УThe Primacy of Politics and Religion

аVersus the

Primacy of Economics in the Arab-Jewish ConflictФ*

 

By

Professor Paul Eidelberg

Foundation for Constitutional Democracy in he Middle East

 

*Updated vedrsion of aа paper delivered at the American-Israel Economic Corporation International Symposium at New York University, June 1995, attended by Egyptian, Jordanian, and Moroccan United Nations Officials, as well as by IsraelТs former Ambassador to the United Nations, Professor Yehuda Blum, and former President of the Bank of Israel, Professor Moshe Mandelbaum.

 

 

INTRODUCTION

 

IGHTLY or wrongly, political scientists classify Israel as a democracy and her Arab-Islamic neighbors as autocracies.1 аNone deny that intensifying this political antagonism are profound religious and cultural differences.а Yet, Western policy-makers and pundits suggest that this clash of civilizations is not an insuperable barrier to genuine and abiding peace in the Middle East.а Many convey the impression that economic prosperity and cooperation can dissolve the Muslim-Jewish conflict.2

ааааааааааа This seems to be the attitude of Israel's former Prime Minister Shimon Peres, who applied for Israeli membership in the Arab League.3а The Arab League secretary, apparently less progressive than Mr. Peres, has yet to define man as homo economicus:а he said the Jews of Israel should first become Muslims.

аааа In any event, the policy of the Rabin-Peres Government was based on the assumption that peace between Jews and Arabs depends primarily on economic prosperity and cooperation.а This assumption led to the Oslo negotiations which culminated in the Israel-PLO Agreement of September 13, 1993.

 

*а *а *

At issue in this article is the primacy of economics versus politics and religion in the Muslim-Jewish conflict.а A related issue is "conflict resolution."а These issues will be examined on theoretical grounds via Marx and Thomas Hobbes as well as by means of empirical evidence.аа Since the Muslim-Jewish conflict has a religious aspect, it is not irrelevant to point out that whereas Marx was an unabashed atheist, Hobbes, writing in seventeenth-century England, was a disguised one.4

аа

 

MARX AND HOBBES AT OSLO

 

Marxism was implicit in the Oslo negotiations insofar as they were based on the primacy of economics.а It would be more accurate to say, however, that the Oslo negotiations were influenced by "paraMarxism," for Oslo was also an exercise in "conflict resolution," in contrast to Marx's doctrine of revolution.

ааааааааааа The notion of Уconflict resolutionФ may be derived from the basic presupposition of Hobbes's political science, that violent death is the greatest evil.а The fear of violent death, together with the desire for comfortable self-preservation or commodious living, impels men to seek peace.а Hobbes not only denied perdition, providence, and paradise.а He was the first systematic political philosopher to substitute bourgeois or utilitarian morality for aristocratic pride or honor.а Which is why the aim of the State, for Hobbes, is peace at any price.5

Hobbes may also be deemed a progenitor of capitalism insofar as capitalism fosters the unlimited acquisition of wealth or avarice.а Hobbes not only avowed that money is the blood of the commonwealth, but he attacked the traditional doctrine that covetousness is a vice.6

With Marx, the father of socialism, and Hobbes, a precursor of capitalism, we are prepared to examine the mentality underlying the Oslo negotiations.

 

*а *а *

As is now well-known, while public negotiations between Israel and Arab Palestinians were going on in Washington, secret negotiations were taking place in Oslo between representatives of Israel's Labor Party and high-ranking members of the PLO.7а Oslo was chosen for these talks because the socialist parties of Israel and Norway had developed close relations over the years, and the Norwegians, who had long welcomed the PLO in their capital, had won PLO chief Yasir Arafat's confidence.

Leading a team of mediators was the late Norwegian foreign minister Johan Jorgan Holst, a socialist who had long standing connection with the European Economic CommunityЧthe EC.а Paradoxically, the EC was to become the model for making peace between Jews and MuslimsЧа paradoxically if only because Europe is predominantly Christian and democratic.а It seems, however, that the EC model for Middle East peace-making originated among American economists at Harvard University.а In November 1991, the month following the Madrid Conference, the Americans brought together Israelis, Arab Palestinians, Jordanians, Lebanese, Syrians, and Egyptians for a unique symposium at Harvard on the economic consequences of the Middle East peace process.а The Americans believed that only economic prosperity and cooperation could overcome the Israel-Arab conflict in general, and the Israel-Palestinian conflict in particular.а

Accordingly, throughout the latter part of 1992, left-wing Israeli politicians, economists, and academics met clandestinely with PLO representatives in Cairo and London.а These meetings led to the Oslo negotiations with the on-going cooperation of the Harvard economists.а Cooperation between socialists and free marketeers highlights the primacy of economics in the mentality of the democratic world.а Let us probe this mentality.

*а *а *

Although the terms "social democrats," instead of socialists, and "liberal democrats," instead of free marketeers, might be more accurate, they obscure the centrality of economics.а It goes without saying that Israel's socialist party has been influenced by a Marxist mode of thought.а This may also be said of countless value-free social scientists, be they socialists or not.а According to Marx, the ultimate cause of human conflict is not inherent in human natureЧin egoism or self-preferenceЧbut in the penury of external nature, more precisely, in economic scarcity.а Nature simply does not provide enough for human needs.а Economic scarcity can be overcome, however, by the conquest of nature through scientific technology.а Hence there is an economic or technological solution to human conflict.а

Marx nonetheless insisted that the economic solution to human conflict must be preceded by a political revolution of violent proportions.а Communists must seize state power and abolish private property.а In less advanced states they must industrialize the country, establish industrial armies for agriculture, and transfer agrarian populations to urban centers.а Eventually, this corporate state will wither away and be replaced by genuine democracy, where men and women are animated by fraternal disinterestedness:а "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!"8а From Marx's Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts, we learn that history will reach its end in "the complete and conscious restoration of man to himself ... as a social, that is, human being."а Man will then be a fully "conscious species-being, that is, a being related to its species as to its own essence ..."9

If this utopian aspect of Marxism has no application to the Middle East, what shall we say of the economic model for Middle East peace?а Marx was realistic enough to know that profound political and psychological change must precede the termination of international conflict.а Such change in the Middle East would necessitate a radical transformation of the political-religious character of the Islamic world.а

Islam, however, is not about to wither away like Soviet communism.а Unlike Marxism, Islam is not a political ideology but the heart of a proud, 1300 year-old civilization.а It may well be argued that Islamic regimes are capable of absorbing scientific technology without undergoing a Marxist democratic revolution or the pacifism implicit in Hobbes.10 No country was more advanced in science and technology than Nazi Germany.а But let us probe even deeper into the economic model for peace in the Middle East.

 

*а *а *

Explicit in Marxism is the assumption that the products of human consciousnessЧsuch as political and religious ideasЧhave no independent status.а Marx referred to such ideas as "phantoms" or "ideological reflexes." "The phantoms formed in the brain, are bound to material premises. Morality, religion, metaphysics, all the rest of ideology and their corresponding forms of consciousness, thus no longer retain the semblance of independence."11

Evident in Marx is the doctrine of historicism or historical relativism, which still permeates higher education in the West.

Now, if "forms of consciousness" are simply the reflexes of "material premises," they must be relative to time and place.а In other words, if ideas merely reflect economic modes of production which change from epoch to epoch, or which differ from country to country, it follows that the political and religious ideas of nations have no independence or inherent validity.а Change their economic conditions and you will change their ideas.а Hence the economic model for Middle East peace.а

The primacy of economics versus ideas in Marx corresponds to the primacy of the passions versus thought in Hobbes.а Hobbes writes:а "Thoughts are to the desires as scouts and spies to range abroad and find the way to the things desired."12а

Moreover: а"Whatever is the object of any man's appetite or desire, that is it which he for his part calleth good; and the object of his hate or aversion, evil ... For these words of good [and] evil ... are ever used with relation to the person that useth them: there being nothing simply and absolutely so; nor any common rule of good and evil, to be taken from the nature of the objects themselves; but from the person of the man, where there is no commonwealth."13

The doctrine of moral relativism could hardly be stated more lucidly and concisely.а Indeed, despite his preference for absolute monarchy, Hobbesа spawned the value-free social science prevalent in Western democracies.

As Allan Bloom and others have shown, relativism dominates education in the democratic world.14а One should therefore expect relativism to influence, however subtly, the mentality and policies of democratic politicians.15 Relativism, which denies the truth of any system of moral and religious values, fosters hedonism or the primacy of economics or material values.16 The same doctrine, which renders all ideologies equal, readily lends itself to the policy of Уconflict resolutionФ and thereby insinuates that no cause or ideological conflict is worth dying for.а (Hobbes's peace at any price.)

Relativism has disturbing consequences in the Middle East.а Because this doctrine undermines religious convictions, it arouses Islamic contempt and hostility toward the West, a matter emphasized in the writings of professor Seyyed Hossein Nasr, a Harvard-educated Muslim of profound erudition.17а Muslims regard Israel as bastion of the West.а Israel's academic and political elitesЧwhether socialist or liberalЧhave been very much influenced by relativism.а Their relativism, however, is obscured by a leveling cosmopolitanism or secular humanism which they hope to substitute for Judaism and the nationalist dimension of Zionism.

Consistent with Marx, socialists deem the nation-state a mutable product of history.а Israeli socialists, together with many liberals, have become "post-Zionists."а Gad Yaacobi, Israel's ambassador to the UN, recently told a Harvard group:а "There is no such thing as Jewish land.а There are only Jewish people."а Even the adjective "Jewish" is an encumbrance.а Thus, Tel Aviv University professor of philosophy Asa Kasher, assigned by the Rabin Government to draft a new ethical code for the Israel Defense Forces, deleted not only "Zionism" and the phrase "love of the land" from the Soldiers Code of Ethics, but "Judaism"!18

Viewed in this light, the economic model for peace-making is intended to expedite the Уend ofаа ideologyФ in the Middle East, which Harvard professor Daniel Bell, writing in 1961, associated with the West.а Here a brief digression is in order.

Bell attributed the end of ideology to the success of capitalism and the welfare state. аThe

ascendancy of affluent, consumer societies has virtually eliminated class conflict.а The masses can no longer be inspired by utopian ideas; they are preoccupied with commodious living, enjoying the fruits of science and technology in a thriving market economy.а Capitalism and socialism have converged.а The Russian religious philosopher Nikolai Berdyaev defined socialism as the more equal distribution of the bourgeois spirit.20 He saw both capitalism and socialism as corrosive of religion.а We are back in the Middle East.

Pristine capitalism, in opposition to religion, purveyed the doctrine that human misery and conflict can be overcome by the wealth of nations promised by economic laissez-faire and the liberation of acquisitiveness:а "Private vices, public benefits."аа Adam Smith proclaimed that war could be replaced by economic competition.а From this one may infer that war on behalf of any ideology is irrationalЧthe position of Shimon Peres.а In his own words:а "Wars are born in the womb of error."21 Hence, as in Hobbes, there is no such thing as a just war.а Clearly, the concept of Уconflict resolutionФ links socialists and capitalists.а The kinship goes further.

Insofar as capitalism fosters, along with greed, multinational corporations, it tends to dilute patriotism.а During an April 1995 press conference, President Clinton complained about American billionaires who had renounced their citizenship.а Although they may not be as cosmopolitan as socialists, capitalists proclaim that free trade can overcome ideological and international conflict:а "Trade builds bridges."а Socialists agree, hence the European Union.а Europe, however, is not the Middle East.а Homo economicus may reign in democratic Europe, where Christianity has been secularized.а But most denizens of the Middle East should be classified homo religiosus.а

To expect the Arab-Islamic Middle East to yield to the economism or consumerism of the West is to expect more than twenty regimes to self-destruct.а Hardly a short term prospect.а An economic strategy that trivializes the religious dimension of the Muslim-Jewish conflict is not an adequate basis for peace-making.

Besides, some Arab spokesmenЧincluding EgyptiansЧcontend that economic cooperation is a strategy by which Israel seeks to dominate the Middle East.а Aqba Ali Saleh wrote in the leading Saudi daily Asharq al-Aswat that "The merging of technologically backward economies with [a] high-tech economy necessarily entails domination by the latter..." (meaning Israel).22

It should be noted that whereas the combined Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, and Jordan was three times that of Israel's in the 1960s, it dropped to two-to-one in the 1970s, and by the late 1980s the figure had evened out.а In 1995, five million Israelis produced a GDP of more than $70 billion compared to the $68 billion produced by seventy-seven million Egyptians, Syrians, Lebanese, and Jordanians.а If this trend continues over the next decade, Israel's GDP will eventually be double that of its neighbors.23

Juxtapose the fact that the Arab states spent $58 billion on conventional arms alone in the 36 months between January 1991 and July 1993 and the idea of an economic solution to the Muslim-Jewish conflict smacks of secular mysticism.23a

True, Israel and Egypt signed a peace treaty in March 1979.а Yet, not only is trade between the two countries minuscule, but IsraelТs late Minister of Defense, Mordechai Gur, reported that Egypt is trying to exclude Israel from any Middle East economy.24 Moreover, former Director General of Israel's Defense Ministry, Maj. General (res.) David Ivri, declared that "The peace with Egypt is not peace.а It is actually a cease-fire that has continued for 15 years." аIvri warned that "[Egyptian President Hosni] Mubarak has not created any Egyptian interest in Israel's continued existence."25а Indeed, shortly before the October 30, 1991 Madrid Conference (in which Israel met with Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and proxies of the PLO), Egypt, along with Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, the PLO, and 57 other Arab-Islamic states, met in Teheran where they signed resolutions calling for IsraelТs destruction.26

 

Perhaps JordanТs signature was intended for УdomesticФ purposes.а King Hussein knows very well that the existence of his regime depends largely on Israel, given SyriaТs territorial ambitions.а Be this as it may, JordanТs 1994 peace treaty with Israel merely formalized the de facto political cooperation which has long been the policy of their respective governmentsЧand this, in the absence of economic relations.а It should be be borne in mind, however, that Jordan has paramount obligations to the Arab League which, judging from the Teheran Conference (and more recent evidence), remains committed to Israel's demise.27

 

*а *а *

Many Western pundits seem to ignore or minimize the fact that Israel, flaunted as a secular democratic state, poses a threat to the political-religious power structure of Arab-Islamic regimes.а Nothing is more condescending than for Western politicians and intellectuals to expect Arab Muslims to betray their heritage or sacrifice their religious convictions for economic pottage.

 

The West parades as the patron of peace in the Middle East, to which it sells enormous supplies of sophisticated weaponry.а Strange that the West, which abhors war, is itself steeped in violence.а Witness the United States:а While murder is a daily occurrence in the nation's capital and in other American cities, where people live under the same laws, America's political and intellectual elites offer an economic panacea to the Muslim-Jewish conflict!а

 

Trade may build bridges, but man does not live by bread alone.а France and Germany were the greatest trading partners before the Franco-Prussian War.а So were Russia and Germany before the First and Second World Wars.а Nationalistic and imperialistic ambitions transcended economic interests.а

 

Especially relevant to the Middle East is Britain's Peel Commission Report of 1937 which concluded that the Jewish contribution to Arab prosperity in Palestine only increased Arab hatred.28 And thus it was after 1967 when Israel gained control of Judea, Samaria, and Gaza.а Thanks to Israel's economic and technological assistance, not only did Arab income in these areas multiply four-fold, but the Government established new hospitals, health centers, primary and secondary schools and universities.а Predictably, except to paraMarxists and naive capitalists, these schools and universities became hotbeds of insurrection.29

 

But consider the most extensive case of Arab-Israeli economic cooperation. The employment of 140,000 Palestinian Arab commuters inside Israel knit together the two economies and has brought individuals from the two communities into person-to-person contact.а Yet this daily contact did not overcome Arab animosity toward Israel and may even have contributed to the intifada.30

 

No less revealing are Greece and Turkey, old adversaries which have been at peace for 70 years.а "The two neighbors [both members of NATO] have economies that should be complementary, as Turkish textiles could be traded for Greek industrial goods.а Yet their trade flow in 1992 was a paltry $250 million, less than 0.7 percent of either country's total trade flow."31

CONCLUSION

 

Neither Marx nor Hobbes nor the ideologically neutral social sciences they fathered are very helpful in dealing with the conflictЧreally the protracted warЧbetween Muslims and Jews.а War has many causes, of which economic motives are often trivial.а As for the fear of violent death, which may incline nations to peace, the same fear also prompts nations to appeasement, as occurred before the bloodiest war in human history.

A nation's attitude toward peace and war depends on its form of government, on riches and poverty, and on what its people deem most important or sacred.а Regarding democracy, a word from Alexis de Tocqueville is sufficient.а Not only do most citizens of democracy possess property, but such is the paramount importance they attach to property that they are psychologically disinclined to war.32а This cannot be said of non-democratic societies steeped in poverty.а It is a grave error for democrats to mirror-image or project their love of ease and comfort upon the rulers and people of such societies.а No invidious comparisons are intended.а After all, there have been 1000 wars in the Western world alone during the last 2500 years.33а Those who deplore the bellicose nature of Islam should bear in mind that Europe, the home of Christianity and humanism, has been drenched periodically in rivers of blood.

Even though Muslims and/or Arabs do not dwell in abiding peace with each other, Shimon Peres seems to believe they would live in peace with Jews, if only they enjoyed something comparable to a Western standard of living.34а Arabs might deem this an insult.а A group of Arabs once wrote Vladimir Jabotinsky, saying: а"You are the only one among the Zionists who has no intention of fooling us and who understands that the Arab is a patriot and not a prostitute (who can be bought)."35

Such is their surreptitious contempt of Islam that the secularists who have ever dominated the modern State of Israel invariably minimize the all-important religious dimension of the Arab-Israel conflict.а As one Arab commentator put it:а "The propagandists of secularism, who leave out of account the religious factor in the Palestine problem, ignore the fact that this is the only bone of contention in the world which has persisted for thirty centuries ..."36а This Arab spokesman, like many others who may be quoted, regards neither economics nor territory as the decisive issue in the Muslim-Jewish conflict.а In fact, his statement was made before Israel gained control of Judea, Samaria, and Gaza, along with the Sinai and the Golan Heights in 1967.

Proud of their heritage, Muslims regard the secular democratic state of Israel as an outpost of Western decadence.а Erasing this state from the map of the Middle East is a political and religious imperative.а Although Muslims differ as to how and when this is to be done, their ultimate goal is the same.а Anwar Sadat put it this way in an interview with al-Anwar on June 22, 1975:а "The effort of our generation is to return to the 1967 borders.а Afterward the next generation will carry the responsibility."37а Nor is this all.

 

In a New York Times interview dated October 19, 1980, Sadat boasted:а "Poor Menachem [Begin], he has his problems ... After all, I got back ... the Sinai and the Alma oil fields, and what has Menachem got?а A piece of paper."

 

A year after signing the March 1979 peace treaty with Israel, Sadat ominously declared:а "Despite the present differences with the Arab 'rejectionist' rulers over the Egyptian peace initiative, the fact remains that these differences are only tactical not strategic, temporary not permanent."38аа

 

Sadat also said:а "Fear is the second layer of skin of every Israeli or Jew."39а Some may dismiss this statement as Arab arrogance.а But if the Уpeace processФ inaugurated by the Rabin-Peres Government and continued by the Government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is indeed animated by the Hobbesian fear of violent death disguised by a paraMarxist promise of Middle East prosperity, that venture may hasten a catastrophic war with dire consequences for Israel, to say nothing of the United States.

 

POSTSCRIPT 1997

 

On December 10, 1996, the House of Representatives УTask Force on International Terrorism and Unconventional WarfareФ issued a detailed report which states, inter alia:

 

Approaching the end of 1996, the Middle East may well be on the verge of a major regional war.а Numerous sources in the region report that the supreme leadersЧboth civilian and militaryЧin most Arab states (including Egypt and Jordan), as well as in Iran and Pakistan, are convinced that the present vulnerability of Israel [resulting from the Уpeace processФ] is so great that there is a unique opportunity to, at the very least, begin the process leading to the destruction of Israel.а Toward this end, several Arab states, as well as Iran and Pakistan, have been engaged in a frantic military build-up and active preparation in the last few monthsЕ.

 

[T]he PLOТs preparations for an imminent war are evident.а In Gaza, Arafat ordered the marked acceleration of the building of a personal bunker four stories deep.а Moreover, the PLO is rapidly building, all over Gaza, a chain of command centers, ammunition and weapons-storage areasЧall of them underground and well fortified to even withstand Israeli bombing and shelling.а The PAТs [Palestine AuthorityТs] security forces are also accumulating large stockpiles of anti-tank and anti-aircraft weapons, including missiles, even though they are forbidden by the Oslo Accords.Ф

 

One last word:а Those who ignore the primacy of religion in the Muslim-Jewish conflict, or, more generally, those who believe there is an economic or technological solution to the human problem, trivialize human nature.а And inasmuch as they disdain human history, they call to mind OrwellТs chilling phrase:а УA generation of the unteachable is hanging upon us like a necklace of corpses.Ф

 

а

*а *а *