Israel’s Legislation to Ban UNRWA Activities: Legal Analysis and International Implications
In a controversial move that raises concerns about Israel’s commitment to international law, Israel on October 28, 2024, enacted legislation aimed at banning the activities of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) in territories under its control. This legislation represents a fresh challenge to the humanitarian efforts provided by UNRWA to Palestinian refugees in multiple regions, as these refugees depend on the agency for essential services such as education, healthcare, and basic humanitarian aid.
This decision raises numerous legal and ethical questions regarding Israel’s compliance with international legitimacy and the potential impacts of these measures on Palestinian lives and regional stability. This article examines the humanitarian, social, and security implications of banning UNRWA’s activities and analyzes how the international community might respond to ensure Palestinian refugees’ rights and the continuity of essential services on which these communities depend.
UNRWA: Its Role and Humanitarian Necessity
Established in 1949 by United Nations General Assembly Resolution 302, UNRWA serves as the principal provider of essential services to Palestinian refugees in the West Bank, Gaza Strip, Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria. The agency offers a comprehensive range of services, including education, healthcare, food assistance, emergency relief, and shelter, making it indispensable to millions of Palestinian refugees.
Legislation aimed at ending UNRWA’s operations poses a grave threat to the humanitarian situation in these communities, as stopping essential aid could lead to severe consequences, including the collapse of local healthcare systems, a rise in illiteracy, and increased poverty and unemployment. Tens of thousands of Palestinian refugees rely on UNRWA for basic needs, and preventing it from operating would likely result in a severe humanitarian crisis.
Breach of International Legitimacy and UN Resolutions
The prohibition of UNRWA’s activities directly contradicts United Nations resolutions that mandate UNRWA’s continued operations until a fair and lasting resolution to the Palestinian refugee issue is achieved. This legislation violates multiple international treaties that advocate for refugee rights and the provision of humanitarian aid.
According to Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, states are prohibited from obstructing or halting humanitarian aid to civilian populations, making this law a violation of international humanitarian commitments. It also contravenes UN General Assembly Resolution 194, which affirms Palestinian refugees’ right to return to their homes or receive compensation for their properties. Halting UNRWA’s activities impedes refugees’ access to this right, complicating their ability to obtain necessary support and undermining efforts toward a just, lasting resolution to the Palestinian issue.
Humanitarian and Social Risks
Banning UNRWA’s activities will exacerbate humanitarian conditions in Palestinian territories, where the infrastructure of refugee communities heavily relies on the agency’s services. Education, in particular, will be significantly impacted. UNRWA provides schooling for tens of thousands of Palestinian children, and the closure of these schools would result in higher numbers of out-of-school children, jeopardizing entire generations’ futures and likely increasing youth unemployment and poverty among Palestinians.
Similarly, halting UNRWA’s healthcare services would strain the already limited local healthcare system, risking widespread illness and putting thousands of refugees’ lives in jeopardy. UNRWA also provides food aid and financial support to the poorest segments of the population, and banning these services would intensify food insecurity and economic hardship, further deepening Palestinian refugees’ suffering and fostering greater despair and marginalization.
Security and Regional Implications
Banning UNRWA’s activities could inflame political and security tensions in the region. Palestinians already feel that their concerns are neglected, and the prohibition of UNRWA’s activities may intensify feelings of marginalization and oppression, potentially leading to widespread protests or forms of resistance that could destabilize the security situation.
Moreover, Israel’s legislation may strain relations with neighboring countries such as Jordan and Lebanon, which host large numbers of Palestinian refugees and rely on UNRWA to provide them with services. If UNRWA’s work is restricted, these countries may be forced to bear additional burdens, potentially leading to internal unrest, economic pressures, and further instability in the region.
Negative Impact on International Aid
The decision to ban UNRWA’s activities could erode the international community’s confidence in the UN’s ability to fulfill its mandate in the region and present a direct challenge to international efforts to support Palestinian refugees. The perception among donor countries of the futility of their contributions in the face of unilateral measures may lead to reduced funding for UNRWA, exacerbating refugee hardships and deepening the humanitarian crisis.
If donors withdraw or reduce their funding, Palestinian refugees’ suffering will increase, and host countries will face greater challenges in providing necessary support. Consequently, weakening UNRWA’s operations would place an enormous burden on the Palestinian Authority and host countries, which already contend with economic pressures and social challenges.
How Can the International Community Address This Ban?
The international community has several options to counter the prohibition of UNRWA’s activities, ranging from diplomatic measures to legal pressure. First, United Nations member states, especially those that support UNRWA, could exert direct pressure on Israel to reverse this legislation through a collective statement at the General Assembly or the Security Council, reaffirming the global commitment to protecting Palestinian refugees’ rights and UNRWA’s mandate to deliver its services.
Second, legal recourse could be sought through international legal bodies, such as the International Criminal Court, to investigate the possibility of filing a complaint against the ban as a violation of international agreements safeguarding human rights and humanitarian aid. Additionally, donor countries could increase their financial support for UNRWA to offset any impacts from this legislation and send a strong message that Palestinian refugee support will continue despite challenges.
Finally, the international community could leverage media pressure to highlight the potential humanitarian and economic impact of the ban, mobilizing global public opinion against these unilateral actions and strengthening political protection for UNRWA, underscoring the world’s commitment to supporting Palestinian refugees’ rights to a dignified life.
Is There an Alternative Solution?
In conclusion, Israel’s legislation banning UNRWA’s activities poses a direct challenge to the international community and its resolutions regarding Palestinian refugees’ rights. The current situation calls for careful legal and diplomatic action from the United Nations and the international community to ensure the continuation of UNRWA’s work and the protection of Palestinian refugees’ rights.
Perhaps the most suitable solution would be to strengthen dialogue between the involved parties and find shared mechanisms that support UNRWA’s ability to continue its role effectively and impartially, while also working toward a fair and comprehensive solution to the Palestinian refugee issue, keeping these refugees’ rights a priority within the framework of international law.
Read the post in Arabic HERE
Al Moatasem Al Kilani
An attorney specializing in international criminal law, Al Moatasem Al Kilani is also a certified Trainer of Trainers (TOT) in international criminal law and international humanitarian law. Actively engaged in the fight against impunity for crimes committed in Syria since 2016, he has contributed to numerous cases involving the application of universal jurisdiction across European Union countries.
He holds a Master’s degree in International Criminal Law from Paris and is currently a PhD researcher in Law at the Higher School of International Relations in Paris. His work encompasses a range of cases focused on combating impunity and advancing the principles of transitional justice in Arab Spring countries.