An UNRWA aid truck at the Rafah border crossing between Egypt and the Gaza Strip. Photo: Reuters/Amr Abdallah Dalsh
UNRWA, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, is the United Nations body responsible for providing aid to Palestinians.
The UN agency has also been exposed as supporting Hamas, teaching Nazi ideology to Palestinian children, and even participating in the October 7 massacre. Indeed, after his assassination by Israeli forces, Hamas chief and October 7 mastermind Yahia Sinwar was found with cash, weapons, and (wait for it…) an UNRWA ID card.
It therefore came as no surprise when, last October, the Israeli Knesset passed a law banning the UNRWA organization in Israel.
At the time, my organization published a proper legal analysis on our Substack page, which indicated that, aside from some short term virtue signaling, the new Israeli law was unlikely to have any impact at all. The law officially took effect last Thursday, and as predicted, it is having little practical impact on security, but it is creating diplomatic and public relations problems for Israel. Here’s what you need to know.
Under Israel’s new law, UNRWA is not permitted to “operate any institution, provide any service, or conduct any activity, whether directly or indirectly,” in the sovereign territory of Israel.
However, by Israeli law, neither Gaza nor Judea/Samaria (the “West Bank”) are Israeli “sovereign territory” and for good reason.
In order to become sovereign territory, Israel must perform a legal act called “annexation.” For example, in 1967, Israel annexed the eastern portion of Jerusalem, and did the same in 1981 with respect to the Golan Heights. Israelis have at times debated whether to annex parts of Gaza and Judea/Samaria, but Israel has never actually done so, because, among other things, this would likely end Israel’s existence as a Jewish state.
Under both international law and Israel’s own citizenship laws, Israel is required to offer full citizenship to all people living in an annexed area, regardless of religion, ethnicity, or national origin, and indeed, Israel has done so in both Jerusalem and the Golan Heights. To do otherwise would effectively create multiple classes of citizens with different rights, which is anathema to most Israelis as well as to any true democracy. Accordingly, to annex Judea/Samaria and Gaza as sovereign Israeli territory would mean adding millions of voting, Palestinian citizens to Israel’s democratic system.
But how many?
The Palestinian population of the West Bank and Gaza stands at 5.5 million, while the Muslim population within Israel is approximately 2 million, for a total of 7.5 million. This is more than the Jewish population, which is 7.1 million. After including Christians and other ethnicities, Jews would become an even smaller minority of total voters, and by the next election, Israel would cease to be a Jewish state at all.
Some people question whether Palestinian population figures are exaggerated, but even if they are, and even if Israeli Jews were to maintain a slim voting majority, Israel’s character as both democratic and also Jewish would be in constant jeopardy, and unlikely to last long term.
In short, most of the areas where UNRWA operates are not Israeli “sovereign territory” according to Israeli law, and therefore not covered by the new anti-UNRWA law. Under this new law, UNRWA is therefore continuing to operate in Gaza and Judea/Samaria, and in all likelihood, will continue its involvement in terror activities against Israelis.
Though the new law will likely be ineffective at curbing UNRWA’s terror activities, it will be quite effective at creating new international problems for Israel.
UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres stated that the new Israeli law will be “devastating” for Palestinian civilians, a view that is echoed by much of the international community. Guterres’ statement is based on the patently false claim that there is “no alternative” to UNRWA.
In fact, there are multiple channels for delivering humanitarian aid, including other (potentially less corrupted) UN agencies, such as UNHCR, or UNICEF, as well as governments and private contractors.
Guterres further claims that Israel’s anti-UNRWA legislation violates international law. This assertion is simply untrue.
On the one hand, the IDF has implemented a legal blockade on Gaza, making Israel responsible for providing humanitarian aid to local civilians. Similarly, Israel’s Supreme Court has ruled in multiple cases that Israel must follow the international rules related to “belligerent occupation” in Judea/Samaria, rules which include the provision of humanitarian aid. However, international law says nothing about which entity is required to provide such aid.
Therefore, as long as Israel provides the required aid through some mechanism, there is absolutely no requirement to work through UNRWA. This would be the case even if Israel’s law prohibited UNRWA from operating in Gaza and Judea/Samaria, which it does not.
In any case, the opinion of the United Nations holds little credibility for most Israelis in the wake of the international body’s support for Hamas terrorism and its direct participation in the October 7 massacre (via its UNRWA agency). Nonetheless, the widespread (albeit inaccurate) view that Israeli actions are “devastating” or even “illegal” does influence other parties that are relevant to Israel, including the United States.
The Biden administration sent a strongly worded letter to Israel on October 13, 2024, effectively threatening an arms embargo unless Israel took certain actions within 30 days: one of the demands was that Israel not pass any laws against UNRWA — exactly what Israel did just days later. The American letter points to US National Security Memorandum 20 and Section 620i of the US Foreign Assistance Act, both of which are essentially mechanisms for cutting off foreign aid from US allies: a not-so-subtle threat to abandon Israel’s critical self-defense, in order to protect the close partner of a terror organization.
Indeed, the Biden White House did freeze a variety of items that Israel urgently needed, a practice that Trump undid by executive order shortly after taking office.
While it is unlikely that the Trump administration would actually carry out threats made by the Biden White House, the principle nonetheless opens Israel up to a variety of diplomatic attacks and embargoes by other countries, as well as by the United States under a future, less supportive, administration. It is arguably worth taking such risks in order to protect Israelis from terror attacks, but with UNRWA continuing to operate in Gaza and Judea/Samaria, the current Israeli law will not accomplish its intended security impact.
What would be effective? The Knesset introduced a bill last July to declare UNRWA a designated terror organization under Israeli law. Such a designation would allow Israel a variety of legal and security tools that could curb UNRWA’s harmful activities in a meaningful way, including in Gaza and Judea/Samaria. However, not only would passing such a law put Israel on a collision course with its key allies, but enforcement could result in Israel arresting, prosecuting, and potentially even engaging in combat with a UN agency.
Ultimately the problem Israel faces is bigger than UNRWA — it is that the Western world is engaging in widespread appeasement of terror organizations and their patrons. Until this reality changes, the tools available to Israel to protect its citizens from terrorism will remain tragically, and dangerously, limited.
Daniel Pomerantz is the CEO of RealityCheck, an organization dedicated to deepening public conversation through robust research studies and public speaking.
The post UNRWA Is a Terrorist-Supporting Disaster; But New Israeli Law Won’t Stop It first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
Post Views: 224
