CONFERENCES 2000

The impact of the Intifada on International Funding: Reality & Prospect”.

22 November 2000

Summary

Throughout the proceedings the participants emphasised their continuous support for the Palestinian people by way of their various projects aimed at improving infrastructure and the economy. Such projects are carried out according and corresponding to Palestinian needs and circumstances. USAID works on motherhood and childhood, higher education, and on water issues. The Ford Foundation works on human-rights and community development. Each work with both public and private sectors, while the European Commission (Jean Breteche) focuses on NGOs who, they believe, know more about the real needs of Palestinian civil society.

In the current situation the international bodies have been working mostly in two areas: increasing job opportunities and providing health care. In addition, they are working on:

- The European Commission (Jean Breteche)

Returning the two parties to negotiation, helping the private and the public sector to invest their resources, and petitioning the Israelis lift the seige on Palestinian cities and let money get into the West Bank as well as pressuring them to return to more normal practices.

- The Ford Foundation(Steven Lawry)

Working for peace, the relation between the state and society, rule of law, and democracy.

- USAID (Larry Gerber)

Dealing with the new situation and what it imposes on the movement of staff and materials, working with the refugees in conjunction with various municipalities, accepting proposals and working on them, as well as studying ways to get the most out of programs and projects with a minimum of waste.

- UNDP (Sufian Mushasha)

Initilally felt that they were not well prepared for such a situation, however after assessing the circumstances for two weeks they overcame that position. Their new investments have been centred upon supporting the rural olive industry. In addition they give money to municipalities and villages, and contribute to the salaries of office workers.

- The Palestinian View (Hisham Mustafa)

He emphasized the Palestinian resistance and self-confidence against the settlers and overall occupation, saying: “the international funds have not stopped, on the contrary they have increased. All the projects will go on, maybe they will be delayed but they will never be canceled… The new projects are the humanitarian and health projects… These are just inside “area A”. However, we are looking to include the other sectors ‘area B and C’.

- Discussant (Ali Jirbawi)

He raised 9 axioms:

1- We have to differentiate between growth and development, and all the funds are going to the growth only.

2- There is no funding without political agendas.

3- Politics and the economy cannot be separated.

4- Limiting politics is a political task.

5- International bodies are restricted by the funding state.

6- The assistance is not for development and sovereignty but for creating dependent relationships.

7- Asking the funders to coordinate among themselves is not a real question, since the aim is a political and competitive one.

8- The relationships between the “givers” and the “receivers” are incommensurate. The “givers” agree on what they want to accept from the “receivers’” agenda. Accordingly the “givers” work with whom they are accustomed to work even if they should work with some other committees which are more qualified to respond to the new situation.

9- If the politics becomes unappealing, money entices.

Further to these points, he raised some questions for the Palestinians: do we have clear development projects? Is this situation a new one? Do we have any coordination? Do we see the help as begging? How much do we refuse proposed development assistance for us?

- Audience Reactions

- There is no economic stability and development under the Israeli occupation. Any economic support without political support is considered to be bribery.

- Indeed, we don’t want money from international organizations; we want them to get us the money stolen by Israel.

- The assistance does not affect the commercial, industrial, and agricultural sectors. Most of it is for technical issues, police, and for the elites.

- The conditions that are imposed by the funders are extortionate.

- Actually, the projects can be said to be serving Israeli interests.

- What is the role of the international funds if Israel cut off the electricity, water and the fuel?

- Refusing any project which is conditioned by the areas A, B or C.

- Improve our performance. What do we do as public and private sectors?

Main points, which had been raised by the end of the day by the speakers were:

- Ministry of Planning (Hisham Mustafa): we want to clarify that we thank anybody who gives us 20% of what we request (as an example) looking for 40%. In terms of what was said about the Israeli interests in projects funded by International organizations, I would like to ask you: what benefit do the Israelis get from a water purification station in Gaza? I am asking you not to generalize in your judgements. Finally we cannot say to the funders ‘give us your money and then get away from us’.

- European Commission (Jean Breteche): we have no priorities, we are looking for your priorities. Today we have heard lots of complaints; but we have not heard any practical suggestions.

- USAID (Larry Gerber): we want to achieve economic stability in order to start working better.

- The Ford Foundation(Steven Lawry): Oslo was the base for insuring the peace process and improving our mandate. Indeed we are not working on development but on facing this traumatic situation. Besides we are working with different priorities which differ from workers to prisoners to officers, and there is competition for getting help. Funding strategies remain dependant on the peace process.

- UNDP (Sufian Mushasha): our failure is directly caused by that of the Palestinian organizations.

Personal impression

- My general personal impression about the meeting was that every party or player maintained his stereotypical assumptions about the other. Most of them had their comments, opinion and reflections primed for delivery regardless of what they heard. No one trusts the other. It was actually an aggressive and defensive meeting. It was a “deaf meeting” rather than one of listening and learning from each other. Unfortunately I felt that this meeting did nothing even toward getting to better know each other, since every one ‘knew’ the other previously and came unprepared to give any space to them or to seek to know more or, in some cases, to reform what he/she thought he/she knew and begin to understand the other. On the contrary, at the end of the day every one had increased his/her suspicion regarding the other.

- Concerning the international organizations I can say that they play a vital role in helping the Palestinians; something which they tried to demonstrate throughout their speech. Surely, they face many restrictions other than the closure, but they did not raise any of them, consequently they did not explain how they cope with these restrictions. They spoke about what they do but not exactly how they do it. Such explainations might help to create trust in them, which I felt that they failed to achieve. Actually, I see that the international funders need to create, first of all, a base of trust. The absence of trust towards the organizations may be attributed to both the Palestinians and the organizations themselves. Maybe there is a kind of bureaucratic tendency, which needs to be counterbalanced with more community base projects.

- On the other hand, there is conflict among the Palestinians, which, surely, affects the efficiency of the international organizations. I did not hear any comprehensive agenda, and this has been described as a problem by the European commission (Jean Breteche) and the Ford Foundation. It appears that there is no confidence in the international organizations. Indeed there, in the meeting, were not any positive points raised by the audience regarding both the Palestinian Authority and the International Organizations. I can say that the main issue that widens the gap is that the Palestinians want no more than real political support, while the funders cannot ensure that, instead concentrating on economic and development projects.

BN: This is a reflection from attending a meeting without accurate translation and is just a summary.

Opening Remarks

- Birzeit University - Carmela Armanios-Omary, vice-principal
- Development Study Programme - Nader Said

Participants

International Organizations:

- European Commission - Jean Breteche Representative
- USAID - Larry Gerber Head of West Bank& Gaza Strip Commission
- The Ford Foundation - Steven Lawry Head of the Regional Office, Cairo
- UNDP - Sufian Mushasha Head of Human Development Unite

Palestinian views:

- Ministry of Planning (MOPIC) - Hisham Mustafa Director General
- Discussant - Ali Jirbawi Professor, Birzeit University