New UN report is a warning to Israel

Document reveals hugely damaging effects Israel’s curbs have on all aspects of the Palestinian econo

The West Bank and Gaza Strip recorded small signs of economic growth in 2009. But Palestinian economic revival still depends on the lifting of all Israeli restrictions, according to the UN agency Unctad.

The annual Report on Assistance to the Palestinian People report, published today by Unctad -- the main UN body dealing with trade, investment and development issues -- argues that the Palestinian economy is still held back by the fallout from Israel's military operations in Gaza in 2008-2009, and by the costs of Israel's closure policy in the West Bank as well as its continued economic blockade of Gaza.

The Palestinian territories recorded an estimated 6.8 per cent increase in GDP in 2009 -- comprising 8.5 per cent in the West Bank, compared to just 1 per cent in Gaza.

"But this is by no means indicative of recovery," the Unctad report warns.

It said such growth spurts should be viewed cautiously in the context of the slow economic growth in previous years, and the continued isolation of the Palestinian economy from regional and global markets.

The past ten years have coincided with a 30 per cent decline in per-capita GDP, the agency noted. "The productive base has eroded, and Palestinians have shrinking access to land, economic and natural resources."

Dependent on external aid

Roughly four million Palestinians live in the Palestinian territories. There are 2.5 million in the West Bank and 1.5 million in Gaza, according to Palestinian figures. Some more recent estimates put Gaza's current population at 1.7 million. Annual population growth in Gaza is estimated at 3.3 per cent, and in the West Bank at 2.7 per cent.

Both economies are heavily dependent on outside aid, mainly from the west and Arab states.

In 2008, gross domestic product in the West Bank stood at US$3.7bn. In Gaza it was $1.11bn.

Annual per capita GDP in the West Bank is $1,718, compared to $774 for Gaza.

Unemployment is a "grave concern"

The economy has continued to perform well below potential, the Unctad report says:

The unemployment rate declined by 1.6 per cent but is still a grave concern, exceeding the pre-intifada level of 1999 by 9 per cent, with at least 30 per cent of the Palestinian workforce unemployed. Joblessness in Gaza exceeds the national average by 14 per cent.

The report calculates that, had the Gaza blockade been lifted and closures elsewhere in the Palestinian territories been relaxed, the economy should have been able to produce between 60,000 and 80,000 more jobs each year.

The Israeli closure policy in the West Bank, along with the war on Gaza and the continuing blockade, pose major obstacles to a sustainable rehabilitation of the Palestinian economy, in Unctad's view.

Meanwhile, problems with food security "remain widespread and are especially severe in Gaza, where they affect 60 per cent of the population", as well as 25 per cent of the population in the West Bank, the UN agency warns.

Economy would soar with peace -- Abbas adviser

Mohammad Mustafa, head of the Palestinian Authority's main investment fund, is optimistic that the Palestinian economy might grow by 20 per cent annually if there was peace with Israel, helping to wean the territories from dependence on international donors.

"If people see serious negotiations, we can improve the business environment and investment opportunity . . . If they see an agreement, the sky is the limit. We'll talk about 15 to 20 per cent growth easily," Mustafa said in an interview with the US financial news agency Bloomberg in Ramallah on 2 August.

The Israeli prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, has suggested that Palestinians should work towards an "economic peace" that would eventually lead to an overall peace treaty.

But the Palestinians' president, Mahmoud Abbas, has rejected a separate economic agreement, saying it would delay an overall settlement.

The Palestinian Authority minister of national economy, Hasan Abu Libda, concedes that the development of the Palestinian economy is dependent on donor countries, and its growth follows the political whims of the region.

In 2009 international donors provided some $1.35bn in budgetary support, accounting for 22 per cent of Palestinian GDP, and an additional $400m for development projects.

"The money received from donor countries is the oxygen for the Palestinian economy," Abu Libda told the Palestinian Ma'an Radio station on 1 August. "However, this money is contingent on the political process, so it in effect acts as a sword hanging over our heads."

His views were echoed by Nasser Abdelkarim, of Bir Zeit University's economics department.

"If for some reason foreign aid should suddenly stop or diminish, government spending would slump and the economy would simply go back to zero," Abdelkarim said in remarks quoted by the French news agency AFP in May this year.

Peter Feuilherade is a freelance writer focusing on Middle East and African media industry, defence and economic issues. In March 2010 he took early retirement from the BBC after more than two decades as a reporter, news editor and media analyst.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

The Prevent strategy needs a rethink, not a rebrand

A bad policy by any other name is still a bad policy.

Yesterday the Home Affairs Select Committee published its report on radicalization in the UK. While the focus of the coverage has been on its claim that social media companies like Facebook, Twitter and YouTube are “consciously failing” to combat the promotion of terrorism and extremism, it also reported on Prevent. The report rightly engages with criticism of Prevent, acknowledging how it has affected the Muslim community and calling for it to become more transparent:

“The concerns about Prevent amongst the communities most affected by it must be addressed. Otherwise it will continue to be viewed with suspicion by many, and by some as “toxic”… The government must be more transparent about what it is doing on the Prevent strategy, including by publicising its engagement activities, and providing updates on outcomes, through an easily accessible online portal.”

While this acknowledgement is good news, it is hard to see how real change will occur. As I have written previously, as Prevent has become more entrenched in British society, it has also become more secretive. For example, in August 2013, I lodged FOI requests to designated Prevent priority areas, asking for the most up-to-date Prevent funding information, including what projects received funding and details of any project engaging specifically with far-right extremism. I lodged almost identical requests between 2008 and 2009, all of which were successful. All but one of the 2013 requests were denied.

This denial is significant. Before the 2011 review, the Prevent strategy distributed money to help local authorities fight violent extremism and in doing so identified priority areas based solely on demographics. Any local authority with a Muslim population of at least five per cent was automatically given Prevent funding. The 2011 review pledged to end this. It further promised to expand Prevent to include far-right extremism and stop its use in community cohesion projects. Through these FOI requests I was trying to find out whether or not the 2011 pledges had been met. But with the blanket denial of information, I was left in the dark.

It is telling that the report’s concerns with Prevent are not new and have in fact been highlighted in several reports by the same Home Affairs Select Committee, as well as numerous reports by NGOs. But nothing has changed. In fact, the only change proposed by the report is to give Prevent a new name: Engage. But the problem was never the name. Prevent relies on the premise that terrorism and extremism are inherently connected with Islam, and until this is changed, it will continue to be at best counter-productive, and at worst, deeply discriminatory.

In his evidence to the committee, David Anderson, the independent ombudsman of terrorism legislation, has called for an independent review of the Prevent strategy. This would be a start. However, more is required. What is needed is a radical new approach to counter-terrorism and counter-extremism, one that targets all forms of extremism and that does not stigmatise or stereotype those affected.

Such an approach has been pioneered in the Danish town of Aarhus. Faced with increased numbers of youngsters leaving Aarhus for Syria, police officers made it clear that those who had travelled to Syria were welcome to come home, where they would receive help with going back to school, finding a place to live and whatever else was necessary for them to find their way back to Danish society.  Known as the ‘Aarhus model’, this approach focuses on inclusion, mentorship and non-criminalisation. It is the opposite of Prevent, which has from its very start framed British Muslims as a particularly deviant suspect community.

We need to change the narrative of counter-terrorism in the UK, but a narrative is not changed by a new title. Just as a rose by any other name would smell as sweet, a bad policy by any other name is still a bad policy. While the Home Affairs Select Committee concern about Prevent is welcomed, real action is needed. This will involve actually engaging with the Muslim community, listening to their concerns and not dismissing them as misunderstandings. It will require serious investigation of the damages caused by new Prevent statutory duty, something which the report does acknowledge as a concern.  Finally, real action on Prevent in particular, but extremism in general, will require developing a wide-ranging counter-extremism strategy that directly engages with far-right extremism. This has been notably absent from today’s report, even though far-right extremism is on the rise. After all, far-right extremists make up half of all counter-radicalization referrals in Yorkshire, and 30 per cent of the caseload in the east Midlands.

It will also require changing the way we think about those who are radicalized. The Aarhus model proves that such a change is possible. Radicalization is indeed a real problem, one imagines it will be even more so considering the country’s flagship counter-radicalization strategy remains problematic and ineffective. In the end, Prevent may be renamed a thousand times, but unless real effort is put in actually changing the strategy, it will remain toxic. 

Dr Maria Norris works at London School of Economics and Political Science. She tweets as @MariaWNorris.