Palestinian Poverty, Israeli Affluence: Deciphering The NY Times

It takes some attention and a bit of math, but readers of The New York Times now have the means to discover just how great the chasm is between Israelis and Palestinians—not just in politics but in hard cash.

In an article and follow-up editorial concerning a report by the RAND Corporation, an establishment think tank, the Times informs us that if the adversaries negotiated a two-state peace deal, both Palestinians and Israelis would gain financially. Over 10 years, RAND says, Israel would gain $123 billion and Palestine $50 billion.

We learn that in terms of annual per capita income this breaks down to a 5 percent increase, or $2,200, for Israelis and a 36 percent increase, or $1,000, for Palestinians.

Readers are apt to take that in with little pause, but if we do the calculations, this tells us that current incomes average $44,000 for Israelis and $2,778 for Palestinians. This puts Israel far above the World Bank standard of $12,746 for high-income countries. It places Palestine barely over the low-income level.

This means Palestinians make less than their neighbors in Egypt, Jordan or Iraq. It places Palestine in the same World Bank grouping as Guatemala, South Sudan and others with per capita incomes from $1,046 to $4,125.

Israel rates with the economic stars, not only in the high-income category but in the elite of that group. On average, its citizens earn yearly incomes very near those in Germany, New Zealand and the United Kingdom. [The World Bank lists Israel’s per capita income as $32,030, but this includes occupied Palestine, which is given no separate economic status. The RAND report distinguishes between Israel and Palestine.]

The Times would have done its readers a favor by untangling the data and revealing the stark difference between Israeli and Palestinian earnings, but the story and editorial give a sense that the two sides are on an even playing field. A two-state solution, the Times editorial states, “makes both sides winners.”

The article, by Jodi Rudoren, puts emphasis on how much the occupation costs Israel in support for settlements and security. It is seen, she writes, as a “self-imposed economic burden.” There is no mention of the burden on the Palestinian side.

The think tank, however, does better than the Times by stating outright that “A singular feature of the Israeli-Palestinian relationship is the power imbalance between the two parties: Israel dominates the region both militarily and economically.”

The report makes clear that Israeli policy has harmed Palestinian commerce with regulations favoring Israeli companies, restrictions on movement and the confiscation of water and land. It also points up the devastating impact of Israel’s policy of demolishing housing and infrastructure in Gaza and the West Bank.

None of this appears in the Times, which sticks to the dry numbers of the RAND report, but this data has provided clues to a reality the Times obscures—the scandalous inequality between Israelis and Palestinians.

This disparity should inform the paper’s reporting on relations between the two sides, yet we read of the peace talks as if they involve two equal parties, both asked to make concessions. Likewise, in reports on Gaza, we read of the threat of rockets but learn almost nothing about the overwhelming military might of Israel’s arsenal and army.

Readers should not have to take to their calculators to discover the huge imbalance that underlies every aspect of Israeli-Palestinian relations. Our newspaper of record should have revealed that reality long before now and not in hidden ciphers.

Barbara Erickson

8 thoughts on “Palestinian Poverty, Israeli Affluence: Deciphering The NY Times

  1. Hi Barbara Thanks for this. The other thing I thought was problematic about the RAND report and its coverage is that it never even considers the economic outcome for a one state solution. Instead it just compares the two state option with the status quo, violent resistance, unsuccessful nonviolent resistance, and two different types of unilateral Israeli withdrawal. Ehsaneh

    Sent from my iPhone

    >

    Like

    • Yes, I agree, and I also thought that the report should have looked at all the income from the settler industry and agriculture in the West Bank. They are extracting profits from stolen land now; how much of that would Israel be giving up? You would think that would be a factor in their calculations. I also thought it odd that they concluded that the international community should pay for relocating settlers, and it seemed to me that RAND had conveniently come to pretty much the U.S. State Department position. But the post was to focus on the Times, so I didn’t take up these issues.

      Like

  2. Thank you, Barbara, for this incisive and revealing piece on what the New York Times is really up to in dis-informing, mal-informing and miss-informing its readers on Zionist Israel and the plight of its victim, Palestine. The Zionist New York Times serves racist, genocidal, ethnic cleansing Zionist Israel and its extremist right-wing prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu as an exclusive propaganda rag, publishing only what is favorable and what is contrived to be favorable to Zionist Israel!

    Like

Leave a Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s