International aid in the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT)

The unique nature of humanitarian aid to the OPT can be summed up by the position of Israel (an occupying power and ‘un-obliging landlord’) and by the attitude of the international community towards this position. The main dilemma is powerfully described by Israeli author and ex Deputy Mayor of Jerusalem, Meron Benvenisti: “The Palestinians managed to survive thanks to the international aid, but [...], the beneficiary of the international community’s rallying to the rescue was their Israeli enemy. Moreover, the contributing states’ humanitarian enlistment became a safety net, enabling Israel to impose a deluxe occupation in the West Bank – total military domination with no responsibility for running the life of the occupied population, and no price tag attached. Had Israel been required to fulfill its commitment as an occupying power [author’s note: in accordance with the Geneva Conventions], it would have had to pay NIS 5-6 billion a year just to maintain basic services for a population of more than three million people. But it created an international precedent – an occupation fully financed by the international community. The harsher the Israeli measures with closures, blockades and safety fences, the larger the international aid “to prevent a humanitarian crisis”, and Israel is not held accountable”. Furthermore despite the economic benefits it gains from the humanitarian aid that is supposed to go to the Palestinian people, Israel interferes in the flow of this aid by blocking access to it and thus reducing its effectiveness. “But while piling on barriers that block aid from Palestinians and Palestinians from aid, Israel is fervent in its support of humanitarian aid in face of the international community”. The behaviour of the international community towards the Israeli government demonstrates that the flow of international aid to the OPT is directed towards alleviating the crisis of the Palestinian people rather than towards promoting a permanent solution. Although the main responsibility for the serious situation in the West Bank is down to the Israeli occupation, as reported by agencies that could hardly be described as hostile to Israel, the attitude of donors appears ambiguous, when not openly hypocritical. Israel’s repeated violations of both international humanitarian and human rights legislation have met with insufficient responses, generally limited to vague condemnations and resolutions by the UN that have had practically no effect on Israeli policy. At the time this article was going to print (May 2008), the situation in the OPT, and in the Gaza Strip especially, was practically out of control and showed no signs of a tangible solution. How did we reach this point? One possible interpretation of recent events and of the factors that condition them can be found in the “End of Mission Report” (May 2006) by the UN’s Middle-East envoy, Alvaro de Soto20, which provides a devastating description of the failure of international diplomacy and of how interventions, including humanitarian aid, are carried out in this part of the world. The painful and, we hope, overly pessimistic opinions expressed in this article aim to highlight the desperate need for more research and analysis on humanitarian aid. As a report by the International Red Cross states: “There is also a need for a strong “institutional memory” and a culture of serious research in the humanitarian field. This is both because some of the dilemmas and opportunities that are faced are historically new, and because some of them are timeless. Ignorance is no excuse for repeating old mistakes or making new ones”.