The Will of the Gaza Resident
Nehemia Shtresler, the economic commentator of Haaretz, sometimes writes sensibly, for example when he criticizes excessive government regulation and government subsidy of various pressure groups at the expense of the taxpayer. More often, he errs.
The most misguided article Shtresler ever wrote doesn't concern economics at all, but rather something entirely different – the Gaza Strip. This is the future Shtresler painted in 2005 before the disengagement, after Benjamin Netanyahu resigned and warned of its dangers:
Immediately after Netanyahu resigned from the position of Finance Minister, he returned to his favorite arena: terror and fears. On Monday, in a Knesset debate on the poverty report, he ignored the harsh data and proceeded to speak about Gaza as a "free terror zone." "I tried to prevent this," he said, "I tried to influence and failed... Do not give them guns, do not give them a port, do not let them establish a terror base, because that's what they will set up, and I'm tired of warning."
This scare campaign lasted three weeks since his resignation. On the same day, he presented the public with a series of horror scenarios: "An Islamic terror base is established in Gaza, Hamas is getting stronger." He then intensified the tone: "Missiles will be launched towards Israeli cities from terror bases that we allow Islamic terrorists to set up in Gaza."
Apocalypse tomorrow.
Fear is one of the strongest components in decision-making. And when the "expert" on terror says that missiles will come, who will doubt? The moment the public becomes fearful enough, they will look for someone capable of curbing terror, eliminating Hamas, and saving from the threat of missiles. Netanyahu certainly doesn't want missiles to fall on Israeli cities. He simply wants the power in the ballot to curb the threat.
Here the Palestinians have an opportunity to kill two birds with one stone: to turn Netanyahu's prophecies to dust and ashes and to teach the Israelis an important lesson. If the Palestinian Authority and Hamas understand the Israeli public's heart, they need to make Gaza the most peaceful place in the world, the most welcoming to guests. No more threats, no snipers, no attacks, no suicide bombers, and certainly no "missiles on Israeli cities".
Instead, they should quickly line Gaza's seashore with rows of hummus and fish restaurants, allowing Israelis easy access to the Strip. If they do this, they will quickly discover the Israeli's desire to wander and their purchasing power, including Likud members.
The moment it's possible to sit peacefully in a restaurant on the Gaza beach, enjoying the waves and the breeze, scooping hummus for ten shekels, and enjoying a fish meal for 30 shekels - Gaza's beach will become Israel's biggest hit. If the residents of Gaza start establishing furniture, gift, marble, and textile markets on the way to the beach - their success is guaranteed. Every self-respecting Jew (including one who doesn't evict another Jew) won't stay home on the weekend. Everyone will be queued up on their way to Gaza beach.
Israeli tourism will start boosting Gaza's economy. Later on, they could operate the greenhouses left in Gush Katif, establish a port, return to collaborating with Israeli factories, and start rebuilding and developing infrastructure with the funding of "donor countries". Then investors from the Arab world and the West will arrive, seeing a golden opportunity.
Once Gaza becomes an economic success story and the high unemployment decreases, Mahmoud Abbas will also become a success story. Because an Arab, like anyone, first evaluates their personal situation: if they can make a decent living.
When this happens, every Israeli will realize that when giving Palestinians what they deserve, it's possible to live with them in peace and cooperation. Maybe there is a benefit in peace? And if so, maybe it's worth copying this successful model a bit to the east, towards the West Bank?
What a colossal mistake! But it's an important article. Firstly, because in this article Shtresler dared to predict the future, and ultimately, the only opinion that can be considered important is one where the person is willing to take risks and use it as a basis for future predictions. Secondly, Shtresler distinctly presents the core assumption driving his optimistic projection that an Arab, like any person, first gauges their personal well-being. The prediction's misstep stems from this very assumption. Contrary to Shtresler's viewpoint, an Arab, just like anyone, tends to prioritize national allegiances over personal or economic advantages. Across the spectrum, many are willing to lay down their lives for their country's cause. This sentiment resonates with the selfish gene theory: our genes are of paramount importance, surpassing our ephemeral lives. We inherently care for the welfare of those sharing our genetic lineage. Thus, the notion of sacrificing oneself for countless kin is comprehensible.
When talking about incentives and what drives people to action, it's important to remember that what people perceive as being in their nation's interest can be just as strong, if not stronger, than individual personal gain. For the Arabs of Gaza, fulfilling the duty of Jihad to destroy Israel is a massive collective incentive, far more important than individual economic incentives.