Comment by istjohn
3 days ago
That's a laughable comparison. Israel has been systematically undermining the economic and political independence of the West Bank and Gaza during that timeframe. Gaza had been under siege since 2006. The Marshall Plan in contrast was a concerted effort to rebuild and integrate Germany into the European economy.
Gaza has been under siege because it kept attacking Israel.
Had Germany kept invading France 1946-1965, it would have been treated the same way. But the Germans chose another path.
To be fair so did the French. e.g. occupying the Rhineland after WW1 vs the Schuman Plan.
If they were inclined to punish Germany even harder than the first time it probably wouldn’t have worked out that well.
Under siege by Egypt too, to be clear, which suggests maaybe the problem is Hamas.
To be fair Germany would have recovered economically on its own with or without the Marshall plan (ECSC was much more impactful than the Marshall plan..)
Most Arab states generally don’t do that well economically even without any foreign power undermining their independence. Unless they have massive amounts of oil but often even then (Iraq/Iran)
Your characterisation of Arab states is totally baseless. There is no control case of an Arab state that developed without either large oil resources or significant foreign intervention during the modern period. Name one.
You mention Iran, but Iran is not Arabic, but Persian, and the Persian Safavid Empire was formidable from 1501 to 1722. Then Iran was a plaything of the British and Russian empires for many years, culminating in British-Russian occupation during World War II and the 1953 CIA/MI6-orchestrated coup that overthrew democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh after he nationalized the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. Following the 1979 Islamic Revolution that overthrew the US-backed Shah, Iran has struggled under heavy economic sanctions orchestrated by the United States.
Iraq was part of the Ottoman Empire from 1534 to 1918, when Britain took over after WWI, maintaining substantial power over Iraq despite the latter's nominal independence in 1932. The British-established monarchy wasn't overthrown until 1958, after which the Soviets and the West exploited the instability to compete for influence.
I think you're underestimating just how pervasive Western colonialism was and is.
> significant foreign intervention during the modern
Same applies to pretty much every western country besides perhaps Switzerland and to a lesser extent Sweden.
Anyway I think you’re going back far too much. Countries like Algeria, Morocco, Tunis, Jordan and even Egypt or Syria were mostly left to their own devices since the ~50-70s (most instability in those countries that led to foreign intervention had internal causes).
Where are they now? Compare them with South Korea or Taiwain (which were both very poor and run by extremely oppressive regimes until the 80s). Same applies to much of Eastern Europe.