| This is a two parts tale of a truly remarkable historical story. Though we can’t take time back, we must learn from history so we don’t repeat the same mistakes to prevent unnecessary suffering. PART I. DIVIDED, WE FALL Once there was a country whose farmers were poor, hungry, sick (malaria, fever, typhoid, etc.), and consequently measurable. It happened that a rich French businessman heard about those farmers' situation and decided to help them. Over the following years, he gave each farmer’s family money/subsidy and sent them everything required to turn their agro-business into a great success; new technologies, advisors, the best crops, and varieties. As if direct financial, technological, and knowledge support was insufficient, the rich businessman built the farmers' industrial and public buildings. How did it impact farmers’ livelihood? Farmers with guaranteed income no longer cared to work as hard as before or go the "extra mile" to improve results. It results in poor professional and business results and the continuation of poverty. The plentiful money financed many officials, generating a culture of dependency on the officials and the donor and corruption, which didn’t serve the purpose well. Does this remind you of similar stories? Where do you think the story took place? How did agriculture develop in that country? PART II. UNITED, WE RISE A few years passed, and a new and different form of agricultural organization began to develop in that same country. Farmers were still poor, but they organized the agro-production and agro-business units differently than in a typical (supported) village. Instead of facing the production and business aspects as individuals, they formed a collective that worked the land, harvest, market, etc. All activities, including management, were agreed upon and done together. This form of organization was characterized by a high level of internal organization, trust, and intensive cooperation and collaboration. Once there were several such organizations, they formed alliances to strengthen the bonds between those who shared the same business and social attitude. As they improved their business models and ecosystems, they became more and more successful in every dimension of their activity. Organizations of this type did not receive financial or technological support from millionaires. Still, they were helped by external support for the organization and the establishment of infrastructures and institutions that served the general public, such as R&D, marketing, professional training, financing, etc. How did the different organization form impact farmers’ livelihoods? The new type of organization flourished and enjoyed high professional, business, and social success. Soon there were many more of them all over the country. In the same country and people, one type of agro-organization struggles to survive though it gets plenty of support (financial, professional, advisors, technologies, etc.), while the other agro-organization flourishes thanks to a different and higher level of organization. Would you like the farmers in your country to have access to the knowledge that enables the second (successful) form of organization? THE AGRO-CINDERELLA STORY The main part of the two stories mentioned above occurred in Israel from 1880 to 1950. In the first part, the rich banker Benjamin Edmund de Rothschild supported Israeli farmers in an establishment called “Moshava.” Moshava is an Israeli type of agro-organization with characteristics similar to a village in other countries. *** Don’t mix Moshava with Moshav, a later form of agro-organization unique to Israel, which is like Moshava but holds a higher cooperation and organization level between farmers. *** | 
