The massacre of October 7th and the ensuing war on the Gaza strip have, according to some, put the final nail in the coffin of the two-state solution. Hamas, a terrorist organisation democratically elected by the Gazan people, has shown itself unsuitable to govern. Meanwhile, polls show that both the people of Gaza and of the West Bank would elect Hamas if elections would now be held. Evidently, the conflict has radicalised Palestinians to such an extent that they are currently unsuitable to elect their own government. Thus far, Palestinian self-determination, in the form of democracy, has been a disaster for both Israelis and Palestinians themselves.
But the Palestinians will need a government of some sort. With the present campaign to eradicate Hamas entirely, a necessary operation to remove it from the region, the question arises what is to happen next. Whether it will take months or years, Israel will succeed in its campaign. But who is then to govern Gaza instead of Hamas?
An obvious possibility is to transfer the jurisdiction back to the Palestinian Authority. But the PA is no friendly neighbour either. It funds terror through its pay-to-slay policy and has been unwilling to agree to any peace plan it has thus far been presented. And instead of moulding public opinion in favour of coexistence with Israel, it has fanned the flames of hate. Although a lesser and much weaker enemy than Hamas, it is still an enemy of Israel. It also governs its people poorly and is rife with corruption. Besides, Mahmoud Abbas has a succession problem the consequences of which are unclear. The Palestinian Authority will therefore provide no way out of the Palestinian predicament.
The Western Formula Has Failed
The Palestinian debacle makes a good example of some of the great weaknesses of democracy. What has been hailed as a success formula from the west is not a system suitable for every country, people and situation. Democracy has been a means for radical movements, in some cases armed and funded by hostile foreign states, to come to power. For generations, these movements have indoctrinated the Palestinian population against Israel and the Jewish people, making Palestinians some of the most radicalised and antisemitic people on earth. Giving the Palestinians sovereignty over their own lands in the form of democracy, right at Israel’s doorstep, is clearly a very bad idea.
In general, democracy’s track record in the Arab world has been very poor. In the Arab world, democracy has enabled radical movements to come to power, resulting in abysmal governance and contributing to hostilities in the region. Before the emergence of radical Islamic movements, radical movements took the form of nationalist groups of various kinds. In the Middle East of today, it is Islamists who the democratic system has empowered. After the fall of Mubarak in Egypt, elections almost resulted in a Muslim brotherhood regime. Luckily, general El Sisi saw an opportunity to intervene. Iraq, blessed with natural resources but cursed with the representative system, has ever been under the reign of aggressive radicals. It has never developed to the heights of Saudi Arabia, for example, while it had all the means to. All the Arab world’s successful countries have been under monarchic rule. For the Arab world, importing the political systems of the West has been an abject failure, and that mistake must not be made again. An alternative must therefore be found, and several alternatives exist.
A King of Palestine?
What about monarchy? Why would the Palestinians not return to the political system that has functioned so well for Arabs? A king of Palestine, if he aims to maximise his tax base, has an interest to maximise the prosperity of his people. He will want to coexist peacefully with his neighbours, because war would only cost him his money, his jurisdiction and possibly his life. As a result, he will not seek to spread hate, but to promote coexistence. If he is financially oriented, the Palestinians will not be mobilised under his command.
But who is to take up the task? The Palestinian territories would be difficult to govern for any monarch, and it would attract hostility from Iran and its proxies. Moreover, what if the king’s motivations are not financial, but for example religious? And who will take his place after his reign? Monarchy, while it has performed better than democracy, therefore still involves some great issues.
A Proprietary Government
In simple terms, a proprietary government is a government with shareholders instead of voters. It is a corporation vested with the rights of government. It provides what governments normally provide, including protection, adjudication, regulation and common goods. Shares in a proprietary government, like shares in any corporation, naturally end up in the hands of professional, profit-oriented entrepreneurs. A proprietary government thereby naturally has an interest to maximise its tax base, and thus to make its people as productive as possible while creating the conditions for a lasting peace. Under proprietary governance, Palestine would change for the better. Palestinians would be educated to coexist with Israel, to be productive and to be tolerant. This contrasts starkly with policies of the Palestinian Authority, let alone Hamas.
After the second world war, the allied forces imposed on Germany and Japan a vast re-education of their societies. Japan, which had radicalised its people to the extent that Japanese soldiers were raping, torturing and killing Chinese people by the tens of thousands in the 1930s, has subsequently transformed into a peace-loving nation. Germany has undergone a similar development. Although its denazification was never completed, the state of German public opinion after the second world war has never been fertile ground for radical movements.
Such a positive development could also take place in Palestine. But for this it is crucial that the territories are ruled by better governments with better intentions. Placing Palestine under the reign of rational, pragmatic entities pursuing peaceful coexistence is crucial for any lasting peace. The proprietary government provides that solution. There is no better system imaginable.
A proprietary government of Palestine could for example take the form of a joint venture of regional players. A large proportion of the government’s shares would be in the hands of vetted investors, but Saudi Arabia and the UAE could also partake, which would support their reputations both domestically and abroad. They could present themselves as the protectors of the Palestinian people, a reputation they could use well after being accused of abandoning the Palestinian cause, while presenting themselves to the west as states with humanitarian commitments. They only stand to win.
Israel, meanwhile, could maintain a share to ensure that the government does not end up in the wrong hands, and could possess a veto on transfers of shares to potentially hostile players. The proprietary government would of course be demilitarised and its jurisdiction would stay under Israeli occupation for some time. Thereby, Israel can guarantee the security of its own civilians and help the proprietary government stay in place. For everyone involved, a proprietary government as a consortium between peace-oriented regional players could be a fruitful collaboration with great results.
Do-gooders with Western Philosophies Versus Pragmatic, Experienced Rulers
Ever since the Arab world imported some of the worst ideas that have come from the west, it has been plagued by one revolutionary movement after the other. It has become a battleground for radicals. These are no conditions for prosperity.
In the Middle East, the western formula has been a grotesque failure. Politicians, activists and bureaucrats in the self-proclaimed ‘international community’, i.e. Europe and America, must understand that the Middle East differs from the west in crucial ways. Their projects have failed. The democratic systems they have created have enabled Hamas to rule over Gaza and Mahmoud Abbas to become dictator over the West Bank.
Any good solution will come from the Middle East itself. The Middle East is blessed with a number of pragmatic, rational rulers equipped with competent civil servants and large amounts of capital. They can lead the Palestinians out of their predicament. The Arab monarchies could play a significant role in solving the Palestinian predicament, but they must have the courage to step to the fore and ignore those who have lectured them for so long.
Compelling argument. I look forward to your book.