Following allegations by Israeli intelligence that 12 employees of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) participated in the violence initiated by Hamas on 7 October, and that UNRWA staff have ties to militants, many countries have halted their financial contributions to the agency.
Within Israel, the reaction to criticism of UNRWA has largely been one of vindication. The energy minister, Eli Cohen, said “the true face of UNRWA has been exposed!” The foreign minister, Israel Katz, cancelled a meeting with the UNRWA commissioner-general, Philippe Lazzarini, and wrote that “supporters of terrorism are not welcome here”. Israel Today’s senior diplomatic commentator, Ariel Kahana, wrote that UNRWA is “perpetuating the conflict”, and that Israel has its first opportunity in 75 years to replace the agency, adding: “We must not pass up on it.”
The actions on 7 October have cast a shadow over the entire organisation, particularly given its deep integration in Gaza’s civil society. UNRWA, distinct from typical refugee agencies, serves more than 5.9 million registered Palestine refugees and additional people, in Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. It operates about 700 schools for 500,000 children and runs nearly 150 health clinics, handling more than 9 million patient visits annually. Its existence alongside UNHCR, the UN’s refugee agency that addresses global refugee needs, was tailored to the specific historical and political context of Palestine refugees.
We can’t overlook the atrocities potentially committed by UNRWA workers, nor its systemic problems – there have been rows about allegedly antisemitic and inflammatory content in its teaching materials, leading to condemnation by the EU, for instance. It’s legitimate to criticise. However, those advocating most fiercely to defund and destroy the organisation never give a viable alternative. The conversation rarely progresses beyond accusatory rhetoric, mirroring the polarised debates surrounding Hamas. Just as figures such as Benjamin Netanyahu have condemned Hamas in public while simultaneously facilitating financial support and agreements that indirectly bolstered the group, Israeli authorities have repeatedly called for UNRWA to be dismantled while requesting additional funding for it from the EU.
This juxtaposition of public condemnation and behind-the-scenes engagement underscores a lack of cohesive strategy and vision in addressing the longstanding issues in the region, particularly the complexities of the Palestinian refugee situation. The notion of eliminating UNRWA without tackling the underlying issues of the conflict is unrealistic, and a way for Israelis to dodge responsibility for the ongoing occupation, displacement and violence against Palestinians.
The essence of the most hardline arguments against UNRWA is that it perpetuates Palestinian refugee status. The only way to free Palestinians from this perceived refugee status is to dismantle UNRWA, which is expected to lead to a cessation of violence against Israel, recognition of Israel by Palestinians, and potentially even a willingness among some Palestinians to give up their quest for self-determination in return for limited benefits within Israeli society, or the option to emigrate to countries such as Canada.
Some criticisms from Israeli politicians towards UNRWA might have a vague scent of gaslighting, as they claim it’s UNRWA that exacerbates the Palestinian refugee issue by extending refugee status to descendants of the original 1947-1949 Arab-Israeli war refugees. They insist that western supporters of UNRWA must push for policy changes that prioritise resettlement. This would involve ending the practice of passing down refugee status through generations of Palestinians and integrating UNRWA’s operations with those of UNHCR.
The Israeli Knesset member Ariel Kallner said that “rather than aiding the resettlement of refugees, UNRWA perpetuates the rejection of the Jewish state’s existence and, in effect, contributes to the displacement of Jewish people”. While UNRWA has never publicly declared such intentions, successive Israeli governments have rejected Palestinians’ identity and rights, and have contributed to their displacement through measures such as the 1950 absentee property law, which allowed for the confiscation of Palestinian properties within Israeli borders.
Advocates for Israeli resettlement in Gaza, such as Kallner, oppose UNRWA and overlook the plight of Palestinian refugees not due to indifference, but because their strategy involves creating Jewish settlements surrounded by militarised zones. Within these areas, Palestinians would be left stateless, homeless, and in dire conditions. This approach aims to promote “voluntary migration” by making living conditions so intolerable that Palestinians feel compelled to leave.
As the hard-right TV presenter Shimon Riklin suggested, Israel should push Palestinians towards the southern part of the Gaza Strip because “it will create a crisis that will lead to immigration and help from the world [to resettle]”.
For international donor nations, cutting off UNRWA’s funding could worsen the already fragile situation, leading to more instability. It’s common for organisations in conflict zones to face challenges such as crimes and corruption, as seen with issues in UN peacekeeping missions, including sexual abuse cases. Withdrawing financial support from UNRWA due to the crimes by some staff members without offering an alternative is a shortsighted approach. When UNRWA reduces its services in the impoverished refugee camps across Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, the West Bank and Gaza, it raises the question: who will step in to fill the gap? It’s likely that the groups that take over will not be aligned with US or European interests. Even Israeli’s military acknowledged that slashing funding for essential services to refugees could spell trouble for Israel.
UNRWA has served for decades as an emergency patch in the pipeline of humanitarian aid. If the pipeline is contaminated with conflict and violence, that’s what will flow and eventually trickle down to society. It’s impractical to hope for an ideal human rights organisation under conditions where human rights are consistently disregarded. A durable solution is needed – specifically, the establishment of a sovereign Palestinian state with its own infrastructure. This is the only way to guarantee safety for Israelis and welfare for Palestinians.
Etan Nechin is a writer based in New York and a contributor to Haaretz
Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.
