UNRWA and the battle to delegitimize it

It is no longer a secret that Israel is not the only one waging the battle to delegitimize UNRWA. Rather, there are many countries that share this battle with Israel, regardless of their political positions in support of the agency and its role. This battle is no longer limited to Israeli accusations and allegations that UNRWA’s donor countries know are false and misleading, and they know that the goal is not what Israel and some of its allied countries claim. Rather, it has begun to touch on red lines and the interests and rights of more than six million Palestinian refugees who still cling to the right of return in accordance with international resolution 194.

It is wrong to believe that the declared Israeli war against UNRWA began on October 7, as a result of accusations that some of the agency’s employees participated in that battle, nor with the Israeli Knesset’s approval of a law banning UNRWA’s activities in Israel and in the territories under its control, nor with the cancellation of the headquarters agreement with UNRWA, which resulted in the withdrawal of recognition of UNRWA, despite it being part of the United Nations system and not a Palestinian institution, with all the resulting withdrawal of privileges, immunities, financial, tax and customs exemptions that this organization enjoyed, based on that agreement and Article 105 of the United Nations Charter. Rather, the strategies to get rid of UNRWA began at the beginning of the first term of US President Trump in 2017, within the framework of the plan known as the “Deal of the Century”, where the issue of targeting the agency and ending its services occupied an advanced position in this plan. Despite Trump’s departure, Israel continued to target UNRWA, using means of incitement, lies and deception as a way to achieve its goal of getting rid of the agency and what it symbolizes in terms of a political dimension in direct contact with the issue of Palestinian refugees. And their right to return.

It was clear that there was a plan developed by Israeli institutions on how to deal with UNRWA in the future, and it was divided into three stages: “distorting UNRWA’s image in the eyes of donors, not allowing UNRWA to provide its services directly, especially in the Strip, proposing international organizations as an alternative, transferring all of UNRWA’s tasks to the body that will govern Gaza after the end of the war, and canceling the agreement signed by UNRWA. The UN Secretary-General expressed his rejection of this plan for more than one reason, including: “that all UN organizations are not prepared to assume the responsibilities that UNRWA undertakes, and that UNRWA’s operating costs are much less than the operating costs of other UN agencies, for example, that “the costs with UNRWA are much less than the costs with other agencies. The salaries paid by UNRWA represent a third of the salaries paid by UNICEF, the World Food Program, or other UN organizations.”

Despite this, Israel continued its campaign, and did not leave any means of pressure without resorting to it, and practiced all forms of incitement that affected all components of the agency, whether related to programs and policies or educational curricula, employees and facilities, even if the incitement was misleading and lacked credibility. However, the message was to make this international organization a subject of permanent doubt in order to weaken international confidence in its role, in preparation for stripping it of its political and legal status on which the right of return for millions of Palestinian refugees is based, according to its founding resolution No. 302 issued by the United Nations in December 1949.

Israel has failed in all its attempts, which aimed, as the Commissioner-General has stated on more than one occasion, to delegitimize UNRWA. But the failure of those attempts did not mean for a moment that the war on the agency had been closed. Rather, Israel and its allies continued their war in more than one form. The collective decision of about 18 countries at the beginning of 2024 to suspend funding sounded an alarm bell that may continue and interact in the coming months, even if most countries resumed their funding, as a result of the embarrassment caused by Israel’s failure to provide evidence of its accusations against UNRWA.

The new development that is feared is what two donor countries announced a few days ago about providing significant financial support to international organizations other than UNRWA, which indicates an imminent danger that must be addressed now at the international, Arab and Palestinian levels. The Swedish government, for example, announced that it will stop funding UNRWA and will instead increase total humanitarian aid to the Gaza Strip through other channels ($72.44 million). The Japanese government also announced that it will provide new aid to Palestine (about $100 million), and this amount will be allocated to support the Palestinian Authority, health care, shelter, education, psychological and social support, industry, and food provision, through international organizations other than UNRWA.

Despite the importance of Japanese and Swedish support, excluding UNRWA from this support raises more than one question mark about the credibility of the position of these two countries, which still, to this moment, confirm their political support for UNRWA. Indeed, the establishment of alternative organizations to UNRWA constitutes a direct partnership with Israel in its position on UNRWA.

Since 2017, Israel has been calling for UNRWA to be replaced by alternative organizations that provide services to Palestinian refugees on its behalf. For this reason, and no other, it has targeted UNRWA warehouses and headquarters in the Gaza Strip, destroyed its schools and health centers, killed dozens of its employees, prevented it from performing its role in Israel, and taken other measures aimed at preventing UNRWA from performing its function and presenting the world with a fait accompli that will ultimately lead to the creation of international organizations that provide services to refugees, thus contributing to the gradual elimination of the Relief Agency.

In 2022, the Commissioner-General of UNRWA said: “The problem can be solved by providing services from international organizations on behalf of UNRWA.” These positions were met with widespread official, factional, and popular Palestinian rejection, which prompted the Commissioner-General to declare his commitment to the text of Article 18 of Resolution 302, which refers to cooperation and coordination with United Nations organizations, not providing services on behalf of UNRWA. What raised the refugees’ concerns was that the Commissioner-General’s statements regarding the “possibility” of referring services to United Nations bodies coincided with the public positions of Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu in 2017, when he explicitly called for the abolition of UNRWA and the transfer of its services to the High Commissioner for Refugees.

It seems clear that the Commissioner-General’s declaration of his commitment to Article 18 was not sufficient and did not deter Israel and some countries from repeating their attempts to find alternative organizations to provide services on behalf of UNRWA. Here lies the step of the Swedish government, which, although it announced that the reason for its step to stop funding UNRWA was the Israeli ban that would make directing aid to the Palestinians through the agency more difficult, the intended meaning is that Sweden did not act in accordance with its declared foreign policy of supporting UNRWA and in accordance with the values to which it is committed, especially human rights and justice, but rather based on a fait accompli that Israel is working to impose and Sweden has responded to it.

There are some Palestinians who try to bury their heads in the sand when they feel reassured and consider that Resolution 302 still constitutes protection for the agency, which still enjoys the confidence of the international community within the UN General Assembly. Although we agree with the relative validity of this conclusion, what is happening is that the targeting of UNRWA comes through titles that do not include canceling Resolution 302, but rather through incitement against the agency, employees and educational curricula, and by pushing donor countries to cut their funding to the agency. Therefore, what is happening is working to end the agency from within and empty it of any political, social and economic content by pressuring donor countries to stop funding it so that international organizations can come forward as an alternative to UNRWA. Here lies the danger in Swedish and Japanese support by directing it to alternative organizations, which contributes to the plan to delegitimize UNRWA.

The support of Sweden, Japan and other donor countries is appreciated and should be increased to be in line with the growing needs. However, what is required is to call on traditional and emerging donor countries to balance the distribution of their financial contributions to the basic priorities of the refugees, and through UNRWA and not alternative organizations.

Because repeating this and generalizing it to other donor countries would achieve the actual Israeli goal, which is to empty UNRWA of its content through funding and make it a bankrupt agency, and this will push some donor countries to direct their financial contributions towards alternative organizations under the pretext of the difficulty in delivering services to those who deserve them, as Sweden justified its position. Thus, instead of punishing Israel for violating its commitment and pledges by not respecting the UN Charter and facilitating the work of its organizations, a gift is being given to Israel by donor countries to facilitate its plans, despite their certainty that these plans are not based on any legal or political basis.

What must be emphasized is that the laws and decisions taken by Israel, although they constitute a great danger and a qualitative shift in dealing with one of the most comprehensive and practical United Nations organizations, especially in terms of their political and humanitarian repercussions, their impact on the right of return will remain limited, especially if the United Nations and the countries supporting the agency and its mandate have the will to reject Israeli laws and procedures, not deal with them and make them a reality. The right of return does not derive its strength only from the existence of UNRWA, as important as the agency’s existence is. The United Nations’ response to Israel’s letter to cancel the 1967 headquarters agreement and the positions of many international officials came to confirm a number of axioms: Despite the danger posed by the UNRWA law and the cancellation of the headquarters agreement, as it will increase the humanitarian suffering of refugees who depend on UNRWA’s services completely, it will not affect the existence of the agency that exists with a UN mandate. In addition, banning the agency’s work will mean that Israel, as the occupying power, will be the one concerned with the humanitarian aspects of refugees in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

Despite all of this, the seriousness of the Israeli war on UNRWA, which is one of the institutions on which the right of return is based, should not be underestimated. What the Israeli laws have proposed is the opening of a new battle that will be added to the series of national battles that the Palestinian people are fighting. Because Israel, even if it is able to impose the application of the law with its military and occupation force in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, is not able to harm UNRWA, its legitimacy and its international mandate, which makes this battle a necessarily winning battle, as it is a battle to defend not only the refugee issue, the right of return and UNRWA, but also a battle to defend the United Nations and its resolutions, and even the credibility of the entire international system.