Are Israel’s new anti-UNRWA laws problematic to implement? - opinion

Though the last five-and-a-half years, since the elections to the 21st Knesset in April 2019, have probably been among the most eventful, diversified, and unconventional in the 76 years of Israel’s existence, I suspect that most of us were overwhelmed by the rush of events of the last week or two.

These included, inter alia, the Knesset passing two laws concerning the future relations (or rather absence thereof) between Israel and the United Nations Relief and Works Agency; the rather hasty and ill-timed firing of defense minister Yoav Gallant, to be replaced by the figurehead Israel Katz (the real defense minister is now Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu); the staggering reelection of Donald Trump as the 47th president of the United States (to the delight or chagrin of different populations); and a pogrom against Israeli soccer fans in Amsterdam by a Muslim mob, and their hasty airlift from Schiphol to Ben-Gurion Airport over the weekend (and what about the hostages?). 

It is a lot to swallow and digest in such a brief time.

THE TWO anti-UNRWA laws were passed by the Knesset two weeks ago by 92 and 87 votes, respectively, which included most of the opposition votes as well.

UNRWA was founded in 1949, on the basis of General Assembly resolution 302 (IV), which gave the agency a mandate to provide humanitarian assistance and development for the Palestinian refugees of the 1948/49 war, while requiring it to operate neutrally.

In 1950, another resolution instructed the agency to “establish a reintegration fund that shall be utilized... for the permanent reestablishment of refugees and their removal from relief.” 

In 1952, UNRWA was requested to continue to provide programs for healthcare, education, and general welfare. All of this was supported by both Israel and the Arab states. 

In the years that followed, UNWRA established refugee camps in Jordan (including the West Bank), Syria, Lebanon, and the Gaza Strip (which was then held by Egypt).

Since neither the UN, nor any other international forum, tried to find a permanent solution to the Palestinian issue in general, and the Palestinian refugees in particular, UNRWA turned into an organization deeply involved in the perpetuation of the Palestinian refugee problem, rather than in its resolution. 

Until the 1967 Six Day War, Israel had no practical relations with UNRWA. 

This changed after 1967, when the refugee camps on the outskirts of Jerusalem, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip came under Israeli rule. 

Israel signed an agreement with UNRWA that defined their relations.

Besides the problem of UNRWA contributing to the perpetuation of the Palestinian refugee reality, two additional problems emerged. 

The first was that UNRWA did not remain a neutral organization. Its foreign directors and employees (mainly Palestinians) naturally sympathize with their Palestinian clients and they developed an animosity toward Israel. 

In their view, Israel created the problem in the first place.

In addition, corruption began to take root and spread throughout various UNRWA branches.

The situation turned into an unacceptable reality when it was revealed that many UNRWA employees were among the Hamas terrorists who participated in the atrocities in Israel on October 7, some even harboring hostages who were kidnapped and taken into the Gaza Strip. 

Furthermore, Israel has discovered that UNRWA facilities and installations, including schools, are used by Hamas to house terrorists, administrative headquarters, armaments caches, etc.

Although the UN agency has acted to weed out Hamas terrorists from among its employees, it is unwilling or unable to throw out Hamas operatives from its facilities and installations.

THOUGH THE two laws passed last week were presented as private members’ bills, the initiative for their presentation undoubtedly had government support. 

One law forbids any contact between Israeli officials and UNRWA; the other forbids UNRWA to function in any way within Israel’s sovereign territory.

Since neither the West Bank nor the Gaza Strip are recognized as part of the sovereign territory of the State of Israel, UNRWA can continue to operate in those territories. 

However, since Israel annexed east Jerusalem and its environs, according to the Israeli government, UNRWA must end its activities there. 

Therefore, within three months the Jerusalem municipality will have to provide all the services provided by UNRWA before the laws were passed, including educational services for around 900 pupils (most of them in the Shuafat refugee camp), and four health and social centers that focus on rehabilitation and employment activities.

Though the Gaza Strip is not part of the sovereign territory of Israel (to the great chagrin of at least two coalition parties) Israel does not hide the fact that it would like to oust UNRWA from its various activities in Gaza, such as the distribution of humanitarian aid provided by the international community there. 

According to the Israeli government, much of this aid reaches Hamas, rather than needy Gazans, the majority of whom have been dislocated from their homes during the 13-month war. 

However, even though the US administration and other international players have urged the Israeli government to establish an alternative administration to take over the running of the Gaza Strip after Hamas is finally defeated and ousted from power, no such alternative appears to have been created.

The Israeli government has resisted the involvement of the Palestinian Authority, or any other potential Palestinian body, in the administration of the Gaza Strip “the day after.” 

Unless the government is planning to reestablish an Israeli administration in the Gaza Strip, with broader functions than those held by the Israeli administration that existed there until 2005, paralyzing the work of UNRWA will simply result in the total collapse of any sort of administration in Gaza.

Though the motives behind the new legislation are certainly understandable and justifiable, perhaps a little more thought should be given to the actual implementation of the two new laws.

The writer worked in the Knesset for many years as a researcher and has published extensively both journalistic and academic articles on current affairs and Israeli politics.

Her most recent book, Israel’s Knesset Members – A Comparative Study of an Undefined Job, was published by Routledge.