With no Palestinian state in sight, aid
becomes an adjunct to occupation
Israeli policy is the root cause of need
in the occupied territories, but donors pay up without challenging it
Ghada Karmi
Saturday December 31, 2005
The Guardian
This
month has seen a flurry of high-level activity designed to fund the
Palestinians under occupation. A private sector investors' conference
took place in London to discuss ways of boosting the Palestinian
economy. It followed the G7 finance ministers' meeting at the beginning
of December, which pledged its support, saying that "economic
development of the West Bank and Gaza is an indispensable element of
lasting peace in the region". And in the summer, the G8 summit at
Gleneagles promised the Palestinian Authority an annual $3bn for three
years. Next March, the donor countries will decide their allocations to
the PA.
Sounds
good. But will these donors pause to consider that Israel's occupation
of Palestine is set to continue so long as they remain prepared to
underwrite it? The Palestinians' dire need for help is indisputable:
the PA is virtually bankrupt and has asked for an immediate injection
of $200m, just for basic services, between now and next February.
Humanitarian aid alone, however, will not solve the problem.
Working
in Ramallah, as I have been, makes this fact glaringly obvious. The
kidnapping of aid worker Kate Burton and her parents in Gaza this week
is a sharp reminder of the political context of aid. Normally,
international aid reaches the Palestinians directly, but also through
myriad international NGOs. They are thick on the ground in Palestine:
it was estimated in 2003 that were 38 in Ramallah alone and 60 overall,
in addition to 80 Palestinian NGOs funded by them. The relationship of
funders to NGOs here is complex and potentially coercive. There are
consequences for the ablest and best-educated Palestinians, who now
work for these NGOs, increasingly distant from the less fortunate in
their own society, on projects that do not necessarily reflect local
priorities.
The
need for renewed funding often obliges NGOs to shape their agendas to
those of donors, sometimes in contrast to their own beliefs. In 2004,
for example, the US Agency for International Development insisted that
Palestinian NGOs pledge not to support anyone with "terrorist links" as
a condition for further funding. More blatantly, the EU threatened last
week to withdraw all funding if militant groups were allowed to
participate in forthcoming Palestinian elections. Subtler forms of
pressure are also common, and will inevitably affect the political
decision making process.
I
found Ramallah was crawling with do-gooders of all nationalities. Being
kind to Palestinians is now a big industry, spawned initially by the
Oslo Agreement of 1993. At the time, the international community
thought this would lead to the emergence of an independent Palestinian
state. International aid poured in to support the nascent Palestinian
Authority, to build up the infrastructure damaged by decades of Israeli
occupation. From 1995 onwards, $7bn was spent on this enterprise, and
more was promised following Gaza's evacuation last August.
Underlying
this aid was the assumption that a two-state solution was the desired
aim, and that the Palestinians would need help to prepare for
statehood. So, until 2000, much aid was directed towards state-building
projects and those fostering a "positive climate" for peace
negotiations. The second intifada that erupted in 2000 halted this
process. Donors were forced to switch from state building to emergency
support, now running at $1bn annually. The EU and member states bear
the brunt of this financial burden. The US also contributes, though far
less than it does to Israel. Since 2002, it is the Arab states that
have rescued the PA from collapse. Most aid is for humanitarian relief
and rebuilding basic infrastructure destroyed by Israeli military
assaults.
The
Palestinians are today the largest per capita recipients of foreign aid
in the world. According to the 2004 World Bank report, they are
suffering "the worst economic depression in modern history": 75% are
impoverished, and unemployment rates are 60-70% in Gaza and 30-40% in
the West Bank. Without external support, the Palestinian infrastructure
and basic services would not survive. The Palestinians have been robbed
of their agricultural land and industry and had their trade devastated
by Israel's closure regime. They have fewer jobs in Israel, which plans
to stop using Palestinian labour in 2008. They have virtually no
independent sources of livelihood left.
The
donors well know the causes of this desperate situation. At a
conference in Ramallah last July, the World Bank's representative,
Nigel Roberts, candidly admitted that Israel's occupation was the
problem. Yet the funding continues, as if for all the world the
Palestinians were victims not of a deliberate Israeli policy, but of
some natural disaster. In the context of an occupation that denudes the
Palestinians of their land and resources, keeps them imprisoned in
ghettoes, and controls every aspect of their lives, what should be the
rationale of international aid? Without doubt, emergency relief is
vital to Palestinian survival and cannot be lightly withdrawn. But
should not the root cause, Israel's occupation, be addressed too?
Otherwise aid becomes merely an adjunct to the occupation.
By
paying up without caveat, donors in effect relieve Israel of its
obligations under international law. As the occupying power, Israel
must deliver assistance and services to the Palestinian population. As
high contracting parties to the Geneva conventions, the donors are
obliged to ensure Israel's compliance with the law. None of this has
happened. Instead, international aid has rendered the occupation
cost-free. It has even enriched Israel's economy: according to the UN
Conference on Trade and Development, for every dollar produced in the
occupied territories, 45 cents flows back to Israel.
Aside
from the recent EU criticism of Israel's policies in Arab Jerusalem,
which were quickly downplayed, the donors have made no serious attempt
to challenge Israel's actions, not even to demand compensation for its
destruction of Palestinian projects they had funded. On the contrary,
the process of preparing Palestinians for western-style "statehood" has
accelerated. Foreign funded projects for "democratisation", "reform",
"capacity building" and other imported buzz words have doubled. In the
absence of a Palestinian state or any hope of one, this becomes an
exercise in cynicism. The donors' efforts to ensure the Palestinian
security services can fight "terrorism" (ie resistance to occupation),
while Israel's army freely assassinates Palestinians, bombs them and
demolishes their homes, is immoral.
By
focusing on the effects of occupation rather than ending it, the donors
have made the conflict into a scramble for socio-economic survival. But
distancing the Palestinians from their national struggle can only help
Israel impose its final terms on them. If that is not to happen, then
the donors must resolve their dilemma: not abandoning the Palestinians
to their fate, and not challenging Israel, are incompatible. Facing up
to the bully is a moral imperative, and, ultimately, the only practical
way forward.
Ghada Karmi was an information consultant
to the PA based in Ramallah
ghada.karmi@btinternet.com