accusations, questions and counter-questions, and appear to be bogged down in a procedural quagmire, with a harassed United States serving as a go-between, desperately trying to keep the flicker of hope from being extinguished.
With the 'intifadeh', the Palestinians have emulated "the spirit and strategy of classical Zionism". For Israelis, it represents the poisoning of a dream, and imposes the dilemma of 'territory or peace' upon "the world's only fortress democracy". The essential basis for a settlement is (1) withdrawal from the territories occupied since 1967 (2) tangible security guarantees (3) partition of sovereignty within an Israeli-Jordanian- Palestinian confederation.
The rush of notable events set into motion by the uprising nearly two years ago of Palestinian Arabs in the West Bank and Gaza is impressive. Two decades of near tranquility in Israel's occupied territories were shattered. The intifadeh provoked Jordan's King Hussein to relinquish his claims to the West Bank, which his grandfather had annexed in 1951. It led the Palestine Liberation Organization to declare Palestinian independence, to renounce terrorism and to accept Israel's right to exist, which in turn paved the way for the diplomatic dialogue between the United States and the PLO. Finally, in Israel, it led the Likud-Labor coalition to adopt an initiative for elections in the occupied territories for transitional self-rule to be followed by negotiations on their final status. Opponents on all sides rallied in an effort to cripple Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir's initiative. These events, and more, were crammed into a short period of time, creating a sense of unparalleled passion and fluidity, of fears among some and euphoria among others.
