Israel’s reckoning with UNRWA: A necessary severance after October 7 - comment

October 7 shattered many long-held Israeli assumptions.

It shattered the assumption that technology could replace soldiers as effective layers of defense. It shattered the assumption that Israel’s enemies would not do anything “crazy” for fear of being clobbered by Israel in return. It shattered the assumption that the country could live peacefully alongside genocidal terrorist organizations within spitting distance of civilian communities.

It also shattered the assumption that, even with all its shortcomings, UNRWA (the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East) was still worth maintaining since it provided services for Palestinians in Gaza, the West Bank, and east Jerusalem that, in its absence, Israel would need to provide.

Proof that this assumption has been shattered is the legislation making its way through the Knesset, and backed by both opposition and coalition parties, that would shut down UNRWA’s operations in Gaza, the West Bank, and east Jerusalem within 90 days.

The US and other Western powers are pressing Israel not to proceed with the move, warning that it will make getting humanitarian aid into Gaza more difficult and worsen the humanitarian crisis there. This is even though the US itself has defunded UNRWA until next March because of the involvement of some of its employees in the October 7 massacre.

Even measured by the doublespeak standards of spokespersons whose job it is to defend the institutions or people they represent, this comment by a UN spokesman regarding the Knesset legislation was a doozy: “This is a step against the multilateral system. It is the latest step in the ongoing systematic campaign to discredit UNRWA and delegitimize its role in providing human-development assistance and services to Palestine refugees.”

Say what?

You know what discredits UNRWA? Having about a dozen of its employees take active roles in the October 7 massacre, and having another 30 assisting in the attack. Having one of the teachers in its schools boast about kidnapping a female hostage, and having about 10% of UNRWA employees maintaining active ties to Hamas or other terrorist organizations.

You know what delegitimizes UNRWA? Its facilities being used as storehouses for weapons, a blind eye turned to Hamas building terrorist tunnels underneath its schools, its teachers propagating an anti-Israel narrative that perpetuates the conflict for generations and keeps alive the illusion of a Palestinian state “from the river to the sea.”And for all of the above, that organization deserves a tax break from Israel?

The foreign ministers of Canada, Australia, France, Germany, Japan, South Korea, and the UK also expressed “grave concern” over the Knesset legislation in a statement issued Sunday. It would have been nice had they expressed such grave concern over the years as UNRWA perpetuated the Palestinian refugee crisis and radicalized generations of Palestinians.

For years, voices have been raised saying that UNRWA, originally meant to be an 18-month temporary organization to find solutions for Arab refugees from the 1948 War of Independence, is more part of the problem than the solution.

For years, people have been complaining about the content of textbooks used in UNRWA schools, noting that rather than educating toward peace and coexistence, they teach hatred and incitement. It would be interesting to know how many of those who took place in the October 7 atrocity were “educated” in UNRWA schools.

For years, people have complained that the organization – against all international standards –inflates the number of Palestinian refugees by millions by classifying as a refugee any descendant of an original refugee, even if they have citizenship in another country, such as Jordan.

Rather than trying to resolve the refugee crisis, UNRWA proved over decades that it was content with keeping them as victims who will one day realize the dream of “return” to Israel, thereby overwhelming and extinguishing the Jewish state.

For years, however, these voices were ignored, not only abroad but also in Israel, where even members of the defense establishment defended UNRWA as a necessary evil.

In light of October 7, and the way Hamas operatives have become so intermeshed with UNRWA, however, more and more policy-makers here see it as an agent in the service of evil. Thus, the move to cut all contacts with it, something that now has overwhelming support in the Knesset.

This move is both justified and warranted. However, if Israel does intend to close down UNRWA because it does more harm than good – both to Israel and to eventually find a solution to the Palestinian issue – another mechanism needs to be found or created to deliver aid to Gaza.

In the Palestinian Authority – where the absurdity exists of refugee camps – the services can be delivered by the PA. By the way, why has the PA not built permanent homes for the “refugees” living in areas under its control? In Gaza, too, an alternative way of delivering humanitarian aid and providing services provided by UNRWA needs to be created.

For instance, the UNRWA budgets could be shifted to the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, which manages global refugee crises (with the glaring exception of the Palestinians) and which – unlike UNRWA – works toward solutions rather than perpetuating the refugee crisis.

Other UN organizations already in the region, such as the UN Development Program, could pick up the slack as well. Israel, however, has no moral obligation to help an organization that has aided, abetted, and provided propaganda services for those who want to destroy the Jewish state.

According to some reports, passing this legislation and cutting off cooperation with UNRWA will bring fierce condemnations and reprisals from the UN. But is that a reason to hesitate?

First of all, fierce condemnations from the UN come regardless of what Israel does. Israel could pay UNRWA employers itself, and UN Secretary-General António Guterres would still blast the Jewish state for any act of self-defense.

Regarding reprisals, there is a limit to what the UN can do. While in theory, the UN could expel or suspend Israel, this would require a recommendation from the UN Security Council, something highly unlikely as long as the US retains its veto as one of the five permanent members of the council.

And while the UN could – as it did to South Africa in 1974 – deny Israel credentials, a seat, and voting rights in the General Assembly, it tried to do that in 1982 but failed when the US under Ronald Reagan said it would withdraw from the General Assembly and suspend all payments to the UN if this action were taken. It’s safe to assume that any similar move now would elicit the same reaction regardless of who is the next US president.

The sacred-cow status UNRWA enjoyed for decades in Israel may be one of the first victims of a post-October 7 recalibration of the country’s diplomatic and military policy. But certainly, it will not be the last.