Media coverage
EZEF — Protestant Centre for Development-Related Film Work · 2015
A detailed description of a German documentary by Sabrina Dittus (2015, 58 minutes) on the billions in European aid to the Palestinians and its failure to change conditions under occupation and blockade, with not one of the houses destroyed in 2014 rebuilt eight months later. Omar Shaban appears in the film to sum it up: the aid helped Gazans survive, but it has not really changed their lives.
A detailed description of a German documentary by Sabrina Dittus (2015, 58 minutes) on the billions in European aid to the Palestinians and its failure to change conditions under occupation and blockade, with not one of the houses destroyed in 2014 rebuilt eight months later. Omar Shaban appears in…
## Documentary film by Sabrina Dittus
Germany 2015, 58 minutes, voice-over
A field of rubble, donkey carts and horse-drawn carts on a dusty road, children and young people among the ruins of houses. The camera is positioned in the destroyed Shejayia neighborhood in Gaza City. The film shows failed development cooperation because the political framework for it is missing.
## 1. Shejayia in Gaza City I Peace process, Oslo I Accord 1993
5.4 billion dollars in reconstruction aid was promised to Gaza after the war in the summer of 2014. Eight months later, not a single one of the 18,000 destroyed houses has been rebuilt. There are barely six hours of electricity per day and 95% of the people have no access to clean drinking water. Two thirds of the population is under 25 years old. The Gaza Strip is the most densely populated area on earth, and for the Palestinians there is an overabundance of international aid organizations. Omar Shaban of PalThink for Strategic Studies sums it up: “The aid has helped us survive, but it has not really changed our lives.”
A map is shown that presents the occupied Palestinian territories: Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem. Since 1967, these have been under Israeli occupation. A quarter of the four million inhabitants live in poverty, despite the 25 billion US dollars in aid over the last 25 years. The largest donor is the EU. This information is accompanied by images of the hilly West Bank, the Wall, and occupation soldiers. Then comes the historical flashback to the handshake between PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat and Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and Bill Clinton’s hopeful words in September 1993 in Washington, DC, when the Oslo I Accord was signed. Both sides had recognized each other for the first time.
## 2. Ramallah, West Bank I Peace process: Oslo II Accord 1995
In 1994, the Palestinian Authority (PA) is established. The international community begins to invest in this state that has yet to be created. Its construction was supposed to take only a few years. That was a time of hope for the EU, says the former EU Special Representative for the Middle East Peace Process, Miguel Angel Moratinos.
But the Palestinians are worse off today than before Oslo, analyzes Tariq Dana of the Palestinian think tank Al-Shabaka. The Palestinian Authority is dependent on donor funds, and an independent state is further away than ever. Unemployment in Gaza stands at 43%, in the West Bank at 20%, the number of settlers is more than twice as high as before Oslo, and 700 kilometers of Wall have now been built. Tariq Dana holds the Oslo Accord primarily responsible for this, alongside the role of development cooperation. The film again shows a map illustrating how the Oslo II Accord divided the West Bank into Areas A, B, and C. The entire Area C, comprising over 60% of the West Bank’s land area, is under exclusive Israeli military administration. The plan was that all areas would be handed over to the Palestinians over the course of five years. International aid remained unchanged; today 80% of the Palestinian Authority’s budget comes from donor countries, above all the EU. Nevertheless, this budget shows a deficit. The Palestinian Authority’s Minister of Economy justifies this by saying that a development process under occupation is highly questionable, since the Palestinians ultimately have no control over their borders and over their resources.
## 3. Beitunia, goods checkpoint I World Bank I industrial zones
Beitunia is a checkpoint for the transport of goods between the West Bank and Israel. In the so-called “back-to-back” system, Palestinian trucks are unloaded and reloaded at the checkpoint. This security system has been in force since the 2nd Intifada in 2000. The camera follows the arrival of a truck carrying dairy products. All pallets are unloaded onto a ramp, soldiers slit open the plastic wrapping of the pallets. They inspect the goods and the truck with dogs. Then everything is loaded again, and the refrigeration in the truck is checked. At around 2:00 p.m., an Israeli truck arrives and takes over the goods for Jerusalem. If the back-to-back procedure takes longer, for example two days, the customer will no longer accept the goods because they have lost shelf life, the truck driver reports. Such measures lead to significantly higher costs for the Palestinian economy, says the World Bank. Donors provide relief for the economy with one billion US dollars per year. The World Bank does indeed see development opportunities for Palestine if these Israeli restrictions were lifted. In addition, in a study it highlights Area C, where important resources such as good agricultural land are located. If the Palestinians were allowed to use this area, 3.4 billion US dollars could be generated there. At least half of the support payments would thereby become unnecessary. “The key to Palestinian prosperity lies in removing Israeli restrictions,” as the World Bank puts it somewhat awkwardly.
Foreign donors, however, prefer to rely on industrial zones such as in Al Jalameh near Jenin, in Jericho, and Bethlehem. They believe that such export-oriented economic zones with Israeli and Palestinian investors and Palestinian workers will stimulate the economy. Many Palestinians, however, reject these industrial zones because the occupation is not being challenged.
## 4. Al Jalameh, industrial zone I Wall I groundwater
The Al Jalameh industrial zone was launched in the mid-1990s. It was supported by the Palestinian Authority and received a 14 million euro loan from the Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau (KfW) for its development. Israel determined the location and retained control over the electricity and water supply. The film footage shows mainly wasteland, cleared land, farmland, and a power plant. In 2014, the Germans handed the project over to Turkey. The Minister of Economy of the Palestinian Authority does not believe that these industrial zones will ever function, because Israel controls the export of products from the West Bank. Other critics are also given a voice in the film. The land is the basis of life for the farmers of the region. 80% of the population lives from agriculture. The industrial zone is also destroying Palestine’s capacity for self-sufficiency. Food has to be procured from Israel. Al Jalameh had already lost farmland through the construction of the Wall. This further impedes the export of agricultural products. Now, residents fear, they are also to be turned into cheap industrial workers.
“Ramallah gets more rain than London, Heathrow; the only really dry area is the Jordan Rift Valley,” says the German hydrologist Clemens Messerschmidt. Much of the winter water seeps into the groundwater. Water availability in the West Bank is exceptionally high.
## 5. Ein Samia/West Bank I Wellfield I Water Supply
The water shortage in Palestine is a “politically induced dehydration.” Under the occupation, Palestinians have no possibility of increasing their water use. In the Oslo II Agreement, they were allocated a specific quantity of water: the consumption level at the time of 118 million cubic meters. A further 100 million was to be developed. Today, Palestinians have only 90 million cubic meters of water left at their disposal. To this day, Germany is the largest donor in the water sector. In 2014, there were 73 liters per person per day in the West Bank, whereas the WHO considers 100 liters to be the standard. What is increasing are purchases from the Israeli water supplier Mekorot, making Palestinians ever more dependent on the Israeli water supply.
## 6. Jiftlik/Jordan Valley I Water Emergency
Viewers get to know the daily life of a family in the Jordan Valley. Here, people have only 20 liters of water per day at their disposal, provided by the Israeli water supplier Mekorot. A woman reports that once a day, water runs into her tank for one hour. From there, the water is pumped up onto the roof of the house. The film shows how the water runs out before the time is up. With the failure of Oslo II, control over water remains in Israeli hands. Every well construction project must be approved by the Israeli Civil Administration. But it permits no well drilling whatsoever in the western aquifer, the main reservoir. Germany continues to be active in the water sector through the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ). The GIZ writes that it has helped to “strongly improve the performance of water conditions.” As local hydrologists report, it has repaired pipelines in villages and in some cases also laid new ones. Messerschmidt accuses the German planners of pursuing projects in which the issue of “access to water” does not appear at all. Because then they would ultimately have to confront the Israeli authorities, and that is what they avoid. In a publication, the GIZ advertises with the woman from Jiftlik, to whom the GIZ promised a water tank. But it never arrived, the woman says. “One grows tired of living this life,” she says in view of the water emergency in the kitchen and bathroom.
With every improvement in the water supply, its quantity would also have to be increased. But, says Messerschmidt: “The water flows in streams around Jiftlik to the illegal settlements.” Yet the Federal Government or the EU do not protest, but instead adapt to the status quo.
One sees a stream fed by a spring that the residents of the village and other villages are no longer allowed to use. A thick water pipe channels this water to an Israeli settlement. Much frustration with the various aid organizations is visible. In the Jordan Valley there is not a single office of an aid organization, complains the local Jordan Valley Solidarity Committee, which works against the displacement of Palestinians from the Jordan Valley.
## 7. Ramallah/West Bank I Refusal of German Donors to Comment
Ramallah’s cityscape is modern: five-star hotels, sushi restaurants, bars. Not only foreigners but also the Palestinian elite benefit from the aid money. But 50–60% of the funds often flow back to the donor countries. The GIZ in Palestine has an annual budget of 240 million euros. The GIZ has no time for the filmmaker. The interview that had been arranged over the course of a year was canceled at short notice. The situation is no better with the other German institutions. From the outset, the KfW was unavailable, as was the German Representative Office in Ramallah. Many Palestinians are by now angry with the donors and want their immediate withdrawal, but that would be a real problem, says Dana—because of the now extensive dependence on international donors.
## 8. East Jerusalem, UNRWA warehouse I Food Aid
UNRWA, the UN relief agency for Palestinian refugees, provided 80,000 people with food in 2000; today the number is 800,000. In UNRWA’s view, things are getting ever worse: three wars in Gaza and the hardening of the occupation. UNRWA is paying the price for the political failure of the international community.
The growing gap between aid and politics, 20 years after the Oslo process, is making work for a two-state solution nearly impossible, according to the German non-governmental organization medico international. Israeli settlements, military zones, excavation sites, etc. already occupy 43% of the West Bank and are no longer accessible to Palestinians. Israeli politicians are already talking about annexing the Area C territories.
## 9. South Hebron Hills I House and infrastructure demolitions
Medico international is active in unrecognized Palestinian communities in South Hebron, which therefore have no access to water and electricity. They also receive no building permits for a stable or a tent. It is obvious, they say, that the Israelis have in recent decades tried to drive the civilian population out of Area C into Areas A and B. If one supports a two-state solution, one must support these people so that they can remain. A local solar initiative is building wind turbines for this vulnerable population. It should really be the Israelis’ responsibility to ensure humane living conditions for the people. Instead, they even obstruct the work of aid organizations.
Like the tents and stables, the solar panels installed by medico international are also subject to a demolition order or the prior stage, a stop-work order. “We had to notify our donor, the Federal Foreign Office,” the medico officer says in the film. “They then notified COGAT, the Israeli military administration. Germany has for two years relied on dialogue with COGAT; it has stagnated, and no order has been withdrawn.” But continued construction is not really possible either. Medico international therefore withdrew from the project with a heavy heart, although the people there needed it. “You cannot create a state through development projects without at the same time creating the political framework conditions.” At medico international they are convinced that Israel must be moved to end the occupation.
In Palestine, people mock the EU by saying it is a donor but not a political actor. John Gatt-Rutter, EU Representative for the West Bank and Gaza, certainly sees a political objective on the part of the EU: “We would not have invested all this money were it not for the two-state solution. We are now trying to translate our position into action. We now want to play this role from within.” This includes ensuring that EU research funds no longer flow into settlements and that settlement products must be labeled. The EU is pursuing an infrastructure master plan for 100 communities in Area C. The EU no longer wants to tolerate the destruction of EU projects. His predecessor Moratinos adds: “We cannot keep saying, yes, we want two states, and then do nothing for the second state.”
## 10. Gaza, UNRWA school, refugee shelter I EU foreign policy
The EU High Representative Mogherini made her first foreign trip to Tel Aviv, Gaza, and Ramallah. The EU must become an actor, she said. The only way to truly help Gaza is a Palestinian state. 135 states have already recognized this State of Palestine, including Sweden, as the first EU country. The European Parliament qualified its resolution on recognizing Palestine. This is only to happen after peace negotiations have taken place first. This angers the veteran EU politician Moratinos: “Why does the EU leave this to a process that never comes?” And the current EU representative in the West Bank paints a bleak future: “We are moving dangerously close to a confrontation. Things may become very dangerous.”
Appreciation and criticism
It is a very successful, understated, and informative film that very effectively presents its main theme: showing the limits of development aid in Palestine in the absence of political prospects. It also conveys the results of the Oslo process as well as EU policy toward Palestine. The latter, like German policy, avoids entering into conflicts with the Israeli government over its violations of human rights and international law. The film motivates viewers to conduct further research of their own, for example to find out which projects the EU and the German federal government have supported so far.
It becomes clear that the structure of the occupation, or the occupying power itself, is directly responsible for numerous restrictions in Palestine. This view of Israel as an occupying power may lead to the accusation of one-sidedness. A text by Rupert Neudeck (further below) shows how this can be handled. Anyone who cannot bear this, or for whom this appears too risky because, for example, the public pressure on him/her is too great, should immediately plan another event in which the Israeli perspective is at the center (for example the NDR film “The Voice of Peace” about an Israeli peace initiative). But beware: any comparison is flawed! The occupation is a unilateral measure, and this is an asymmetric conflict. Moreover, Israel is not a developing country.
The film does not take up all narrative threads. Quite rightly, it concentrates on what is essential for the story. For example, it mentions that occupied Palestine consists of Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem, but East Jerusalem is not discussed further. Since it has been annexed by Israel in violation of international law, its status differs once again from the other occupied territories. The water issue could also be presented in more detail, since since Oslo there has still been the Joint Water Committee (Israeli/Palestinian). In the end, however, it amounts to the same thing, as the film also reports.
Palestinians often feel as though they are being overrun by foreign NGOs. Thus there is a statement in the film that Palestine probably has the largest number of NGOs. This would be difficult to prove, since other hot spots around the world also develop an attraction for NGOs (for example after the tsunami).
A radical critique of development aid for Palestine appears only on the margins. Because of the occupation, Palestine is indeed a special case of development cooperation. For under international law, an occupying power has obligations. It must ensure the welfare and existence of the occupied population. One could therefore argue that by spending so much money on Palestinians, the EU relieves the occupying power of its obligations. This point is touched upon in passing in a film interview.
27 July 2016: EU protests against Israel’s destruction of EU projects
According to a media report in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, the EU Ambassador to Israel, Lars Faaborg-Andersen, sharply criticized Israeli house demolitions in Area C of the West Bank. Of 2,000 building applications in Area C between 2009 and 2013, only 44 buildings had been approved, he said. Only 30% of Area C was still in private Palestinian ownership. Nevertheless, the owners were not being given permission to develop their land.
In the first half of 2016 alone, the Israeli military had destroyed 91 EU structures. That was more than in the whole of 2015. Since 2009, 170 schools, community buildings, etc., built with EU aid funds had been destroyed by the Israeli military. In January, Aviva Bar-Ilan, who heads the department for European organizations in the Israeli Foreign Ministry, had reported that the EU was considering holding Israel liable for the destruction of EU projects. Bar-Ilan’s response: “Illegal construction deserves demolition; Israel does not accept the EU’s interpretation of humanitarian aid.”
(Details from the article “EU Slams Israel's Destruction of Palestinian Homes in West Bank's Area C,” in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz of 27 July 2016)
ONE-SIDED in favor of the rights and lives of the Palestinians. Yes, what else?
Contribution by Rupert Neudeck (1939–2016) on 24 February 2013 in response to the accusation that he had been ONE-SIDED in his lecture in Bad Honnef on 22 February 2013.
That my lecture was one-sided is correct. I place myself entirely on the side of law and life. I called for the preservation of the State of Israel, which is in the process of destroying itself.
If the State of Israel wants to remain a predominantly Jewish state, it is high time to allow the second state, Palestine, to come into being sooner rather than later.
Israel believes it still has decades to decide whether it still wants it.
That is cruelly false.
We Germans are more obliged than any other people on earth, after the Holocaust for which we bear responsibility, to be one-sided in favor of human rights, in favor of the life of all peoples.
I profess this one-sidedness wherever I go.
Therefore, the accusation that I was one-sided in my lecture is absolutely correct.
I am pleased by this judgment, because that is exactly what I wanted to achieve: that everyone should leave the hall and say: At last we have heard a completely one-sided appeal in favor of human rights, in favor of the rights of Jews in Israel,
in favor of the rights of Palestinians in Israel,
in favor of the rights of Palestinians in the West Bank,
in favor of the rights of Palestinians in the completely overcrowded Gaza Strip,
in favor of the rights of Palestinians in Israel’s administrative detention,
in favor of the last breaths of Samir Issawi,
in favor of Palestinians harassed by settlers,
in favor of Palestinians attacked by the Hilltop Youth,
in favor of Palestinians who must continue to live in an occupied land.
The impression that I was ONE-SIDED in my lecture is absolutely correct.
One-sided like the “Rabbis for Peace,”
one-sided like the “Physicians for Human Rights,”
one-sided like the Israeli human rights organization B’Tselem,
one-sided like the women of Machsom Watch,
one-sided like Uri Avnery,
one-sided like Amira Hass,
one-sided like statements by Martin Buber, who always taught us:
Never forget the rights of the respective others, never forget the rights of your own neighbors.
(Bibliographical note: Rupert Neudeck, *Ich will nicht mehr schweigen -Über Recht und Gerechtigkeit in Palästina*, Melzer Verlag, Neu-Isenburg 2005)
The director Sabrina Dittus
Sabrina Dittus studied German language and literature and philosophy, and earned a doctorate in philosophy. In 2001, by her own assessment as a career changer, she moved into the media field and in 2005 founded her own production company. She works freelance as a filmmaker, author, and lecturer (including at the Berlin University of the Arts and the Weißensee Academy of Art). Her films deal with cultural, philosophical, or socio-political topics. She is currently working on a film with the working title “The New Gaza Monologues.”
Films:
2013 Urban Prayers. Reinventing Religion in the City
2014 Explorers of the Mind. The Unknown World of Lucid Dreaming
2015 Billions for Stagnation.
Didactic notes
Target groups: school: from upper secondary level; subjects: politics, geography, ethics, religion; extracurricular educational work, adult education
Recommended age: 16 and above
Topics: Middle East conflict, Palestine, development cooperation, German and EU foreign policy toward Palestine, peace process, everyday life in Palestine
Suggestions for the film discussion
Questions arising from the film after questions of comprehension have been clarified:
What actually became of the peace process between Israelis and Palestinians?
Who benefits from development cooperation in Palestine?
How could an end to the occupation come about?
How could a two-state solution come about?
What role do Germany and the EU play?
After the screening of the film, there should in any case be an opportunity to ask follow-up questions. If the moderator does not themselves have the relevant background knowledge, someone should be invited who is able to provide information. For example, a person from the World Council of Churches’ EAPPI program is recommended. More than 50 people from Germany have by now completed this three-month human rights service in Palestine and Israel (contact via: www.eappi-netzwerk.de).
The film, shown publicly, is also suitable as an introduction to a controversial discussion, for example with an EU politician or a GIZ representative and someone who advocates for the rights of Palestinians.
Documents, links, and maps relating to the film
Dossier on the film; author: Sabrina Dittus
http://info.arte.tv/de/geld-statt-politik-die-bittere-bilanz-nach-22-jahre-oslo-friedensprozess
Document of the Oslo I Agreement (German): http://palaestina.org/fileadmin/Daten/Dokumente/Abkommen/Friedensprozess/prinzipienerklaerung.pdf
Document of the Oslo II Agreement (English only): http://palaestina.org/fileadmin/Daten/Dokumente/Abkommen/Friedensprozess/interimsabkommen.pdf
20 lost years, Israel/Palestine: The unfulfilled hopes of the Oslo Accords: https://www.medico.de/20-verlorene-jahre-14638/
Report of the UN Human Rights Council on the 2014 Gaza War (English…
Text © EZEF — Protestant Centre for Development-Related Film Work — archived here with attribution to the source. — Machine translation for archival reference. — Original source