My story with the donors ( 1-2

• 26 تشرين أول 2017
• مقابلة خاصة

 by ; Walid Salem

Thirty years ago, when I was still accused to be a leader in the Popular Front for Liberation of Palestine( PFLP), I wrote a study about funding, suggesting that we should not accept any funding that is not directed to the development of our economic productivity. The study called for the development of self reliance, and for the rejection of any international funding that will conducted to coordination with the Israeli Civil Administration( Salem, May 1987, pp. 72-76).

At that time, I was a militant young of 30 years old. Today  ( Another Thirty years after) I feel that my 1987 message is still generally valid, while there are other components that should be added to it, as it will be explained in this series of stories.

At that time, we were better off as   Palestinians without that “ invasion by aid”. Voluntary work was conducted with sincere and good spirit,we were also depending on ourselves. Besides  that the funding resources which were mainly Arab and Islamic were directed to support our productive base such as small manufacturing ( with less to agriculture unfortunately). As well this support was directed to support our steadfastness( Sumud) by the funding to projects such as housing projects.The Arab financial support we enjoyed was combined with actions taken by solidarity movements in the world who were providing us with political support that we badly needed. At that time the pubic/ committed/ critical/ organic( Said, Gramsci, Banda, Habermas, and Sartre) intellectuals and leaders were the models that poeope follow.

After 1993 Oslo, a new language of “ post conflict”. emerged, and the language of liberation/ emancipation/ non violent resistance was replaced by the language of “ Peacebuilding” and “ Conflict resolution. Accordingly the public/critical intellectuals left their place to new class of “technical experts” in all levels. I admit that I got convinced at the beginning  that Oslo will give us a state, then I found myself involved heartedly and enthusiastically with the new post conflict agenda. I made my self a “trainer” of Democracy, strategic planning, and policy making for more than thirty thousand Palestinians, also I ran tens of civil society and peacebuiding projects.

Today, I declare that  this path was/ and is wrong. I call upon all my people to shift from it. The reasons are manifold:

First: The assumption and the starting point of the emergence of a post conflict situation situation that requires state building, capacity builiding programs and peacebuilding ones is fully wrong. We are still under occupation which also moving to annexation, and the expansion of the settler colonial projects on the expense of our people.

Second: The move of the international community from the 1950’s to 1980’s solidarity agenda with our people to a new partnership agenda starting from the 1990’s was a fatal mistake. Partnership was understood first as partnerships in projects only, and stop with the end of these projects( Usually the stop to be made by the donor according to his changing agenda and his unilateral evaluation of the project as well). Second these partnerships will be in projects that take place in our country, therefore the donor own the project in my county with me which deviates with the principles of local ownership. Third: The donor will impose his own financial and administrative guidelines( and more importantly his theories of change). Fourth: With that happening the local organizations loose their visionary roles, and become scribes who spent most of their times in micro issues such as writing funding proposals and reports, and responding to donors inquiries, in the expense of working with their people and take their commitments towards the emerging developments in their environment.“Modern slavery”  is just a good name of this newly invented other  “ neo- colonial tool” of control. Fifth: Since money is involved, these projects became a source of life for thousands of international and Israeli organizations and experts( consultants, evaluators and others) who take big parts of the money that is supposed to be allocated to the Palestinian people.

Yes, then if we want to go back as Palestinians to our emancipatory agenda, and to our nonviolent comprehensive struggle we should break this cycle of funding  that just  helped sustaining the Israeli occupation, by transforming us to bearucrats acting in projects and getting salarries and benifets on the expense of volunteerism and its spirit. As such our individual personalities were” Personified” by becoming characters  who act along imposed guidelines and procedures rather than speaking of ourselves. “Staying within” becomes the case to many rather than “ Speaking out” of what we believe( Malki, 2006, p.13). Such a “ Personification” created also a “ thingification process” ( Aime  Cesaire), in which the donor will deal with you as being a technical thing, and as apolitical and ahistorical object , who will be rewarded and punished( by the donor) according to the quality of your reporting and proposals  ( of course on the basis of their standards to reporting). This all regardless of all your previous history and experience that do not count. 

As a Palestinian Sate Authority we need to strugggle back to solidarity agenda for political and financial support that will require the donors to report to us about what they are doing for us. 

As Palestinian individuals, we need protection from the authoritarian guidelines of control imposed by the donors that fits also with stable situations rather than a one of permenant turmoil like ours, and we need to rebuild solidarity civil society networks with an agreed upon agenda for non violent struggle locally and internationally. This agenda will be the subject of the next story.