This week, the Knesset passed two bills concerning UNRWA. The first, prohibits UNRWA activities in sovereign Israeli territories, effectively ceasing UNRWA’s operations in East Jerusalem. The second mandates that Israeli authorities sever all contact with UNRWA, and strip the organization of various privileges.
Predictably, the legislation sparked significant international criticism. The UN Secretary-General sharply condemned the move, asserting "there is no alternative to UNRWA." The UK Foreign Secretary called the legislation “a mistake,” while Ireland, Norway, Slovenia, and Spain also issued strong rebukes. Even a U.S. State Department spokesperson warned that the legislation could have ramifications under U.S. law, referencing a letter from Defense Secretary Austin and Secretary of State Blinken that hinted at an arms embargo due to the Gaza humanitarian crisis and explicitly called for halting the legislation.
Given the contemporary challenges to Israel's international standing, the humanitarian criticism regarding Gaza, and its reliance on the U.S., was this move necessary? The short answer is yes, but additional steps are required.
Why Target UNRWA?
Hamas has substantial influence within UNRWA. Some UNRWA employees were reportedly involved in the October 7 massacre, with some even holding hostages in their homes. Tunnels and weapons caches have been discovered beneath various UNRWA facilities. Numerous countries halted their funding to UNRWA temporarily after these revelations. UNRWA's support has enabled Hamas to avoid providing essential services to Gaza’s residents, allowing it instead to further its violent ideology, as evidenced in the planning for the October 7 attack. Moreover, UNRWA's education system has long propagated severe anti-Israel and antisemitic messaging.
On a broader scale, UNRWA is a central mechanism perpetuating the refugee issue due to its unique definition of refugee status as inheritable. As a result of this skewed definition, even refugees who have obtained citizenship elsewhere are still counted as Palestinian refugees by UNRWA.
Criticism of Israel and the Humanitarian Issue
The primary criticism of Israel centers on the potential humanitarian impact of the legislation on Gaza. However, the law's implications are more symbolic than practical, as it allows Israel to engage with UNRWA outside its sovereign territory, meaning .... the West Bank and Gaza. Israel already cooperates with other organizations, so this legislation is unlikely to alter the humanitarian situation in Gaza.
Nonetheless, Israel’s actions risk fueling accusations of genocide, despite lacking factual basis, as images from Gaza continue to contribute to Israel’s international isolation. The humanitarian crisis in Gaza directly influences protests against Israel and rising antisemitism in the West.
Israel entered the war without thoroughly assessing the impact of its stated objectives on the Palestinian population, treating the challenge posed by Hamas as strictly military. In a previous document, it was argued that Israel's approach is essentially a reactive oscillation between hesitance to provide humanitarian aid to an enemy in wartime and fear of the consequences at The Hague if it does not. Hamas has exploited the humanitarian void so effectively that controlling humanitarian aid distribution has become almost its sole visible symbol of sovereignty. Therefore, a prerequisite for neutralizing Hamas as a civilian authority is pushing it out of the humanitarian sphere.
The Israeli government seemed to recognize this. Netanyahu stated several weeks ago, "So far, the focus has been military. Now, the focus will be denying governance capabilities. Humanitarian aid will shift." However. the conclusions the government reached led to the informal adoption of a plan proposed by former head of the Israeli National Security Council Giora Eiland. This plan aims to weaken Hamas by evacuating all civilians from northern Gaza and imposing a full military blockade on the area. Although the plan appears to align with international law, it has reinforced perceptions that Israel is intentionally creating a humanitarian crisis driven by vengeance (Eiland’s previous remarks about the need to “starve the civilian population” did not help). Israel abruptly reversed its policy, allowing humanitarian aid back into northern Gaza in response to the Austin-Blinken letter’s ultimatum, prioritizing full coordination with the Americans ahead of potential action against Iran.
Thus, Israel finds itself back at square one: more than a year after the war and several foreseen, unsuccessful attempts to work with local Palestinian actors other than Hamas, the Palestinian Authority, or UNRWA, Israel remains passive and reactive. Israel has not received international recognition for its efforts to alleviate the humanitarian situation, leaving it increasingly isolated.
A Finishing Touch Required
To transform the legislation against UNRWA into a truly impactful step, fundamentally reshaping the Israeli-Palestinian reality, two complementary and complex initiatives are needed:
1. A Diplomatic Effort to Dismantle UNRWA
Israel must mount a diplomatic campaign to leverage the recent legislation towards a broader move to dissolve UNRWA. Dismantling UNRWA would be an intricate diplomatic endeavor with uncertain prospects. Nonetheless, due to its importance, it should become a primary goal for the Foreign Ministry. It's a low risk high reward move. Formal dissolution through the UN may be unrealistic, but practical dissolution could be achieved by cutting donations and financially pressuring the organization. With UNRWA dismantled, the unique definition of Palestinian refugee status would disappear worldwide, significantly reducing the number of registered refugees by updating the lists of those residing in camps.
In practice, this would eliminate the refugee issue from the Israeli-Palestinian agenda. A conflict resolved without a "right of return" would be a defeat for Hamas. To enhance the chances of success, Israel should pursue a systematic diplomatic campaign targeting donor countries, form an international coalition in favor of this cause, and seek regional cooperation to create alternative mechanisms. The most significant step Israel can take to advance this strategic objective is to offer diplomatic agenda in post-conflict discussions.
2. Laying Humanitarian-Civil Infrastructure
Israel must take responsibility for the humanitarian situation in Gaza, not only as a moral act but also as a complement to the anti-UNRWA legislation. Only Israel can provide an immediate and effective response to urgent humanitarian needs in Gaza. Our previous documents have outlined several steps Israel can promote, such as creating safe humanitarian corridors, establishing storage facilities for fresh food within its borders for Gaza, securing distribution points in humanitarian zones, supplying water and electricity to designated areas, and supporting the establishment of field hospitals by third parties. During wartime, Israel could initiate reconstruction in areas of Gaza deemed "clean" of Hamas, thereby undermining Hamas's standing and support.
Over time, Israel will face a choice among three options: re-establishing a civilian administration in Gaza, working with a Palestinian entity, or outsourcing responsibilities to third parties. The choice between these options depends on Israel’s desired long-term vision for Gaza. However, Israel has not yet declared a political goal for the war that would guide the structure of humanitarian infrastructure. In the meantime, predictable tactical attempts to bypass the Palestinian Authority and Hamas by engaging with local business people and clans to manage civilian aid have failed.
Defining a political goal will affect Israel’s ability to promote UNRWA's dissolution, fundamentally altering the conflict dynamics.
--
In a previous analysis, we concluded that any Israeli agenda should be grounded in three principles: resistance to a fully sovereign Palestinian state, insistence on security control over the Gaza Strip, and transferring civilian authority there to a Palestinian entity. Consequently, we believe Israel should promote an agenda aimed at establishing a renewed Palestinian Authority as a long-term solution (read here).
Comments