Aid... from a human right to a tool of blackmail

International aid to the Palestinians has never been a purely technical measure or a neutral humanitarian response. Rather, it has been tied to political balances or power struggles. Even if it appears to be economic or service-based support, it often conceals conditions that undermine the very essence of Palestinian decision-making independence. With the continuation of the occupation, the deepening division, the erosion of the political horizon, and the raging war on Gaza, aid has transformed from a means of support to a tool of control and subjugation, and even a weapon brandished against the Palestinians.

Palestinians, who for decades had been blessed with freedom, return, and a state, joined the revolution, sacrificing their lives and years for the sake of their dream. They later discovered that what was presented to them as a "national project" was merely a facade to enable projects and investments by individuals who bore the label of "nationalists." These projects were later rebranded as a "national project," while the true essence of liberation and popular representation was lost.

The fundamental shift actually began after Oslo, when aid to the nascent Palestinian Authority was linked to its commitment to the negotiating process, even if it was for the purpose of perpetuating "negotiations for the sake of negotiation," or consolidating the status of "no solution," and conferring de facto legitimacy on the continuation of the occupation.

After the Palestinian Authority was formally granted the status of an entity with political and administrative jurisdiction, it was forced - or so it was promoted - to coordinate with the occupation in the most minute details of Palestinians' lives, within an equation that did not end the occupation, but rather established it as a security official responsible for their lives, and an administrative partner in its daily details. This was the beginning of emptying the Authority of its sovereign dimension, and aid of its legal dimension, in order to reshape the political structure according to the logic of control, not liberation. Development disappeared, and in its place came a fragile economic model based on dependency, not production, that could not withstand any shock, even a passing one, and was completely dependent, without the intrinsic ability to disengage or stand alone. This made the Palestinians pay the price of the connection, as well as the attempts at disengagement. Consequently, the support was not aimed at empowerment, but rather as an anesthetic needle, or an attempt to beautify the occupation's face, making it acceptable, controlling the Palestinians so that they would "voluntarily" line up within the system of control, without direct cost to the occupation.

The parties involved in the aid system are diverse, each with its own private and public agenda. The United States, previously the largest "donor," has suspended its aid more than once as political retribution. Despite adopting a more "balanced" discourse, the Europeans' funding is tied to technical conditions that have political applications, such as curricula or expenditure oversight mechanisms. Conversely, Arab contributions have gradually declined amid regional shifts, leaving the Palestinians defenseless against pressure from Western donors.

The irony is that aid designed to support the Palestinians' steadfastness and help them realize their national rights has become a tool for controlling collective behavior, directing political decisions, and perpetuating geographic and institutional divisions. It is subject to Israeli security conditions, making it a funding tool to ensure the PA remains within a defined political framework.

Politicization has not been limited to political decisions, but has also affected the very fabric of society. Large sectors have become dependent on external jobs or projects, deepening the fragility of the economy and making any threat to halt funding an effective tool for pressure. This has strengthened the influence of donor bureaucracies and NGOs at the expense of official and civil society institutions.

Politicization reached its peak in Gaza during the aggression, when aid was transformed from a lifeline into a mass death trap, claiming the lives of hundreds as they tried to access it. It was completely emptied of its humanitarian dimension, and was presented as bait or an optical illusion, rather than as an international moral response. In other words, it became a symbol of the collapse of the global humanitarian system and its complicity through silence or impotence in the face of the crimes of starvation and genocide.

In this context, a fateful question arises: Are Palestinians able to redefine their relationship with international aid and free it from the shackles of political dependency? Or is the alternative scenario one of continued occupation, division, and aggression, rendering "humanitarian blackmail" a permanent reality, forcing them to choose between hunger and submission?