|
|
November 21, 2003
Understanding the intifadas
Both economic and other factors lead to revolt in the Middle East.
CASSANDRA SAVAGE SPECIAL TO THE JEWISH BULLETIN
Palestinian uprisings since the beginning of the 20th century have
been the result of economic deterioration or stagnation in Arab
communities – the 1936 Arab revolt, the first intifada in 1987
and the current intifada were all sparked by Arab frustration due
mainly to poverty and thwarted economic expectations. At least this
has been the common opinion among mainstream economists for years.
Dr. Amos Nadan, a post doctoral fellow at the Harry S. Truman Research
Institute for the Advancement of Peace, challenged popular economic
opinion when he showed that all three outbursts actually occurred
in times of economic improvement, meaning that Arab uprisings in
the Middle East were not sparked by economic deterioration alone.
Earlier this month, Nadan presented his argument to a lively, packed
crowd at the Jewish Community Centre of Greater Vancouver. The event,
sponsored by Canadian Friends of Hebrew University, was titled Understanding
the Intifadas: Social, Economic and Historical Perspectives.
"Some literature specializes the economic aspect in such a
way that other aspects become marginal or irrelevant," said
Nadan. "In such literature, deterioration or even stagnation
brings disorder and revolt. In accordance with such literature,
the Arab revolt of 1936 is explained by economic worsening."
Nadan started to question the notion that economic factors alone
play the key role in Arab revolts when he uncovered statistics showing
economic improvement in periods leading up to Arab revolt.
"Economic factors are relevant but they have to be seen as
part of a larger sum of factors – economic and non-economic,"
he said.
During his research, Nadan found that the socioeconomic conditions
in British Mandate Palestine during the two-year period before the
Arab revolt showed significant improvement: daily wages increased
by 29 per cent, child participation rate in education increased
by 12 per cent and infant mortality rates decreased.
"In fact, the Arab revolt erupted in a period where income
and quality of life showed the most significant improvement since
1922," he said.
And, between 1985 and 1987, wages improved in the territories, unemployment
was the lowest ever and infant mortality rates decreased.
"Again, in a time of significant economic and socioeconomic
improvement, we see that the outcome is a revolt," said Nadan,
adding that the current intifada is no exception, given the improvement
in wages, participation in education and the number of people living
above the poverty line.
"I think that there is a need to look at changes and expectations
in both economic and non-economic factors such as social, political,
military and religious," said Nadan, who received his PhD from
the London School of Economics. Two socioeconomic factors of particular
interest to Nadan are employment conditions and collective action.
With regard to the first factor, most of the activists in the Arab
revolt of 1936 were unemployed Arabs afraid of deportation in the
wake of large-scale Jewish immigration. In 1987, 38 per cent of
the Palestinian labor force was employed in Israel. However, Palestinians
were employed as unskilled laborers and paid much less than Arab
and Jewish Israelis. Many of them worked illegally and received
no benefits at all. This scenario elevated the position of Israeli
workers, who were able to rise to management positions while Palestinians
performed basic labor. When interrogated by Israeli intelligence,
almost all of the Palestinians convicted of participation in the
first intifada said they had suffered a grave personal injury at
the hands of their Jewish employer or colleague, said Nadan.
"At one time or another these workers had been subjected to
verbal and even physical abuse, they said, and were cheated out
of their wages and set to work under inhuman conditions," he
said.
The second factor highlighted in Nadan's presentation was collective
action, based on The Logic of Collective Action by Mancur Olson,
which argues that activists are being driven by economic self-interest.
During the Arab revolt, participants were paid by means of money,
clothes, food and possibly land.
"The majority of the peasants who participated in the revolt
were tenants who didn't have any land in possession. They had additional
motivation to revenge their eviction from the land," said Nadan.
Nadan then discussed the self-interest behind suicide bombing.
"If one looks through the eyes of the martyr, one finds that
suicide improves his quality of life because for him there is life
in death, a better life than the life on Earth," Nadan said.
"All of his sins are wiped out immediately. He gets a one-way
ticket to Heaven, 72 virgins are just waiting for him and a crown
of fame is put on his head.
"If this is not enough, the shahid is also promised that quality
of life will improve for his relatives. The shahid can recommend
up to 70 people from his family in the celestial court. According
to this view, he assists them in the war to come but he also assists
them in this war. The family of the shahid gets money from different
sources – Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia and the Palestinian Authority.
The benefits for his family influence his decision to commit suicide."
In other words, shahids and other participants in Arab revolts act
for the collective in order to get personal benefits, concluded
Nadan.
At the end of the evening, facilitator Gershon H. Growe commended
Nadan for shedding light on some basic issues that are contributing
to problems in the Middle East, which are so often attributed mainly
to politics and religion, he said.
Cassandra Savage is a Vancouver freelance writer.
^TOP
|
|
