ARTS & INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS
irrational and inherently prone to violence . By this logic , Palestinians are a problem to be solved through training in “ democracy ” and practice in civil participation . Such narratives do not credit preexisting Palestinian civil society organizations for their role in providing spaces for civic participation and producing social cohesion , but instead aim to replace them . Per Leone , domestication of these discourses produced a social elite that is accountable to donor priorities rather than to the people they serve .
Critics focused on culture and arts in Palestine ( Al-Shaikh , 2009 ; Beckles Willson , 2013 ; El-Ghadban & Strohm , 2013 ) align with these views . They point out that donors understand culture as a basic human need , as groundwork for “ development ,” and as a basis for the provision of a modern , liberal , and democratic society , rather than as a process that reflects and constitutes social identities under conditions of military occupation . They also view foreign investment in Palestinian culture as part of the neocolonial drive to replace grassroots initiatives , nation-building , and popular resistance , with humanitarian discourses and foreign values of aesthetic production intended for the rewards of global consumption . For Al-Shaikh ( 2009:765 ) this process amounts to a “ shifting concern , on the cultural level , away from preserving the Palestinian collective memory , [ to ] fostering cultural politics directed towards achieving collective amnesia .”
These critiques are largely validated by discourses attached to culture-focused aid . For example , a UNESCO study that sets up guidelines for developing the PA ’ s cultural policies brings to life both UNESCO ’ s Orientalist gaze and the instrumentalization of culture within such framing :
Indeed , nothing less than Palestine ’ s future as a viable modern nation is at stake . It is the harnessing of culture to the burgeoning world of communications which will pave the way out of underdevelopment and political and religious extremism . Clearly , a prosperous and democratic Palestine is the best possible guarantee of long-term peace and security in the Middle East . Moreover , with its wealth of religious and cultural heritage , the Holy Land may then more effectively fulfill its natural vocation as a haven for the world ’ s pilgrims . ( Coordination Unit in Favor of the Palestinian People , 1999:23 ).
The Orientalist nature of this report is most striking in the conceptual slippage that locates the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the underdevelopment of Palestinian society or its political and religious extremism , rather than in historical trajectories of dispersion and subjugation . Cultural policies emerging from this viewpoint apprehend Palestinian subjectivities as premodern — hence the paternalistic attitude — and romanticize culture as a means of arrival at sovereign modernity . The report also links UNESCO ’ s interventions in Palestine to global interests ( the Holy Land ’ s “ wealth of religious and cultural heritage ”), rather than local needs .
While critics rightly point to the aid economy ’ s problematic gaze and structure , they 12