Opinion - News Analysis   

Aid an adjunct to occupation

Ghada Karmi

THE LAST 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 2005, 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 (PA) an annual $3 billion 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 $200 million, just for basic services, between now and next February. Humanitarian aid alone, however, will not solve the problem.

Normally, international aid reaches the Palestinians directly, but also through myriad international NGOs.

Donors' agenda

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 U.S. 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 coming Palestinian elections. Subtler forms of pressure are also common, and will inevitably affect the political decision-making process.

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 $1 billion annually. The EU and member-states bear the brunt of this financial burden. The U.S. 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 per cent are impoverished, and unemployment rates are 60 per cent-70 per cent in Gaza and 30 per cent-40 per cent 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 Palestinians.

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.

By focussing 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. —

© Guardian Newspapers Limited 2004

(Ghada Karmi was an information consultant to the PA based in Ramallah.)

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Stories in this Section

Phone tapping issues
Stability in the changing environment
In Sri Lanka: seeding the clouds of war
Naveen Patnaik Government under fire
Militancy adds to political uncertainty
Aid an adjunct to occupation
Strong introductions in writing
Phone tapping
Well done
Private sector quota
Anti-people policies
Give them hope
For better health care
GM crops
Not convincing

Copyright © 2006, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu