Donor contributions to workshops, conferences and programmes that promote Palestinian national interests are receding. Sari Hanafi* asks why Many conferences have been held in the past few years, in both the Palestinian territories and abroad, concerning the situation of Palestinian refugees. Specialists from donor communities, international organisations and others used to call such events "refugee business". This does not reduce the importance of the topic at a time when Israel and Western countries are trying to eliminate it from the agenda of negotiations. This development comes at a time when the Palestinians are in dire need of preparing their case, not only concerning the legal aspects of the right of return and its practical modalities, but also the restitution and compensation of all Palestinian refugees. The refugee issue is also salient because the refugees themselves are actors of their own fate and not just "victims", resisting with dignity the Israeli occupation and harsh living conditions in host countries. Within this context, Al-Quds University in Jerusalem organised the International Conference on Palestinian Refugees: Conditions and Recent Developments, held on 25-26 November 2006. An impressive steering committee was set up, composed of lawyers as well as social and political scientists affiliated to both Palestinian and international universities. The conference turned out to be a magisterial event mobilising 30 participants coming not only from the West Bank but also Lebanon, Jordan, Canada, and the UK. These comprised scholars as well as experts from UNRWA (the UN Relief and Works Agency) and other international organisations, activists, and politicians dealing with the refugee issue. The public was also included. Around 300 students and refugee community leaders were actively present in the event. It is extremely rare to find such a large public presence in an event organised by research centres and NGOs. Palestinians were previously accustomed to workshop gatherings, where only avery scrupulously "selected" public of 10 to a maximum of 30, usually the same persons in each forum, are chosen to take part. These are the representatives of what we may call a "globalised elite". The conference was based on the local means of the Al-Quds University. The latter provided the funding needed for the conference's convening, when the Konrad-Adenauer Stiftung, a German foundation affiliated with the Christian Democratic Party (which is currently in power), withdrew its funding, five weeks before the event. A sudden request from this foundation to Al-Quds University to postpone the event came, without clear reason or argument. It was the second time the donor requested a delay -- the initial date of the conference was to be in September. While for Germans punctuality is an asset, it seems that their partners in receiving countries ought to follow a different philosophy, something that reminds us of the colonial practices described by Frantz Fanon concerning French law ,and the state of exception France claimed in Algeria. Those familiar with the donor jargon knew that "postponing" is a polite and diplomatic way of cancelling a project. Requesting deferral of an international conference one week before it takes place is tantamount to a lack of respect and responsibility. In what other projects has this foundation engaged with Palestinian "receivers" or "partners"? One can browse the foundation's website. Under the theme of civic education, many projects are being undertaken to "promote democracy", though one hazards to guess that the preferred outcome is a "docile democracy", not one that elevates Hamas to power. Does the funding profile of Konrad-Adenauer Stiftung aim at the demobilisation, de-radicalisation and de-politicisation of their "partners" and the society of their intervention? Scholars are used to distinguishing between international organisations and local representatives of donor agencies, which are often sensitive to the plight of the colonised or oppressed, and officials of states to whom such organisations and agencies belong. Since 11 September 2001, the boundaries between these two constituencies have blurred, the grey zone between them extending. Until now, we are used to the schizophrenia of German officialdom standing against the publication or dissemination of the EU report on Jerusalem, or the lack of support by EU members for International Court of Justice ruling against the separation wall, while at the same time the German government gives Palestinian NGOs valuable funding to promote Palestinian activities in Jerusalem and to advocate against Israel's apartheid wall. The politicisation of (the majority of) donor agency agendas is not new. However, what I find exceptional is the cynicism of a few of them. Are issues like the apartheid wall, Jerusalem, refugees, the confiscation of IDs and checkpoints hindering the movement of Palestinians, not part of their agenda? Are they serious when they conceive of aid programmes as if the Palestinians live in a post-conflict society, where promoting the rights of children, women, animals, and those with special needs, can be achieved without supporting the national rights of the Palestinian people, individually and collectively? I am not surprised by the stance of USAID ,that asked its local employees to refuse any meeting in which a representative of Palestinian Authority (PA) is present, even if the latter doesn't officially belong to Hamas, but I am shocked to realise the scale and depth of transformation that has occurred in the European position. An academic Mediterranean network that is based at a European University recently cooperated with a Palestinian economist to produce an analytical paper. In September 2006, this network organised am EU-funded workshop, and sent to him an invitation of attendance . However, one week before the event, he received a letter cancelling the invitation. The economist is an employee of the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics, one of the PA's institutions, since the democratically elected Hamas government is persona non grata with the EU. This academic network did not apparently resist the decision of those providing funds. * The writer is an associate professor at the American University in Beirut.
