A Handbook on Diplomatic Alienation: Israel’s Ban on UNRWA

Vasil Samardzhiev

UNRWA school in East Jerusalem, one of many that may need to cease operations under the ban. Image sourced from Rusticus80 via Wikimedia Commons.

Six months have passed since Israel’s Knesset adopted a ban on the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) in October 2024. The ban targeted all UNRWA operations within Israel and disputed Palestinian territories, impacting the educational, healthcare and vocational services it provides to over 6 million Palestinian refugees.

Frequent and often violent raids by Israeli forces have affected UNRWA-run schools and vocational centres, undermining efforts by UNRWA to continue operating its facilities. On 9 April, Israeli Security Forces raided six schools in East Jerusalem with closure orders, impacting 800 students.

The ban sought to guarantee Israel’s security, uproot corruption in the Palestinian aid channels, and achieve a lasting (and Israel-friendly) solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict. It has instead threatened Israel’s diplomatic position and all humanitarian operations in the region. It has frustrated the international community and elicited widespread support for UNRWA’s mandate, with many fearing a catastrophic humanitarian emergency if the organisation were to collapse.

Reversing the ban is imperative for a peaceful resolution to the conflict. To do so, Israel needs to accept the insufficient evidence of UNRWA’s ties with terrorist organisations, the absence of a suitable alternative to the UN body, and its own legal obligations as a member of the international community. Only through addressing these concerns can Israel recover its diplomatic reputation and avoid being globally alienated.

Extremist Allegations

Israel’s ban rationale partially stems from the belief that the organisation has been used for advancing the objectives of anti-Semitic terror groups.  Criticism over UNRWA’s alleged involvement with Palestinian terrorist groups has been prominent in Israel since the 2000 Intifada, and was recently reignited by Israeli non-profit IMPACT-SE, which alleged that numerous Gaza-based UNRWA staff had participated in the 7 October terrorist attacks.

However, major independent and internal investigations into UNRWA’s operations - unsupported by Israel -  have not identified a widespread affiliation to terrorist organisations among its workforce. The potential involvement of 9 staff members in the events of 7 October was confirmed but was not considered an indicator of a systemic issue.

Ultimately, the international community has refrained from supporting the ban and has remained unconvinced that it would achieve Israel’s counter-terrorism objectives. To make international amends, Israel must abandon its accusations of terrorist association, or support and accept findings from verification initiatives by the international community.

Banning Without an Alternative

UNRWA’s eradication would deprive more than half a million children of education, almost 6 million people of basic health services, and more than 30,000 people of a livelihood. Banning UNRWA without a sufficient alternative thus poses a significant humanitarian and diplomatic challenge for Israel. While Israeli policymakers argue that the humanitarian gap can be filled by other, less “corrupt” UN bodies, several such bodies have already stated that the scale and unique nature of UNRWA’s assistance is too large for any of them to match.

For example, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) already supports most displaced persons globally and must assume responsibility over Palestinians if UNRWA ceases to exist. However, instead of supporting Palestinians in the disputed territories until a lasting solution is established like UNRWA, the UNHCR would in theory have to resettle Palestinian refugees permanently out of the Levant, denying them the right to self-determination.

Resettlement by UNHCR is also not a sufficient short-term solution. With only 0.5 per cent of refugees under its mandate having access to resettlement annually, many Palestinians will not be effectively supported in the current humanitarian catastrophe.

Israel’s demand to replace UNRWA without a viable, contextually appropriate alternative would not only fail to meet the humanitarian needs of the Palestinian population but would also undermine the wishes of the international community and further destabilise Israel’s global standing.

Can Israel Ban an International Body?

Israel’s ban of UNRWA disregards the wishes of the international community. UNRWA’s mandate has continuously been supported through consensus-based resolutions. Moreover, its neutrality safeguards are found to be “more rigorous than most other comparable institutions”, and allegations of breaches have been addressed sufficiently, as shown by the dismissal of the 9 staff members found to be involved in the 7 October attacks.

The international community is unlikely to uphold a ban imposed by a single state on a UN body. This would set a dangerous precedent in international law, effectively allowing any nation to unilaterally expel the international community from an active conflict zone.

Restricting UNRWA’s operations without an alternative could also be considered in direct breach of Israel’s obligations under international law. Accordingly the UN General Assembly has requested an advisory opinion by the International Court of Justice on Israel’s obligations vis-à-vis international institutions. To retain its legal and diplomatic standing in future negotiations, Israel must therefore retract its ban on UNRWA.

Conclusion

Israel's decision to ban UNRWA was premature and unwise. Despite concerns over extremist infiltration, evidence of widespread involvement within UNRWA remains weak. The scale of UNRWA’s operations have been proven impossible to match by any other organisation. Ultimately, taking unilateral action has isolated Israel from the international community and potentially breached international law.

Israel must reverse its ban. The international community should in turn reinforce the importance of maintaining international law, and assist Israel in addressing its sociopolitical concerns within established international frameworks. Without diplomatic engagement, a stable peace in the Middle East will be impossible to achieve.

Vasil Samardzhiev is pursuing a Bachelor of International Relations and Political Science at Flinders University. His academic interests include socio-cultural policy-making, ethnic identity and conflicts, and counter-terrorism, with a particular focus on the Middle East and Northern Africa region. Vasil has undertaken cross-institutional study at the University of Adelaide and Hebrew University of Jerusalem on his focus research topics, and has interned at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs.