The severe impact of the crisis on Palestinian society prompted many local and international organizations to deliver services for the needy.
According to UNSCO, during the last quarter of 2000 more than 32% of the Palestinian population in the Occupied Palestinian Territories (i.e. more than one million people) benefited from emergency aid: “Some 340’000 persons in the West Bank and 693’000 persons in Gaza received assistance from national and international agencies. About 42.5% of the registered refugee population in the Occupied Palestinian Territories received assistance from UNRWA”. (UNSCO 2001)1
In order of importance, the main types of emergency aid consisted of: food aid, one-off cash assistance, health insurance coverage and/or distribution of household items.
Although a number of services that were delivered between
October 2000 and the end of January 2001 were very effective in relieving
the suffering of the Palestinian population, many services were not perceived
as such by the vast majority of Palestinians. The increased efforts by
the various departments of the Palestinian Authority, for example, were
not necessarily considered as an extra effort. Furthermore, the provision
of health and education services were rarely stated as assistance provided
to the Palestinian public because, in the view of the authors of this report,
such services are taken for granted and their provision is looked upon
as a responsibility and as an obligation by the government towards the
public.
2.1 - Distribution of Assistance
While the assistance delivered during the first four months of the new Intifada was mostly emergency aid, one should put the donors’ actions into the local context.
As a study of the JMCC (1999) has pointed out, during the past decade, the planning initiatives and efforts of international donors have constantly tried to make the bridge between development programs and the peace process. A poll run by the JMCC in the spring of 1997 revealed considerable public disenchantment with the donors’ initiatives. Cynicism about foreign aid and its distribution seemed an important conclusion in the analysis of the survey, while the PNA’s performance was rated only slightly better. From the point of view of the authors of this report, this means – inter alia – that donors’ assistance during this new Intifada is intervening in a context of disillusionment, marked both by the progressive decline of momentum in the peace process and the absence of its promised dividends, and by a lack of trust in the “peace-brokers”.
Having said that, a large portion of the sampled population
stated that they did receive assistance in one form or another. As illustrated
in figure 14, below, 43% of the respondents stated that they received some
form of assistance. Of those respondents who said that they received assistance,
66% are refugees and 34% are non-refugees. In fact, as the sample of the
survey includes 45% refugees and 55% non-refugees, this means that 64%
of the refugee population surveyed in the poll has received assistance,
against 27% of non-refugees.
Figure 14 - Proportion of Palestinians receiving assistance (q23) in general by refugee status (q2)
The results in figure 15, below, indicate that assistance
heavily targeted refugee camps. Moreover, the results point out the almost
opposite situation between refugee camps and villages with regard to receipt
of assistance. Indeed, while three quarters of the respondents in the camps
said they received assistance, more than 75% of the respondents in the
villages stated that they did not receive any assistance.
Figure 15 - Assitance (q 23) by area (q 43)
The concentration of assistance to camps may be explained by two reasons. Firstly, the refugee camp population is certainly the most needy of assistance. Secondly, due to the “visibility” of UNRWA, many perceive it as the main source of assistance in refugee camps.
The results of the survey do not only indicate that refugee camp respondents received more assistance than city or village respondents, they also point to major differences between the West Bank and the Gaza Strip with respect to assistance distribution.
As specified in figure 16, below, the majority of Gaza’s non-refugee camp respondents received assistance, while the majority of West Bank and Jerusalem non-camp residents did not. Clearly, least assistance was distributed in Jerusalem.
This does not imply that foreign donors and/or local agencies
were less inclined to provide assistance in Jerusalem and the West Bank.
Indeed, when examining the provision of assistance in those areas it is
essential to keep in mind the realities on the ground, such as: the topography
and the size of the West Bank20; the difficulties of distributing
aid, especially in villages located in areas “B” and “C”, or villages close
to Israeli settlements; the difficulties created by the closure policies
with the numerous road-blocks and check-points of the Israeli army; the
long procedures of clearance and security checks at the international borders.
In addition, with regard to Jerusalem, despite the real needs of the Palestinian
population, international donors might shun from providing major assistance
in the eastern part of the Holy City in order not to further irritate the
Israeli authorities. Moreover, the capacity of the various Palestinian
private and public institutions in this respect is limited by their inability
to provide direct support to Jerusalem residents because of Israeli restrictions.
Figure 16 - Assistance (q23) by place of residence (q42 & q43)
In conclusion, a comparison between the results on distribution of assistance and the results presented in part one of this report, demonstrates that the assistance provided seems coherent with the needs, at least according to place of residence. As discussed earlier in the report, the crisis had a sharper impact in the West Bank’s and the Gaza Strip’s refugee camps in the following aspects:
- employment ;
- the number of the dependent people for one worker ;
- martyrs and people injured ;
- children.
2.2 - Type and value of assistance
The survey showed that of those respondents who confirmed that they received aid, the majority received food assistance followed by financial aid. As figure 17, below, illustrates, 72% of assistance provided was in the form of food and 24% in the form of financial assistance.
Figure 17 -Type of assistance during the first four months of Intifada (q24)
Figure 18 - Average value of assistance received by type (q24)
When respondents were asked to assess the value of the provided assistance, the average value of food came at a little less than 30 US$. Figure 18, above, provides a picture as to the perception of recipients with regard to the value of the assistance provided.
Surprisingly, many respondents have failed to mention
received benefits such as health care and education. Possibly, and as indicated
earlier, respondents perceived such assistance as an obligation by service
providers that should be delivered irrespectively of whether or not there
is an emergency situation. In any case, as will be discussed later, the
sampled population were generally satisfied with the delivery of health
and educational services.
Not unexpectedly, the United Nations Relief and Works
Agency for Palestine refugees (UNRWA) was identified as the main single
source of assistance, followed by the Palestinian Authority. Whilst it
is acknowledged that the efforts and services of the above organizations
are supported by various local and international organizations, it is safe
to conclude that most respondents know only the direct provider. Only few
have mentioned the efforts and assistance of non-government organizations,
or international organizations as shown in figure 19 below.
Figure 19 - Source of assistance (q24)
2.4 - Satisfaction with the provided assistance
The respondents were asked to affirm their level of satisfaction with assistance in two different manners. First, they were asked to state their level of satisfaction with assistance in general, and, second, they were requested to specify their level of satisfaction with assistance they themselves benefited from.
Regarding the level of satisfaction with assistance in general, respondents were relatively negative. As indicated in figure 20, of the respondents who stated that they received assistance, only 30% said that they were satisfied or very satisfied with the provided assistance. The remaining 70% of the respondents evaluated aid provision negatively.
When examining the question of satisfaction with assistance
in general according to different subgroups, there were no significant
differences in the responses to this question according to the refugee
status of the respondents, their gender or their age. However, a significant
difference in the evaluation of assistance in general was found depending
on the place of residence of the respondents. Almost 62% of the respondents
in Jerusalem said they were at least satisfied, compared to only 25% of
their colleagues in the West Bank agreeing. In the Gaza Strip, a mere 34%
of the respondents in refugee camps and 30% of non-camp respondents were
either very satisfied or satisfied with the general state of assistance
provision.
Figure 20 - Satisfaction with the assistance provided
Regarding the level of satisfaction with assistance respondents themselves benefited from, the evaluation became somewhat more positive. More specifically, and as illustrated in figure 20, above, 46% of the respondents who received food assistance were at least satisfied with it and 58% of the respondents who benefited from financial assistance were either satisfied or very satisfied.
Although the positive attitude towards financial assistance was expected, one could argue that the less positive evaluation of food assistance stems from the feeling that other forms of assistance are more appropriate and constitute a priority for the Palestinian public. Part three of this report will address this issue and the attitudes of the sampled population towards what kind of assistance is needed.
- UNSCO information is based on data available from the Palestinian Ministry of Social Affairs, the Palestinian Ministry of Supply, the UN World Food Program, UNRWA, and the NGO World Vision International.
- The West Bank is 14 times the size of the Gaza Strip.