Since the beginning of the brutal war waged by the Zionist enemy on Gaza, the agricultural industry in the Zionist entity has witnessed a significant shortage of agricultural labor. The Israeli government issued a decree prohibiting Palestinian workers—some of whom work in the agricultural sector—from entering the Occupied Territories. This was accompanied by the departure of around 8,000 Thai workers from the Occupied Territories at the beginning of the war. This crisis posed a challenge for Zionist farmers, especially in the Gaza Envelope, who suffered from a significant shortage of labor, leading to an inability to harvest crops.
In fact, the agricultural industry in the entity employed about 15,000 Palestinian workers, and today the Israeli government is attempting to replace them with foreign workers from India, Sri Lanka, and Moldova. Hebrew media reports speak of a plan to bring in around 100,000 foreign workers to work in the construction and agricultural industries. Foreign workers have already begun to arrive in the Occupied Territories, but Israeli farmers are struggling because these foreign workers coming from Asia and Europe lack experience, as indicated by numerous reports published in “Israel.”
The agriculture industry in Israel relied heavily on Palestinian workers due to their agricultural skills on one hand, and their proficiency in speaking Hebrew on the other, which enables them to communicate effectively with employers, apart from their relatively low wages. This is not new, but rather the result of a historical trajectory of the transformation of the agricultural industry in “Israel” from a model of family farms to medium and large agricultural corporations. However, while this transformation has been promoted as a success story, the current war reveals other dimensions that may constitute strategic vulnerabilities for “Israel.”
History of labor in the Israeli agricultural industry
The structure of “Israel’s” settlement was initially based on agriculture. Ideologically, agriculture represented a way of life, deeper than just a means of earning income. Economically, agriculture constituted a significant part of the national revenue and exports for many years, and it played a crucial role in ensuring food security for waves of immigrants who came from various parts of the world.
Jewish settlements were built in their early stages on the idea of agricultural settlements. Since the late 19th century, Jews from Europe arrived in Palestine and established agricultural projects, mostly orchards (citrus and grapes), initially relying on Palestinian labor distinguished by its availability and low cost. In the early 20th century, Jewish socialist immigrants attempted to compete with Palestinian labor in agricultural work, but they were not successful[1]. Therefore, these immigrants established their own agricultural settlements. Two types of settlements prevailed: the “kibbutz” and the “moshav.” The “kibbutz” is a community in which each individual produces according to their ability and consumes according to their needs.(능력껏 일하고 필요에 따라 소비 한다---칼 막스의 공산주의 사상을 가장 현실적으로 구현한 것입니다) The “moshav,” on the other hand, is a semi-cooperative village consisting of individual family farms, which engage in activities such as purchasing, marketing, and financing collectively to exploit economies of scale. As a result, farms were planned to rely solely on family labor.
However, after the establishment of the state of Israel in 1948, there was a reduction in reliance on the principle of self-employment or family work on their own farms, due to the need to increase food production and to provide employment opportunities for new immigrants on the other. This led to an increase in state investments in infrastructure, research, and agricultural training, resulting in a significant increase in agricultural production. By the 1960s, the entity achieved self-sufficiency in fresh agricultural products [2].
After the 1967 war and the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, Palestinian workers in the Occupied Territories were forced to work at low wages, gradually replacing some unskilled Israeli workers. Following this, a transformation wave began among agricultural workers in “Israel,” with a large number of Palestinian agricultural workers filling the needs of the Israeli agricultural industry, and with its growth, there was sufficient abundance for export.
The Palestinian labor force in the Israeli agricultural industry continued to expand until the first Palestinian Intifada, where Palestinian workers became a “security burden” for “Israel,” and many of them were unable to go to work regularly due to repeated blockades[3]. Starting in 1993, the Israeli government allowed its farmers to bring in a few foreign workers from Thailand to replace Palestinians(이번 전쟁중에 하마스가 타이노동자들을 회를 쳣다는 괴설이 나온 배경도 이런 것입니다...), with the number of permits increasing in the following five years, as the security situation deteriorated. Between 1996 and 2000, the number of permits for foreign workers in agriculture reached about 17,000. Since 2002, the number has been around 27,000 [4], and remained so until 2023.
Neoliberal economics transformed agriculture
In the late 1970s, “Israel” experienced a shift towards neoliberalism, aligning with the Western trend towards free market economies and reducing government intervention. This changed the agricultural labor force to include Palestinians and foreigners. This transformation was massive compared to the kibbutz and moshav systems, which no longer played a structural role in the occupation’s agricultural industry.
In 1977, after Menachem Begin became the head of the first right-wing government in the entity’s history, public policy became less favorable to the agricultural industry. Trade controls were lifted, government support for exports and some import taxes were abolished, causing difficulties for the agricultural industry, especially with the inflationary recession that hit the Israeli economy in the 1980s. With the inflation-fighting measures taken in 1985, which involved a significant increase in interest rates, Israeli farmers faced a crisis in repaying their large loans, as most agricultural cooperatives suffered from heavy debts during those years due to cheap and subsidized credit prevailing in the 1970s.
Despite debt restructuring reforms initiated by the Israeli government in subsequent years, many agricultural cooperatives collapsed financially, and the remaining farmers had to adapt to the new situation without the safety net and support system provided by the cooperatives. Perhaps this was the most radical institutional change ever experienced by the Israeli agricultural sector, and it occurred within a very short period, which made it difficult for farmers to adapt to the new reality [5].
This impacted small-scale farmers who gradually exited the market due to increasing financial difficulties they faced. After 1985, the number of farms in “Israel” began to decline, with an average annual decrease rate of 5% in the 1990s. Additionally, the growth rate of value contributed by the agricultural industry to the economy became negative (-0.9%) in the 1990s, after peaking at an annual growth rate of 6.4% in the 1970s. Moreover, farmers’ incomes decreased significantly due to a reduction in the volume of agricultural exports, which accounted for about 13% of total production after 1981, compared to between 32% and 40% before that [6].
These adverse conditions in the agricultural industry forced surviving farmers to invest in industries and markets other than agriculture to increase their profits. This was suitable for large-scale farmers, who possessed large amounts of capital and capabilities that helped them withstand losses and invest in other markets. The exit of small-scale farmers from the market also helped these large-scale farmers expand their farms.
This structural change in the agricultural industry was also a result of the introduction of new technologies into the industry. Technology typically contributes to increasing productivity, thereby giving those who possess it an advantage over their competitors. As large farms are more adaptable and capable of adopting new technologies in the agricultural industry, they had a significant advantage [7].
“Israel” benefited from the introduction of technology into the agricultural industry, and even made efforts to develop it, becoming one of the pioneers in this field worldwide. This was supported by the Israeli government, with the Israel Innovation Authority providing support for research and development in agricultural technology companies, contributing between 20% and 50% of research and development budgets to assist in developing new products and technologies in this field [8]. This made the agricultural technology industry one of the most important industries of “high-tech” or advanced technology in “Israel,” accounting for about 17% of Israeli GDP [9].
Technological innovations in the agricultural industry include computer-controlled drip irrigation, computerized early warning systems for leaks, thermal imaging to detect crop water stress, biological methods of pest control, and new varieties of fruits and vegetables [10]. All these technological solutions have become important sources of Israeli technological service exports. The Israeli agricultural technology industry has positioned itself as a “savior” of agriculture industries worldwide, attempting to export its technologies to countries suffering from food insecurity, especially in Africa.
This technological focus of the Israeli agricultural industry further reinforced the structural transformation in the industry.
Ultimately, this structural change removed some small-scale farmers from the market. In contrast, large farms that require hired labor became dominant, opening opportunities for increased Palestinian and later Southeast Asian labor in this industry.
Strategic error
The structural change in the Israeli agricultural industry not only affected the composition of workers in the industry but also had repercussions on food policy in the entity, which became more reliant on importing foodstuffs. This was due to the slowdown of growth of the agricultural industry, which coincided with a significant expansion in the population, compounded by the political desire to lower prices, which opened the door to imports [11].
As mentioned earlier, the slow growth of the industry in the 1980s was the result of inflationary recession factors that affected the Israeli economy during that period, coupled with the neoliberal policies followed by Israeli governments since the late 1970s, which reduced the amount of government support for agriculture. Consequently, population growth, over time, became faster than agricultural production growth. In the 1950s, the annual growth rate of production was about 12.8%, compared to a population growth rate of 4.6%. However, this dynamic shifted in the 1990s, the decade when population growth surpassed agricultural production growth, remaining so until now, with the former reaching 2.8% while the latter reached 2% [12]. This led to dependence on food imports to meet the increasing local demand. The result was that the entity became completely dependent on imports of sugar, vegetable oils, oilseeds, animal feed, and grains [13]. Moreover, domestic production of animal products relies on imports of feed and live animals.
--이런것도 중국의 접근과 반드시 비교 해 보시기 바랍니다.
중국은 개혁 개방의 시작 부터 ..경제적 주권을 목표로 설정하엿고 ..그 목적에 맞춰 경제를 발전 시켜 왓습니다.
한때 110%가 넘엇던 식량 자급율이 ...신 자유주의 시장의 흐름에 따라 80%선까지 떨어졋습니다..
값싼 외국의 농수산물 수입을 통해 ...국제교역의 비교우의 을 누린것이지요.......시진핑 정부는 이에 대노..
농지확보와 농산물 100% 자급을 목표로 강력한 체찍질을 시작 햇습니다...
이 사람이 누구 인진 몰라도 됩니다....
시험에 안 나오고...저런 사람 모른다 하여 인성과 지성에 눈꼽 만큼도 해가 되지 않습니다.
이 사람은 이문열과 함께 ,,,문자그대로 자유 민주주의체에 미처 날튄 보수주의자 이고...자타가 공인하는 꼴통입니다.
한국의 식량(곡물) 자급율이 자꾸 떨어지며,,이것이 식량안보에 큰 위혐일 수 잇다는 진보 진영의 주장에
-쌀이 정말로 무기가 될 수 잇다고 생각하는가???....라고 되 받아치면서
신자유주의가 주도 하는 국제질서에 강한 신뢰와 믿음을 보인 사람입니다..
그런데 진짜 황당무개햇던 것은
한미 fta를 주도 햇던 노무현의 아갈통에서 수구 꼴통 복거일의 말이 고대로 공명되어 나온 것이지요..
-한미 fta는 경쟁력이 없는 농업을 내주고, 경쟁력이 잇는 제조업에서 돈을 벌기 위한 것이다................노무현
노무현의 정체를 가장 잘 보여준 사진...........이 정도면 거의 예술이라고 해야..
한미 fta가 타결 되자...노무현교 미친개들은 환호햇습니다..
-이젠 됫다...fta로 돈 벌어..그 돈 나누면 된다...
-끼야 아 효.....
-우리 교주님 뫈소ㅔ 이 ㅣㅣㅣㅣㅣㅣ
한미 fta에서 얼마나 때돈을 벌엇는지 다른소린 모르겟습니다...그런데 분명한것은 하나 잇지요
그 돈을 그들은 절대 나누지 않앗다는 것이지요..
노무현이 말하는 솨뢈솨는 쇄상은....그런 세상이엇고..
다른소리에겐 노무현이 가장 싫어 하는 정치인 이라고 햇지요?????
사람만 잡는 세상
盧 묘역에 무릎 꿇은 양문석// 더불어민주당 양문석 경기 안산갑 후보가 18일 오전 경남 김해시 진영읍 봉하마을 노무현 전 대통령 묘역을 참배하고 있다. 양 후보는 2008년 '국민 60~70%가 반대한 한미 FTA(자유무역협정)를 밀어붙인 노무현 대통령은 불량품'이라는 등 내용의 칼럼을 썼다는 사실이 알려지며 노 전 대통령을 비하했다는 지적이 당내에서 제기됐다. 연합뉴스 |
퍄소란 이런것을 두고 하는 말이라고 햇지요??
우리 교주님에게 깽깽된 죄........기어코 석고대죄 시키지 않으면 견디지 못하는 광기....그것이 노무현교 파시즘입니다.
이자는 저것 말고 다른 껀으로 구설수에 올랏습니다....
이런것에 다른소린 더 이상 일희일비 하지 않는다고 햇지요?
좌파 진보진영에 대한 신뢰는 이미 오래전에 버렷습니다.
((중국공산당이 올 초 각급 당 조직과 정부에 하달한 <중앙1호문건>의 핵심은 향촌진흥이다. 여기에는 9개 과제를 명시하고 있는데 상위 3개 과제는 첫째, 식량과 중요 농산품의 안정적 공급, 둘째, 농업 기초시설 건설 강화, 셋째, 농업과학기술과 장비 지원 강화 등으로 모두 식량안전과 관련한다. 그만큼 중국 정부는 식량안전을 국가의 최우선 과제로 여기고 있다는 것을 보여준다. 또한 중국정부는 <중앙1호문건>뿐만 아니라 각종 법률과 규정으로 식량안전을 위한 법과 제도를 구축한 상태이다. 그 중의 하나가 2015년부터 실시되고 있는 식량안전 성장책임제(粮食安全省长责任制)이다.
식량안전 성장책임제는 중국 중앙정부가 식량의 생산, 유통, 소비 등 각 부문에서 성급 인민정부에 대해 국가의 식량안전의 권한과 책임을 부여하기 위해 만들어졌다. 즉, 이 제도는 성급 지방정부 지도자에게 식량의 안정적 생산, 유통, 소비 등의 부분에서 권한과 책임을 부여하고 그 성과를 철저히 평가해 지도자의 능력과 자질을 검증하겠다는 취지이다.4) 평가 결과에 따라 지도자의 진로가 결정된다. 이 때문에 각급 지방정부 지도자들은 자신의 지역에서 식량안전문제를 결코 소홀히 대할 수 없다. 물론 이러한 제도가 실제 현장에서 원활히 구현되고 있는지는 더 고찰할 필요가 있겠으나 이러한 제도 자체가 중국 정부가 얼마만큼 식량안전을 중시하는지를 보여주는 사례라고 할 수 있다.)))
중국은 자본주의적 시각으로만, 시장의 경쟁과 이익으로만 접근할 수 없는 나라 입니다..
그들은 우리와 다르다는 것을 항상 기억해 두시고 ...그들의 입장에서 이해 하려 해 보세요..
아무리 삼혐땜 무너리라 ..고사 지내 봐야 당신내들 손 만 아프다고.......응??
식량은 산업이 아닙니다...
식량은 주권이며 문화 라는 것이 국제사회(un)의 공식 입장이기도 합니다.
식량을 상품으로 보고 재빠르게 계산하여 돈으로 따지는 짓은 복거일이나 이문열같은 수구 꼴통이나
노무현과 같은 미친개들이나 하는 짓이지....생각 쬐마 할 수 잇는 사람이라면 ..식량을 그딴식으로 보진 않지요.
이 글에서도 신 자유 주의를 쫓은 이스라엘의 농업 정책의 실패를 이야기 하고 잇습니다..
한미 fta를 주도한 노무현의 실패한 정책으로 투영해서 읽어도 될 듯 합니다..
이런것도 냉정하게 냉소할 필요가 잇습니다..
자신들에게 칼질을 한 사람을 위한 이런 뛰어난 펄포먼스가 ....광기가 아니라면...종교적 신념이나 교조주의가 아니고 또 무엇일까??
김진숙은 ...은퇴한 노무현이 고향에 내려와 농사를 짓겟다고 하니..
한미 fta로 농촌을 쑥대밭으로 만든 장본인이 농사를 짓겟다고 하니 ...어의가 없다
자신이 한짓에 대한 사과부터 하는 것이 먼저 아니냐??....고 빈정거렷습니다.
노무현은 오리 농법으로 수확한 쌀을 청와대 이명박에 보네는 펄퍼먼스까지 부렷지요..
(혀튼 이놈들의 발짝질은 ...가름이 안되..)
이명박에 이런것이 보고가 올라 갓을 것이고...저 쇗끼 반드시 잡라라....는 묵언의 명령이 잇엇을 것이고..
청와대에서 640만불를 받아 처 먹은 것이 들어나자....오냐 요 쥐쇗끼...잘 걸렷다...십자 포화질로 아작을 낸 것이다..
는 정도의 추론은 누구나 할 수 잇습니다..
노무현이 오리농법으로 얼마나 돈을 처 벌엇을까요??
지야 대통령 연금 타 처 먹으니....뭔 걱정이 잇것써.
몰려온 사람들 상대로 서민 쇼질만 처 하면 되는데...
This coincided with the neoliberal transformation in the Israeli economy, where the focus in the 1990s shifted towards high-value industries, especially the technology industry. Even agriculture took a significant share of this industry, with a focus on developing agricultural technology surpassing interest in agricultural production itself. At this stage, Israel chose the neoliberal model based on export orientation. The purpose of this policy was to improve the current account balance—reducing the deficit or increasing the surplus—attracting foreign direct investment, reducing external debt, and building foreign currency reserves by the central bank [14]. In contrast, other industries, including agriculture, saw declining growth rates, and their products lost competitiveness, even in domestic markets, due to the high production costs.
It is not sustainable to be a First World Country—meaning a country with an economy focused on high-value production while abandoning quantitative production, especially concerning basic goods like food—in a hostile region that does not accept you. No matter how significant Western support may be, there are economic rules in the real-world economy that cannot be bypassed or ignored. Consumers need consumer goods, and herein lies the strategic mistake committed by the Israeli entity during the formation stage of its modern economy, specifically after the neoliberal transformation it underwent in the late 1980s. Under export-oriented neoliberalism, the focus shifted to enhancing the economy’s status on the international stage. In this context, “Israel” was able to achieve its goal. However, it simultaneously relinquished a crucial aspect of its security, which is food security.
Amidst the brutal war that “Israel” is waging against the people of Gaza, other fronts have opened up. The attacks carried out by Yemen in the Red Sea imposing a blockade on Israeli ports from the early weeks of the ongoing war have proven that the anti-Israel camp is capable of reducing its ability to import. This poses an even larger problem in the event of a broader regional war. While today only the port of Eilat is affected by the blockade in the Red Sea, the situation could worsen if a war threatens other Israeli ports, especially those located on the Mediterranean Sea. This could trigger a food security crisis in “Israel,” which abandoned a fundamental element of its survival amidst the transition to neoliberalism.