Romney's right - the economic disparity between Jews and Palestinians is down to culture

Mitt Romney has managed to annoy just about everyone – except for Israelis and their supporters – by suggesting that Israel is an economically vibrant state, while the Palestinian-controlled territories are an economic basket-case, because of a difference in culture: “…as I come here, and I look out over this city and consider the accomplishments of the people of this nation, I recognize the power of at least culture and a few other things.” (Yeah, I know – he’s not a great stylist.) He added, “You export technology, not tyranny or terrorism.”

Romney’s remarks were evidently aimed at the powerful US Jewish lobby and the the majority of US voters who, for some bizarre reason, feel more empathy with a hard-working, pro-American, democracy than they do with Palestinians – whose supporters in the region tend to be fanatically anti-Semitic adherents of a religion which enjoins its followers to destroy non-believers, who loathe democracies – America in particular - and who, rather than trying to create thriving economies to better the lot of their people, seem more interested in dreaming up new ways of murdering Jews and Westerners. I must admit, if I were an American voter, I’d find that a tough choice!

Romney’s remarks boiled down to this: I admire the Jewish people, Obama doesn’t. And I bet that’s true. 

The Palestinian response was predictable. Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat accused Romney of racism (what else?) and suggested that the “Israeli occupation” was the cause of economic disparity: "It is a racist statement, and this man doesn't realise that the Palestinian economy cannot reach its potential because there is an Israeli occupation."

So Mitt Romney is a racist according to a spokesman for a people whose children are taught that Jews are apes?

Hmm. Interesting.

If you had two same-sized neighbouring countries with roughly the same terrain, climate and natural resources, and one was populated by Jews and the other by Arabs - does anyone seriously believe that, after a few years, their GDP would be roughly similar?

Of course not. And that has nothing to do with inherent racial characteristics. Two thousand years ago, the Jews didn’t have a reputation as canny businessmen: far from it. Two thousand years of exile, almost unrelenting hostility, and being barred from most professions has forced them down certain paths – let’s face it, if a doctor is able to cure you and an accountant saves you money and a lawyer keeps you out of jail and a banker can lend you money when you need it, who the hell cares which race they belong to?

Obviously the creativity, adaptability, intelligence and economic nous of Jews are largely the result of having to survive in countries where a significant portion of the population is hostile to them, just as Israelis have to survive in a region where a majority of the population appears to want them dead. Of course the success of the Jewish people is the result of culture – a culture forged by danger and adversity.

You don’t have to like every Jew you meet, you can object to certain aspects of Israeli policy, and you can point to the amount of economic help Israel receives from the US – but to pretend that most of their comparative success isn’t down to the fact that they they’re harder working, more disciplined, more creative and more resourceful than most of their neighbours, or that those traits aren’t to do with culture, strikes me as irrational.

The really interesting question is how much Jewish success has to do with religion: let’s face it, with the exception of China, the last four hundred years have taught us that if you crave economic success, being Jewish or Protestant gives you a distinct head start over, say, Buddhists or Muslims (unless you wake up one day to discover oil gushing up you khyber, of course).

Where I take issue with Romney is the suggestion that Jewish prosperity has anything to do with “providence”: it’s to do with history – and, I assume, religion.