Why no world problems are intractable

A pinch of Scottish Enlightenment to end the Middle Eastern nightmare

[Scot Gordon Ramsay - along with fellow compatriots David Hume and Adam Smith - is solutions focused and doesn’t take “it’s impossible” as an acceptable attitude. Image retrieved from https://www.delicious.com.au/]

Adam Smith’s vision

“The Middle Eastern conflict is unsolvable!” she cried. “Peace is an illusion!” he confirmed. An easy response from the unimaginative. But what the short-sighted don’t realise is that the Israel-Palestine conundrum is child's play compared to the economic conundrum that faced Adam Smith and his contemporaries.

As extraordinary as it sounds today,  the 18th Century’s greatest minds were struggling with the ultimate dilemma: how to make money in a world with finite resources. Try as they might, no-one knew how to increase the wealth of nations and improve the material life of poverty-stricken citizens. The economies of Europe were flatlining - as they had been flatlining for centuries -  and the path towards any kind of growth seemed illusory. To the politicians of the day, there seemed only two “solutions”. Tax the poor; this ended badly for France’s Ancien Régime. And plunder other nations; Good for you, but bad for them. Everything was viewed as a zero-sum game. If Spain had more gold, Britain had less. The closest that theorists had got to innovation was Bullionism: By reducing your imports, maximising your exports and increasing your gold supply, your wealth and global leverage would increase. And so the path for confrontation, conflict and colonialism had been laid.

It was into this solutionless situation that Adam Smith walked. A cul-de-sac world of non-innovation. A dead-end street for hope. 

“The Economic Crisis is unsolvable!” she cried. “A wealthy future is an illusion!” he confirmed. An easy response from the unimaginative. But the famous Scottish thinker had a vision that was greater than the doubts of the naysayers. And though his ideas may seem second nature in our wealthy societies, surrounded by our material splendour, his concept of a free market changed the world. All human individuals, through their own resources and talents, had the power to create wealth, from the humblest peddler to the greatest entrepreneur. The circumference of the economic pie was unfixed and could grow exponentially. Here, centuries later, we see the fruits of his innovation. Yet beyond the economic sphere, his fearlessness of thought teaches us more; that no problem is beyond the mind committed to vision.

One more thing on Smith. Was he really the founder of capitalism? Was he even a capitalist? The answer may suprise you. No. He never uses the word capitalism in his writings, a term that only entered into widespread use 100 years after his death. He believed in a “commercial society”. The same thing? Not according to the American electorate.

In the above interview with Henry Clark, to whom I am indebted in the production of this article, he alludes to a survey. The American people were famously polled on whether they preferred capitalism over socialism. They did; but only by the smallest of margins. With only 53% choosing the former, America appears to be less economically liberal than we may think. Or is it? For when asked if they preferred a free market economy over a government-controlled economy, 77% agreed. Where did the missing 24% go, those who inexplicably like free markets but not capitalism? It’s an easy conundrum. It is safe to assume that capitalism was associated, not with business and profits, but with the cosy corporate-government relationship, something that Adam Smith himself was quick to criticise. The Scot detested Mercantalism.

Words, more often than not, are the tool for unlocking the deadlock. To change a hopeless reality stuck in stasis, we must select the appropriate vocabulary; we must awaken the correct sentiments in our interlocutors; and if Smith had backed capitalism over free markets, perhaps his vision may never have got off the ground.

David Hume’s counter-intuition

[The Infidel and the Professor: David Hume, Adam Smith, and the Friendship That Shaped Modern Thought (Princeton University Press, 2017)]

A change of language can set us on the path to solution-based thinking. But even more important is the willingness to accept the unconventional. Fellow Scot David Hume was an 18th Century atheist, in horror at the post-Reformation wars of religion that had wreaked havoc on the continent of Europe. [In the contemporary “cancel culture” of the day, his beliefs meant that the famous philosopher was unable to work in the university milieu.]   So how did he act upon his atheism? Appear on talk shows - Richard Dawkins-like - to preach to the unbelievers? Not at all. His belief firmly held was in establishment of the national Church. Realising that persuading the masses to unbelieve their religious dogma was futile, he called for the shackling religion to the dead-hand of the State. So imprisoned by the comfort of their positions and so restrained by their loyalty to the nation, the clergy would lose their power to rabble the masses. Religion would continue to exist, but impotently. And, in England at least, so it has proved.

So what have we learnt? No problem is intractable if we have a strong enough vision. Words matter to change reality. Solutions are counter-intuitive. But to these I add a fourth strand. That in the realm of political conflict, we must attend to the interests of the parties.  If a settlement can address all the interests of all the parties, we have created a win-win. A compromise, by contrast, means that everyone is equally unhappy. And we are paving the way for animosity and bloodshed down the road.

What are these legitimate interests in the case of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?

Israel: a) permanent security; b) acceptance of the legitimacy of both a Jewish state and its presence in its indigenous homeland; c) the right to visit holy sites throughout the West Back in safety and ideally to be able to live throughout the Land; d) Self-determination: The right to control its own affairs through a clear demographic majority in its state.

Palestine: a) an acknowledgement of the effect of 1948 on its people (regardless of who was responsible); b) the right to live anywhere in the Land, including near to the villages of their forefathers; c) the right to citizenship of a state with full equality.

Although these interests may appear contradictory to the myopic, to the imaginative they are rubric cube of a mystery ready to be solved. I have to date published 3 potential solutions to the conflict; they all ensure that the full range of these legitimate interests are realised. Both parties can leave the negotiating table fully satisfied and unbetrayed. They can be found in the following articles:

1. “The Davidic Republic”: A one-people (NOT one-State) solution where all Jews and Arabs in the Land see themselves as one Hebrew people and one Hebrew nation.

2. “Abolish the United Nations”/“Reimagining the UNited States”: Annexation of Israel and the Palestinian territories into the United States, reimagined as an international country, established in place of the United Nations, and open to democratic nations only.

3. “I call for a permanent resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict”: An EU-style Israeli-Palestinian Federation.

You need to read the articles to understand these solutions in detail. The headlines are a very simplistic shorthand.

The EU Federation is the closest to traditional solution (but still far from it). But my favourite, the most radical and possibly the most realistic is the UNited States solution. Read it to find out more!

[The articles are behind a paywall, so please consider a paid subscription:]

Gordon Ramsay’s reality check

[Above: my favourite Ramsay episode. The "Campaign for Real Gravy" will warm your soul. https://lnkd.in/dCYuEd4C

But stop. We are called to be honest. For why are we so cynical? Why are people looking at this article in disbelief? Well it’s simple. It’s because of the past. It’s because being nice - standing with hands wide open and with a heart full of love - doesn’t bring peace.

Ehud Barak should know. He tried to make peace with the Palestinians twice. He was rewarded with the bloody and hellish 2nd Intifada. His Labour Party has never been returned to power since.

Ehud Olmert should know. He tried to make peace with the Palestinians too. He was rewarded with rockets from Gaza that continue unabated to this very day.

So should we stop trying to end the conflict? Should we declare that there is "no Palestinian partner for peace"? Should we ascend to the rooftops and - pronouncing that peace is an impossibility - live in a mental state of forever-war?

No. Not at all. Because there IS a Palestinian partner for peace. It's just not the pan-Arabists (Fatah) and Islamists (Hamas-ISIS, PIJ etc) who run the place.

2/3 of Palestinian society are decent people who yearn for peace just like 2/3 of Israelis and 2/3 of any society. But they are powerless. Scared. And without a voice.

It's the violent 33% of their society - the same 33% of Germans who voted for the Nazis in 1933 - who are controlling the narrative and goose stepping through the streets. We need to free our Palestinian bethren. Not progressive / Islamist “Free Palestine” freedom. REAL freedom! But how?

I have always admired Gordon Ramsay, the Scottish chef. In the UK incarnation of his show Ramsay's Kitchen Nightmares (avoid the cheesy, formulaic, overdramatic TV reality American version like the plague), he went to different restaurants and proceeded to turn them around. Sometimes the owner was the problem, sometimes it was the cook. Perhaps the food was unnecessarily pretentious. Perhaps the chef was a former award-winner who had lost his way. Perhaps the owners couldn't stop arguing in front of the customers. Occasionally the food was amazing...just not the organisation.

How did he sort the problem out? By speaking to them nicely? Of course not. People are stubborn. Stuck in their ways. Tied to their culture. Unwilling to listen to the truth or to change. He was forced to be blunt. Extremely blunt. Rude in fact. But in the end, he got the message through.

As you can see on my Substack profile, I am a "peacemaker by night...". Yet why then am I so blunt and in your face? That's not what peacemakers are meant to do. Peacemakers talk of motherhood, apple pie and the fact that everyone loves football.

Unfortunately, traditional peace-making doesn't work. Because while Barak, Olmert, King Hussein and the Women's Institute are talking about the angels, the enemies of peace are misusing words like apartheid and genocide, firing rockets, suppressing Iranian women, funding Hezbollah, making friends with Jeremy Corbyn, boycotting Israelis and de-legitimising the Jewish nation. And - of course - excusing terrorism, rape and kidnapping.

So excuse me if I take the Gordon Ramsay approach. It may not be pretty. But judging by the amount of people around the divide I am making dialogue with (behind the scenes), it works. And that, at the end of the day, is what matters.

A dose of Scottish Enlightenment

This damned conflict is continuing because people want it to continue. It is that simple. The UNRWA wants a reason to exist. The Arab League needs to legitimise its dictatorships. The Palestinians need an identity. The Western progressives need a cause. The Israeli messianic parties need an excuse to obsess about their settlements. As for the Palestinian Authority: it’s needs both to delegitimise Israel to perpetuate the hate and to work with Israel to stay in power. It is ultimate symbol of why nothing ever changes in the Middle East. And this is why history is repeating itself and repeating itself over and over again. It is why the Americans are constantly relaunching the “the two-state no-solution” to no avail.

But if we dealt with the issues, identified the interests, applied some lateral thinking and had the will for peace anything is possible. And that is my business here. If Adam Smith, David Hume and Gordon Ramsay - our Scottish triumvirate - have taught us anything, it is that nothing is possible if we have the vision, if we choose the right words, if we think counter-intuitively and if we speak bluntly. And to that this Englishman adds “be interests-based”,

I know. I know. Peace is impossible. Blah, blah, blah. That’s what they said about economic growth for centuries. That’s what they said about Adam Smith’s commercial society. But look around you. See your wealth. See the abundance. See the dream of the Scottish Enlightenment realised. And then come to me with a straight face, look in my eyes and speak of the impossible once more. For impossible is mental block for those that have given up hope.

Postscript:

Please also consider reading my article on how one land can sentimentally feel like it belongs to two different countries. What is the difference between England and Britain (not just legally, but sentimentally)? How can they exist in the same territory? And how could this knowledge unlock the Israeli-Palestinian situation?