Paris Conference: Funded Diplomacy and Illusory Representation... Are Civil Society Organizations Becoming Unaccountable and Un-elected Parties?

When the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs hosted a conference in Paris that brought together dozens of Palestinians and Israelis under the title of supporting peace and the two-state solution, the picture initially appeared positive and encouraging. France, like other friendly nations to the Palestinian people, continues to try to maintain a political horizon in a time of increasing wars, extremism, and despair. Furthermore, involving civil society organizations in the discussion about the future of the region remains a legitimate and desirable goal.

However, behind this facade hides a phenomenon that has been expanding in recent years: the rise of a class of non-governmental organizations, some of which have exceeded the natural role of civil society and have gradually begun to act as an alternative to political parties and national factions.

During long years of division, stagnation, absence of elections, and decline of democratic life, parties and factions have lost a large part of their vitality and their ability to attract new generations. Their diplomatic, intellectual, and media presence on the international stage has also declined, and they have distanced themselves from many discussions revolving around the future of the Palestinian cause.

With the decline of organized political action, non-governmental organizations emerged that succeeded in building extensive relationships with funders, diplomatic missions, and international institutions. It was natural for these institutions to play an important role in the fields of development, human rights, community dialogue, and capacity building. However, some of these institutions decided to transform from their civil role to an undeclared political role, where figures associated with this sector began to speak on behalf of Palestinians in international conferences, participate in drafting political initiatives, sit at informal negotiation tables, and be presented to foreign governments as representatives of Palestinian society.

Over time, a new class of unelected political elites emerged. They enjoyed diplomatic invitations, became addicted to international conferences, and were captivated by ceremonies, protocols, and official meetings. Some of their members traveled between Paris, Brussels, Geneva, and Washington more than they traveled between Nablus, Hebron, Gaza, and the Palestinian camps. And because the international community always looks for ready and familiar partners, the same faces kept reappearing at the same conferences, speaking the same discourse, and receiving the same funding year after year.

Perhaps the most prominent example of this reality is what we recently witnessed: the distribution of approximately 18 million euros through a French government agency to a specific group of institutions working in this sector. The intention here is not to object to supporting civil society or funding initiatives aimed at dialogue and peace, as such support can be legitimate and beneficial if it is subject to standards of transparency, accountability, and justice. But Palestinians have the right to ask: How were the beneficiaries chosen? What criteria were adopted? What is the real impact these institutions have achieved within Palestinian society over the past years? And why do the same names and the same organizations recur in most international funding programs?

More importantly, how can the injection of millions of euros into a sector that claims to represent Palestinian society be justified, while this society itself remains unaware of the details of these funds, how they are spent, and their results? Some institutions working in this field manage annual budgets that exceed those of active political parties and forces, and some of their senior officials receive salaries and allowances that exceed what Palestinian ministers and officials receive. While the Palestinian employee, teacher, and worker struggle to secure their basic needs, a financially comfortable professional class has emerged around part of this sector, whose sustainability is linked more to the continuation of external funding than to measuring its real impact within Palestinian society.

The issue is not only about legitimacy but also about accountability. No one elected these institutions. No one authorized them to speak on behalf of Palestinians. And no organization, no matter how important its contributions, can claim to represent an entire society or replace political parties, movements, and national institutions. Political parties, despite all the criticisms that can be directed at them, remain obligated to their public to justify their positions and decisions. However, part of this new sector has succeeded in combining political influence with a lack of popular accountability. Hence, the necessity of launching a serious national discussion about transparency arises.

If some of these organizations wish to play a direct political role, and if they demand to be seen as partners in shaping public policies and representing Palestinian society, then Palestinians have the right to know more about them... Where does their funding come from? Who are the members of their boards of directors? How are their decisions made? Who determines their political priorities? And what are the mechanisms that make them accountable to the society they claim to represent?

External funding is not an accusation, civil work is not a crime, and association with the international community is not a flaw. But political work without transparency, claiming representation without authorization, and demanding influence over the future of the Palestinian people without being subject to societal oversight are matters that deserve discussion and accountability. However, the Palestinian cause does not need to replace old elites with new elites, nor to replace factions with non-governmental organizations, nor to transfer national decision-making from political institutions to the rooms of funded projects. What Palestine needs today is to revive politics itself.

We need free elections, modern parties, new leadership, accountable institutions, and a strong and independent civil society that plays its natural role in oversight, awareness, and defending rights, rather than becoming an alternative to political life. Democracy is not built by projects, representation is not granted through diplomatic invitations, and legitimacy is not issued by European embassies.

Any civil society organization has the right to defend its ideas and initiatives, but no one has the right to demand a political and representative role without first accepting the rules of transparency, accountability, and popular oversight to which democratic political work is subject. Palestinian democracy cannot be built by replacing parties with non-governmental organizations, just as a state cannot be built by replacing citizens with funders.

Politics is made by the people's representatives, not by project owners. Legitimacy is granted by voters, not by donors. And the future of Palestine must be decided by Palestinians through their elected institutions, not through funding networks and international conferences, no matter how good the intentions of those in charge.