On my first trip to Palestine/Israel -- the equivalent of today’s witness or fact-finding trip -- a US consular official said that if we didn’t get intellectual indigestion from what we saw and heard, someone had not planned the trip well.  For those of us who want to support the Palestinian community in their quest for a just peace, we may be feeling that tension, that touch of intellectual indigestion, when we consider what foreign aid and support from non-governmental organizations (NGOs) does or doesn’t do for those on the ground in Palestine. 

PIN offers this commentary.

--Donna Hicks

At its 2012 General Convention The Episcopal Church passed a resolution affirming ‘positive investment as a necessary means to create a sound economy and a sustainable infrastructure in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip because without these measures there can and will be no viable Palestinian state and no enduring peace,’ that  ‘in seeking to encourage such positive investment in the Palestinian territories, Episcopalians give priority to investment in the institutions of the Episcopal Diocese of Jerusalem, which provide healthcare, education, and social services without discrimination on the basis of religion, political ideology, gender, socioeconomic standing, or national identity,’ and ‘that the work of the American Friends of the Episcopal Diocese of Jerusalem and the Good Friday Offering be commended to all Episcopalians as faithful vehicles for providing economic and other support to the Diocese of Jerusalem and its institutions.’  Finally, ‘as a component of this Church’s support for positive financial investment in the Palestinian territories, the General Convention urge the Economic Justice Loan Committee to consider a loan of at least $200,000 to strengthen the economic infrastructure of the Palestinian territories.’

The Episcopal Church’s Executive Council in its February 2013 resolution A&N008 affirmed and celebrated the ‘recommendation of the Executive Council Economic Justice Loan Committee to invest $500,000 in the Bank of Palestine in response to the recommendation of Resolution B019 of the 77th General Convention, the first such positive investment made by this Church in the economy of the Occupied Palestinian Territories,’ and urged ‘dioceses and other entities of this Church prayerfully to consider similar investments.’

We would differentiate between the important charitable work to maintain the Diocese of Jerusalem’s institutions through the AFEDJ and the GFO when compared to efforts to create an economic infrastructure for a future Palestinian State.

While the resolution proposed by the Episcopal Peace Fellowship’s Palestine Israel Network and passed by ten dioceses for General Convention’s consideration included the provision for a loan from the Economic Justice Loan Committee, reports from the World Bank and other research has caused us to reconsider whether this is a productive way to go.

Let’s start with the March 2012 and 2013 reports to the Ad Hoc Liaison Committee of the World Bank.

The March 2012 report states, ‘Ultimately sustainable economic growth and an end to the fiscal crisis will require unleashing of the Palestinian private sector’s potential.  This in turn necessitates a lifting of Israeli restrictions on access to land, water, a range of raw materials, and export markets.’  To provide a sense of balance, the report continues, ‘But it also requires that the Palestinian Authority improves the business environment and attracts needed investment through such measures as expanding land registration in the West Bank; reforming the current collection of laws governing business; and building its own capacity to regulate the economy and ensure competition.’  The requirements on Palestine seem a mockery when one considers that the West Bank looks like Swiss cheese with the areas controlled by the Palestinian Authority (PA) isolated from one another by the Israeli government-controlled military occupation in Area C of the West Bank, annexed East Jerusalem, and Gaza most of whose land border and all of its sea border are controlled by Israel.

The March 2013 report states, ‘Following robust GDP growth in recent years, economic activity significantly slowed in 2012.  This slowdown reflects in part the absence of further easing of Israeli restrictions, the withdrawal of fiscal stimulus due to a persistent shortfall in donor aid, and uncertainty created by the PA’s fiscal challenges.’  The report continues, ‘The Oslo Accords of 1993 anticipated an arrangement that would last for a five-year interim period during which a permanent agreement would be negotiated. They did not anticipate the lack of forward movement on the political process that has been experienced with its concomitant economic effects.  This so called status quo belies a process whereby the continuation of restrictions and the absence of real opportunities to open up the Palestinian economy are actually having a lasting negative impact on its overall competitiveness.’

Even before the AHLC March 2012 report came out, Palestinians Alaa Tartir, Sam Bahour and Samer Abdelnour called up an alternate vision in an Al Shabaka policy brief Defeating Dependency, Creating a Resistance Economy. In an earlier piece described in the introduction, Sam Bahour ‘exposed the charade played by both Western donors and the Palestinian Authority (PA) to cover up the occupied territory’s inexorable economic meltdown after decades of Israeli military occupation. Arguing that the combined donor-PA approach poses major obstacles to freedom and rights, Bahour concluded: “It’s time for a new economic model, one built on economic justice, social welfare, solidarity, and sustainability.”’ 

The Palestinian Authority, mostly under the impetus of the Prime Minister, Salam Fayyad, has worked hard to create a viable economy for a future state of Palestine, with the use of international donor money, including US tax dollars.   What is missing is a parallel negotiating track that would actually lead to an equally viable Palestinian State.  For all of Fayyad’s efforts, he has been left holding the bag as Israel has literally made the goal of Statehood less, not more, likely, through its continuing policies of Occupation, including the colonization of land upon which the Palestinians wish to build their State.  The sad conclusion is that positive investment is creating a stronger infrastructure for the Occupation, not for Statehood. 

The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) describes an occupying power’s responsibilities: ‘Occupation confers certain rights and obligations on the occupying power.

The duties of the occupying power include restoring and ensuring, as far as possible, public order and safety; providing the population with food and medical supplies; agreeing to relief schemes undertaken by other States or impartial humanitarian organizations if the population is inadequately supplied; maintaining medical facilities and services; ensuring public health and hygiene; and facilitating the work of educational institutions.’

Victor Kattan, program director of Al Shabaka, writes about the realities of donor aid, one being that since ‘the beginning of 2011, no fewer than 60 EU-funded [European Union] projects have been demolished while 110 others are currently at risk’.

PIN supports the important work of AFEDJ and the GFO, but charity alone will not bring about a just resolution where the two peoples of the Holy Land can live together as equals. For that to happen, the Church needs to embrace its baptismal promise to promote justice and peace.  And positive investment may feel good, but, at the end of the day, may be an instrument of oppression.  We advise caution. 

Where are you on this question?