Middle East Peace -- the George C. Marshall Way
by Shlomo Maital
August 13 2002
This article originally appeared in Barron's, July 29. 2002 and is reposted here with the permission of the author.

When President George W. Bush made his long-awaited Mideast speech on June 24, another peacemaker's speech, by George, came to mind -- Secretary of State George C. Marshall's "Marshall Plan" speech given at Harvard 55 years earlier.

Marshall's 15-minute 1,170-word speech launched America's greatest foreign policy success, ended a century of bloodshed between the French and the Germans and led to the European Union.

George W.'s blueprint can do the same for Israelis and Palestinians, provided the proven wisdom of George C. is invoked and applied. A new Marshall Plan is needed.

At the end of World War II, America remembered how the economic depression in Western Europe in 1929-31 led to the rise of Hitler and vowed this should never recur. Yet $20 billion in low-interest American loans had not helped. Europe was still on the ropes. A new direction was needed. Marshall supplied it.

At Harvard Yard, on the afternoon of June 5, 1947, Marshall began by saying the world situation was so complex, ordinary Americans distant from "the troubled areas of the earth" found it hard to understand. Rebuilding Europe would, he said, be longer and harder than had been foreseen. The "vicious circle" of decline, loss of hope, and further decline, must be broken. "It is logical," Marshall said, "that the United States should do whatever it is able to [restore] normal economic health in the world."

George W. Bush said the same. Describing the vicious circle of Palestinian poverty, terror, Israeli military response, and further suffering, Bush said, "for the sake of all humanity, things must change in the Middle East. It is untenable for Israeli citizens to live in terror. It is untenable for Palestinians to live in squalor and occupation".

But -- how to break the cycle? And what can George W. learn from George C.?

Marshall insisted European states themselves agree on how to divide up American grants. Otherwise, he felt, the money would cause new quarrels -- like children fighting over a chocolate bar -- rather than end old ones

"It would be neither fitting nor efficacious", Marshall said, "for this Government to draw up [a program] unilaterally... the initiative must come from Europe".

. He demanded the plan be short, swift and end after four years, so Congress would not pay welfare to indigent Europeans forever. And he said Marshall Plan aid should be offered to all European nations willing to accept the rules of fairness, openness and free trade.

Nobody listens to speeches, Dean Acheson told Marshall. He could not have been more wrong. British Foreign Minister Aneurin Bevan heard about Marshall's talk on the BBC and at once convened a conference in Paris. Marshall sent Paul Hoffman, who at the time ran Studebaker, to Europe to disburse the aid. By April 1948 Hoffman was writing checks. The aid was speedy -- $11.8 billion was paid out between 1948 and the outbreak of the Korean War, on June 25, 1950, or about $16 million a day.

The Marshall Plan did not try to feed the hungry Europeans. It helped them feed and clothe themselves. It was magnanimous, giving vanquished Germany and Italy one-fifth of the money.

European cooperation born in the Marshall Plan ultimately led to the Common Market and European Union. Today, France and Germany are each other's best customers and have grown wealthy together There will never be another French-German war. The $11.8 b. in Marshall Plan aid -- 6 per cent of America's GDP at the time -- was arguably the best investment America ever made.

The Europeans used American capital well. In 1945, America produced 75% of the world's GDP, because Asia and Europe were in ruins. Then -- even more important than the aid -- Europe liberalized its economies, America opened her markets and the European miracle began. Today, the US and European Union are an even match. Each produces $10 trillion in GDP.

Marshall won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1953. He died in 1959.

...........

"For decades," George W. said to the Palestinians, "you've been treated as pawns in the Middle East conflict. ... You deserve an open society and a thriving economy". Cynical Arab League countries have used the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to further their own ends, promised aid that never came and held Palestinians in squalid refugee camps rather than resettle them. As scholar Fouad Ajami notes, "there is no pan-Arab rescue for the Palestinians".

How would a Mideast Marshall Plan work?

The plan would begin with a complete, enforced end to senseless killing and murderous terror. The plan would be conditional on "good behavior". It would begin with Gaza and Jericho. There would be a "settlement coupon" and "terrorism tax" -- X% of the grant given for each withdrawal, Y% of the grant taken away for each act of terrorism, with joint Israeli-U.S.-Palestinian patrols to observe, verify and enforce. When hotheads on both sides say inevitably, "we cannot be bought" -- put it to a vote. Hold a referendum to see whether ordinary people vote for more death and violence, or for jobs, progress and hope. Choose life, George W. said, quoting the Bible. They will.

The current war between Israelis and Palestinians may soon fizzle out, because neither side can stop the other with arms. When both sides recognize the futility of suicide, murder and tank assault, there can be another chance for peace.

But there is a real danger that a political agreement ending the current war between Israelis and Palestinians will sow the seeds for the next war, just as the Treaty of Versailles that ended World War I led directly to World War II by ruining Germany's economy.

The next war will occur if impoverished jobless Palestinians peer over an electronic fence and view with deep bitterness the neighboring country, Israel, ten times wealthier in per capita income. Having their own flag and anthem will offer little comfort. Only if Israelis and Palestinians join together to build wealth, like the French and Germans did, will the current war be the very last, rather than next-to-last. Only if ordinary Palestinians have jobs and hope will their children learn real skills rather than hatred, and only jobs and hope will inspire young Palestinians to build their country rather than blow themselves and Israelis to bits.

The primary track in the next peace talks must be commercial, at the grassroots, rather than political and military . The New Marshall Plan would disburse $100 billion -- one per cent of U.S. GDP -- in four years, to build a port and international airport in Gaza, a land bridge from Gaza to the West Bank, schools, hospitals, factories, roads, housing, electric plants, fiberoptic networks. It would fund joint ventures between Israelis and Palestinians to produce exportable high-tech products made in science parks on the border between Israel, and the West Bank and Gaza, giving well-paying jobs to thousands. All the aid would go directly to managers and entrepreneurs, contractors, engineers, and workers. It would rebuild the extensive commercial links between Israelis and Palestinians that weredestroyed by the intifada, and eventually it would restore mutual respect and trust.

In an age where economic borders are disappearing, the plan would focus on filling people's stomachs rather than drawing lines on a map. In Europe, once borders were open to trade, they became almost irrelevant.

"The Palestinian people are gifted and capable," George W. said. Given half a chance, they can prosper. For the million Palestinians living in Gaza and two million in the West Bank, massive aid could double their per capita income in ten years, lower unemployment from 40 per cent to 5 per cent and immeasurably improve their lives. It would release enormous pent-up entrepreneurial energy. Nothing would do more to change the atmosphere of hatred, vengeance and terror than economic success.

After they expunge the murderous terrorist training camps on their soil, Eastern Mediterranean countries like Lebanon and Syria could join the new Marshall Plan and lead their people, too, toward growth and progress. A new Eastern Mediterranean, an island of peace and stability offering better lives to all, is well within reach. Once implemented, its appeal will spread to other parts of the Mideast.

Why in the world should American taxpayers fork over huge sums of money to fractious, quarrelsome people in a distant part of the world, with no real tangible benefit to America? Because there is real tangible benefit.

As former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger has said, "economics and business are global. Politics are local". When local wars break out, they threaten global business. As the world's wealthiest nation, and its only superpower, America's interest is always in making peace and preserving it everywhere, both as a worthy goal in itself and to ensure that global markets function undisturbed, to enable people everywhere (including Americans) to trade, prosper and thrive. Only America has both the will and the means, to do this.

George W. Bush's speech offers hope in a region where hope is becoming scarce. Nicholas Haysom, a former advisor to Nelson Mandela, has said, "In the Middle East, people don't want win-win, they want win-lose. They are ready to go over the abyss..."

Israelis and Palestinians have gone over the abyss. Locked together, they tumble over the cliff in prolonged bloody lose-lose.

Only a new Marshall Plan can put an end to it once and for all.

---

Shlomo Maital is Academic director, Technion Institute of Management, Israel; and Visiting Professor, MIT Sloan School of Management. Contact him c/o smaital@MIT.EDU

---

Peace


Pleasure


Bookstore

Contact

Letters
to the
Editor

About

Archive

Donate

Get the
Ariga Update

Your name:
Your email:

Get books about the
Middle East Peace Process

Search Ariga Search Web

Newsfeeds from Moreover, Yahoo AP/Reuter and Google