International Aid: Between Resilience and Flexibility!

The concept of international aid in Palestine has always been associated with flexibility, in the context of development approaches. When analyzing these concepts, it becomes clear that they are not as neutral as they may seem at first glance. This is an attempt to criticize both the concept of international aid and its mechanisms on the one hand, and the concept of flexibility within the framework of development on the other hand, with a focus on the Palestinian context as an analytical perspective.

International aid emerged after World War II, particularly with the launch of the Marshall Plan, as part of a global system that supported the economic and political dominance of donor countries. In the current context, “aid” to countries in the South often comes under the guise of “development,” but it reflects a long history of colonialism and resource depletion. For decades, countries in the North have plundered the resources of countries in the South, creating a huge economic gap. What is provided today represents only a small fraction of what was plundered. Most of it is conditional on the implementation of economic policies that reinforce political and economic dependency, such as privatizing vital sectors and opening markets to transnational corporations. International lending institutions also weaken the sovereignty of recipient countries by imposing “economic reform” programs.

In the Palestinian context, in many cases, aid becomes a tool for achieving political goals. We have seen how aid has been used to pressure Palestinians to adhere to political agendas that do not achieve justice in essence, even if they appear different on the surface. Instead of confronting the occupation as the main cause of Palestinian suffering, it focuses on alleviating its symptoms, such as unemployment, poverty, and control over resources, which leads to “beautifying” the current situation and making it “acceptable” or tolerable. Steadfastness and resilience are portrayed as two sides of the same coin, to the point that the latter has invaded official discourse, and today we can observe its widespread use in official literature, as is the case in national and international strategies and plans.

When talking about the agricultural sector as one of the most important economic sectors, and the most affected by the occupation and its policies, when talking about the projects presented to farmers in areas classified as “C”, for example, there is a difference between presenting these projects from the perspective of steadfastness or flexibility.

From a steadfastness perspective, these projects mean that they have a resistant character; they support farmers with resources and tools that enable them to cultivate their lands, even under the constant threat of demolition or confiscation, or to rehabilitate the destroyed lands, in addition to digging wells to bypass the occupation’s restrictions on water resources, and to keep the land in use and cultivated, which prevents it from being declared “abandoned lands,” which is used as a justification for confiscating them in many cases. Thus, the developmental act becomes a national, resistant dimension, and a means to preserve the Palestinian presence and affirm the connection to the land as a source of identity and belonging.

When viewed from a flexibility perspective, this means adapting to the reality of the occupation and its policies, and mitigating its impact on the farmer, without directly confronting it. It seeks to find “practical” solutions to adapt to a new reality, such as providing modern or “smart” irrigation systems that consume less water, instead of pressuring to collect water rights, or increasing productivity from the remaining or “limited” resources, to reduce dependence on resources that the occupation prevents access to, or “helping” the farmer to develop his business within the remaining areas of land without seeking to expand the agricultural area. Similarly, in other sectors, “improving” the conditions of the residents of these areas, to avoid direct confrontation with the occupation, which “exempts” donors from their historical and current responsibility, which should be directed towards addressing the roots of the problem, the occupation, and works to consolidate the status quo instead of changing it, which makes the “developmental” action excessively focused on individuals instead of groups, and pushes them to “adapt” to crises as an alternative to changing the “new” reality.

If we want to redefine aid, it must be viewed as part of a historical responsibility resulting from a long colonial era, accompanied by the plunder of resources, not as a charitable act, and as part of the process of compensating countries and peoples that were weakened and crushed, which requires restructuring this system in a way that opens the door for these countries and societies to catch up with the development bandwagon. The same applies to the concept of resilience, which must include the ability to resist the root causes of crises, and enhance collective action and solidarity as a means of building liberating resilience, combining the concept of liberation from political, economic and social restrictions, and enhancing the ability of societies to challenge and overcome these conditions, and thus, moving beyond the idea of survival to liberation from the oppressive structures that create these challenges, and making it qualified to be a synonym for steadfastness in its broader and comprehensive dimension.