Why did Israel expel UNRWA?

By: Ricardo Israel - 03/11/2024

What has just happened cannot be fully understood without mentioning the decisions taken immediately after the 1948 war. Indeed, there is a direct relationship between the way in which the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East or UNRWA, created in 1949 by the General Assembly to provide aid to victims who had to leave or were expelled in the 1948 war (called the Nakba or catastrophe by the Palestinians) and their descendants, developed, so that added to the number of around 700,000 originally considered, today it would exceed 6 million.

Interestingly, the mandate initially included both Palestinian and Jewish refugees, as a similar number were expelled from Arab countries, where they had resided sometimes for centuries, long before the rise of Islam in the 7th century, following the British Empire, which considered all those who lived or emigrated there as Palestinians. In reality, it did not reach the point of providing services to Jews, as the State of Israel took over that responsibility, which formally materialized in 1952. For its part, UNRWA extended its mandate towards Arab Palestinians to include health, education and social services in five places, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Gaza and the West Bank (or Judea and Samaria), including East Jerusalem.

The truth is that there is nothing equivalent in the international system or in the UN, nor another specific agency for a specific national group, that is, nothing like UNRWA, and later we will explain how its mission has changed, since in addition to being considered vital aid for the Palestinians, it has become an actor that has entered into confrontation with Israel, and has deviated from its initial objective to become something not contemplated, with positions of open support for some and open hostility and enmity with others, in accordance with the winds that prevail today in the UN, which concentrates the accusations of the General Assembly or the Human Rights Council in such a way that, despite its small size and population, there have been years where half of the condemnations have been against Israel, an evident disproportion.

Very recently, on October 28, the Israeli parliament or Knesset passed legislation against UNRWA, with the support of opposition parties, the vote against of Arab MPs and the abstention of the left wing of the Democratic Party. There were actually two bills, and the main arguments can be drawn from the presentation to the plenary by MP Yuli Edelstein. First, that this institution was dedicated to “eternalizing” the situation of refugees instead of seeking a solution.

Secondly, it was argued that UNRWA employees had participated, even as commanders, in the Hamas massacre of 7 October, and that there was also a tradition of militancy that was expressed in the use of the institution's schools and clinics, showing as proof the school curriculum, where a biased view contrary to the facts predominates, despite being an international organisation that should be more objective, which forms young people in hatred, and makes any solution to the conflict difficult.

Thirdly, the presentation gives a general idea that the agency would have ceased to be an aid agency in order to facilitate the terror of some of its officials, accusing it of perpetuating suffering and poverty, instead of helping to “overcome their situation as victims”, since what it did was “seek demand for the services it provided, by turning the new generations into refugees”.

The first bill states that UNRWA “shall cease to operate, provide services, conduct any activity, directly or indirectly,” while the second states that the current legal framework between Israel and the Agency, signed after the Six-Day War in 1967, will expire “seven days after the passage (final law), and that no official of any government agency “may have contact three months later.” It also adds that “criminal proceedings initiated against employees who have engaged in acts of terror will continue.” In the two initial drafts, there is also a separation between the application to Gaza and the West Bank in one and to East Jerusalem (the first draft), since they receive different treatment in Israeli law, as regards the application of Israeli sovereignty, since they are considered occupied territories, divided in the other case, into the three areas (A, B and C) established in the Oslo Accords, approved by a vote of the Knesset.

Since there were two bills initially, the first received a vote of 92 to 10, while the second received a vote of 87 to 9. The fact that the law is not immediately applicable and that there is a 90-day period for its entry into force is due to the fact that it will require negotiation, since neither its presentation nor the law says (almost) anything about what would happen on the 91st day, who would come after Hamas in Gaza, or who would be responsible for replacing UNRWA in the services it currently provides in East Jerusalem, Gaza or the West Bank.

Immediately afterward, there was a condemnation at the UN, with Western countries generally using much more critical language than many Sunni Arab countries, and potentially the most difficult was the reaction of the US, where the State Department spokesman threatened to restrict military aid to Israel “unless the humanitarian situation in Gaza improves.” So far, so good, but the fact that it considered UNRWA to be a “very important actor in humanitarian aid” and referred to Memorandum 20 gives the impression that this time it is not intended to be a mere opinion, but to have legal consequences.

Israel has the military situation in Gaza relatively under control, and the situation in Lebanon has advanced much more quickly than expected, as the military objectives have been met to such an extent that Israel does not seem today interested in a ceasefire and is rather thinking of an agreement that would allow the danger posed by Hezbollah to the Israeli border populations to be resolved, declaring that it would intervene if it re-enters south of the Litani River, and also asking that the Lebanese border with Syria be closed to prevent the entry of weapons sent by Iran, which maintains its control of that group, demonstrated by the person who was appointed Chief, but whose current weakness is shown by the fact that it approved the support that Hezbollah gave to a ceasefire.

However, these successes, rather than obscuring them, make Israel's biggest problem even more visible: the lack of a political plan for Gaza and another for the new reality that it wants to create in Lebanon. Both have something in common: they need the Sunni Arab countries, transformed into de facto allies of Israel, as demonstrated in April, when several of them defended it not with words but militarily against the failed shipment of Iranian missiles.

These countries should become very important players, both for Gaza and for Lebanon, but the requirement for them to openly become the best friends that Israel can aspire to is much more than Europe, although one caveat should be made, since the attitude of Eastern Europe contains more understanding for Israel than that of the West.

Whether there is a formal alliance, and not just a de facto one, against Iran depends not only on the Arab countries, but also on Israel, since it would surely need a new election, so that it has sufficient support for what is coming sooner or later, which is to move forward in materializing the creation of the Palestinian State, where the help of those Sunni Arab countries would be fundamental to find what has not existed until now, which is a Palestinian interlocutor willing to have two states, one next to the other, and not one instead of the other, and which has wasted since before 1948 any initiative that allows it to accept what it has not wanted, to coexist with a Jewish State, since without that characteristic, the State of Israel would be something very different.

Without the commitment of the Sunni Arabs, a new reality seems difficult to achieve, as there is total distrust, another example of how the invasion of October 7 set back the idea of two states. I am convinced that, if there is progress in this direction, Israel can find a receptive ear in these countries, different from the current deafness of the West, plus the doubts that have arisen with the recent actions of the White House.

Let us remember that what the UN approved was a British proposal that divided the territory into two states, one Jewish and one Arab, which would have a special importance in the way the conflict evolved. The model was one where religious affiliation was important, and which the British also used in India, divided between Hindus and Muslims. Thus, the nation born with the name of Pakistan, through wars, gave rise to a new country (Bangladesh) and whose initial territorial separation recalls the current situation of Gaza and the West Bank, as well as Ireland, divided between the (Catholic) Republic and the province of Northern Ireland, initially predominantly Protestant and part of the United Kingdom.

It also responds to a historical moment, where the French proceeded in a similar way when they created in the same decade (1943, complemented by the withdrawal of troops in 1946) what they called "a country for Christians" which was none other than Lebanon and which also arose from territory detached from what was then known as "Greater Syria".

In the territory where Israel was created, Jordan kept the West Bank until 1967 and Egypt kept Gaza. There was a lot of historical presence of empires, but the only independent countries were the ancient and modern Israel, no other. In addition, Islam only arrived with the invasions of the seventh century, and the solution to the issue of the Arab populations had already been sought when most of the territory administered by the British and known as Transjordan was handed over to the Hashemites in 1922, allies of the British, until today the dominant monarchy of a predominantly Palestinian population, and which became the Kingdom of Jordan in 1950. For its part, the occupation of East Jerusalem buried forever the idea of an internationalized city.

In fact, the representation of the non-Jewish population was assumed by the Arab League, which is proven not only by the occupation of Gaza and the West Bank but also that after the British withdrawal, Israel's independence was declared on May 14, 1948, and the new country was invaded by Egypt, (Trans)Jordan, Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon and Yemen, and to everyone's surprise, Israel not only survived, but triumphed in that first war.

The other reason for the events was that the first representative organisation of the Palestinians was created in Jordanian Jerusalem only on 28 May 1964, and it only became definitive the following year, when the name of the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO), the predecessor of the current Palestinian Authority, was ratified and the president was assumed by the man known as Yasser Arafat, who was born in Cairo and not in the disputed territories. Until then, there was no adequate representation of the Palestinians, since in the 30s and 40s before the Arab League (created on 22 March 1945), the closest thing was the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, a religious and political authority, as well as an ally of Hitler.

This background also helps to understand the importance that UNRWA would acquire, and it is what also explains why decisions taken from 1948 onwards by the Arab countries would freeze the situation until today, since the incorporation of relatives and descendants who are already in the fifth generation, to whom the status of refugees is transferred, as is the case of Arafat's daughter, who has always resided in Paris, but is considered a refugee by the United Nations.

Strangely, the UN, rather than having an organisation dedicated to refugees, has both of the above. One is UNRWA, which, by passing on refugee status from parents to children, freezes the situation, without offering a solution other than charity, acting not only in Arab countries, but also in places where Palestinians are present, such as the West Bank with the Authority and Gaza with Hamas, which would also make them refugees there.

There is also a second agency, UNHCR, the UN Refugee Agency, headed by a High Commissioner, which is concerned with protecting all other refugees or displaced persons from conflict, seeking long-term or permanent solutions to their situation, through resettlement in the country of origin or host country. This objective of seeking definitive solutions has ended up differentiating one from the other, determined perhaps by the fact that UNRWA only deals with Palestinians, which remains the case, as long as their refugee status is maintained in the periodic review by the UN. With an obvious addition, that non-Palestinian officials have international salaries, and in general, they feel a lot of sympathy for the cause, which defines their attitude towards Israel, but never towards the Arab countries. In this sense, even today, the decisions taken by the League after 1948 prevent a definitive solution other than charity, since the countries where these refugees are do not grant them citizenship, but rather they would only be given a temporary place until they can return to what is now Israel. That is, they may be the fifth generation living there, but they do not acquire equality nor can they have access to certain professions or jobs.

Israel has alleged that UNRWA officials have collaborated with terrorist groups, with recent support from documentation found in Gaza (for Hamas) and also in Lebanon (for Hezbollah).

As Clinton recounted in his memoirs and reiterated in a recent public appearance, the plight of these millions of refugees was a major factor in Arafat's rejection of Israeli offers made in talks he convened, where two Israeli prime ministers, Ehud Olmert and Ehud Barak, offered the return of 97% of the territory and an openness to considering the establishment of the Palestinian capital in East Jerusalem, since one of the stumbling blocks was the imposition of these refugees, even though Israel did not raise the issue of Jewish refugees from Arab countries.

In conclusion, October 7 was a tremendous setback for the idea of two states, but the issue of the Palestinian State must be re-established, for which the presence of the Sunni Arab countries is key, together with the review of the 1948 agreements such as the situation of refugees and an international institutionality that, instead of helping to resolve the condition, maintains it, perpetuating charity.

If an agreement is to be reached, in today's Israel this includes a review of the attitude of biased organisations, which means ending their automatic anti-Israelism, which is also expressed in the curriculum and textbooks of their schools. Israel is thinking of organisations that, starting on day 91 of the passing of this law, will carry out the current functions of UNRWA, for example, other organisations, whether private or part of the UN itself, such as UNICEF for children and UNESCO for education and culture.

However, it is likely that this will not happen and that Israel is deluding itself, since it does not have the most important thing, a political plan that envisions a future for the Palestinians and that moves away from confrontation to a new negotiation, which if it is to be successful, the role of the current Arab countries is irreplaceable for a new reality, since in 1948, the idea of Palestine incorporated everyone, and the solution was seen in a Jewish state and an Arab state, which today would be Palestinian, with leaders who hopefully accept that the path can be made by walking, to the extent that they finally understand that direct negotiation with Israel is more beneficial than war.

@israelzipper

Master and PhD in Political Science (University of Essex), Bachelor of Laws (University of Barcelona), Lawyer (University of Chile), former presidential candidate (Chile, 2013)

«The opinions published herein are the sole responsibility of its author».