7 Conclusion
159. We support Israel's right to defend itself against
terrorist acts. But Israel's response to the security threat,
through its policy of closures, has not only sent the Palestinian
economy into reverse, it has stopped any semblance of normal life
for Palestinians living in the OPTs. The sense of despair and
anger among all sections of Palestinian society is palpable. Travelling
around the West Bank and watching people's experience at checkpoints
convinced us that at least some of the security measures had little
to do with effective security and more to do with a wish simply
to make life difficult. This impression was further borne out
when we heard senior GOI sources refer to their policy of increasing
the "misery index" of the population in order to put
pressure on the PA to make concessions.
160. Checkpoints can be removed overnight, but the
building of the security fence inside the West Bank carries with
it all the implications of the de facto imposition of a
new border. Those Palestinians whose homes are outside the fence
will find that their lives are made so difficult that they have
no alternative but to relocate behind the fence. We can understand
the fear expressed by Palestinians and international agencies
that the Israelis have another motive at work here—a wish
to create the ultimate "fact on the ground" by reducing
the West Bank to a series of Bantustans. If so, then the barrier/fence
is a deliberate attempt to weaken PA's negotiating position when
final settlement negotiations take place.
161. In such a situation, discussion of a two state
solution almost takes on the feeling of living in a parallel universe.
But there is a growing awareness in Israel that the two state
solution has to be grasped while it is still on offer. It is in
Israel's interest to have a prosperous and stable Palestinian
state as a neighbour and not another failed state which spawns
terrorism. The PA is the sole representative of the Palestinian
people and as such needs to be supported in its reforms and helped
to become a credible partner, rather than being undermined by
Israel.
162. The Palestinians have no means of redress concerning
the conditions in which they are forced to live. Nor is there
any coherent, high level monitoring of the extent to which the
occupation is humane, or of the extent to which it is carried
out in accordance with international law. Nor is there a system
that makes sure pressure is put on Israel when these breaches
are reported. This is why we call for a stronger role for UNSCO
in ensuring that that the IDF honours and follows international
law as set out in the Geneva Conventions and elsewhere.
163. The Palestinians are one of the most heavily-aided
populations in the world. And yet donor assistance is plainly
unable to solve the problems in the OPT or improve living conditions.
Easing the closure restrictions and eventually ending the occupation
are the only way to do this. So we are faced with the question:
what are the NGOs and international donors doing in the OPT? DFID's
objectives in the OPT are long-term support to the peace process
and laying the foundations for a future Palestinian state, whilst
working to alleviate poverty in the short term. Development actors
are managing to carry out development work. But the difficult
operating environment has altered the shape of development assistance.
There is a reluctance to provide physical infrastructure only
to have it destroyed by the IDF—so human capacity building
is favoured instead. DFID has translated its objectives into a
development strategy through which the institutions of a Palestinian
state are being developed and strengthened. The external support
that donors have provided to the PA has prevented its collapse.
PA corruption and mismanagement are being brought under control
in a process bound up with donor support
164. Donors face a dilemma: are they doing little
more than support the Israeli occupation by providing assistance
which it is the occupier's responsibility to provide? We do not
believe that donors should withdraw. To do so could lead to an
even greater humanitarian crisis and would throw away the institutional
development that has occurred since Oslo. What is needed is advocacy
to increase humanitarian access. The ICRC is pulling out because
it feels it is prevented from doing its work by the Israeli military
authorities. If an increased role in advocacy and mechanisms to
apply the humanitarian provisions of the Geneva Conventions can
create better access for these agencies, then they will be able
to remain to carry out their work.
165. In our report we have stressed the need for
donors, not only to be co-ordinated in their approach so as to
avoid duplication, but to be harmonised in their approach as well.
A more coherent development approach, led by the Palestinians
themselves, is achievable. We believe that DFID, given its experience
in the region, is well placed to create workable structures of
donor harmonisation.
| 
