The Knesset has voted to ban the UN agency for Palestinian refugees, UNRWA, prompting much concern, even from Israel’s closest allies. Two bills were passed on Tuesday with overwhelming majorities: the first to halt the relief agency’s activities in Israel and occupied East Jerusalem, and the second to ban the Israeli state from interacting with the organisation.
The move would make it almost impossible for UNRWA to operate in Gaza and the occupied West Bank. It would hinder the agency’s financial operations and break aid supply chains into the enclave, where the north has already been starved, bombed and besieged for about a month. More than 43,100 have been killed in Gaza since the war began.
This isn’t the first time that UNRWA, and the UN more broadly, have come under attack from Israel, politically or physically. The war in Gaza has been the deadliest for UN workers, killing more than 220 staff members from the agency. UNRWA funding was cut by western states after Israel accused some of its members of being involved in the October 7 attacks on southern Israel, which killed about 1,200 people and led to the start of the war. Although most have since reinstated their funding, the US – the largest donor – has yet to overturn its suspension.
The ban deals a blow to the 75-year-old organisation, which serves six million Palestinian refugees across the region. World leaders have warned that the consequences could be serious. Legal experts say the Knesset’s decision may be breaching international law.
In this episode of Beyond the Headlines, host Nada AlTaher looks at the effect of the UNRWA ban on Palestinians in Gaza, and examines the legal consequences it could have on Israel and its standing at the UN. We hear from Chris Gunness, former director of communications and advocacy at UNRWA, and international human rights lawyer Saul Takahashi.
Below is the full transcript of this episode:
Nada AlTaher: Israel this week passed legislation that has brought criticism from even its closest allies, with the parliament voting to ban the UN agency for Palestinian refugees, UNRWA, effectively stopping all operations in Gaza and the occupied West Bank.
Two bills were passed with an overwhelming majority. The first, to stop the relief agency's activities in Israel and occupied East Jerusalem. The second, to ban the Israeli state from interacting with the organisation. This means no financial operations and a break in the aid supply chains into Gaza, where the north has been starved, bombed and besieged for nearly a month.
The decision deals a serious blow to the 75-year-old organisation. UNRWA was established in 1948 to provide relief to 700,000 Palestinians expelled from their land in what is called the Nakba, or catastrophe.
After the Arab-Israeli War in 1967, Israel and UNRWA signed a treaty. This is now set to expire under the ban, which comes into effect in three months. The agency, analysts have said, is crucial to preserving the prospects of self-determination and the right of return for generations of Palestinian refugees.
There is no alternative to UNRWA. That's what UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres said, a message echoed widely by humanitarian aid groups and world governments. Unicef has called the ban a “new way to kill children”.
Even the US has said it is "deeply troubled” by the legislation and hopes Israel will pause its decision, at least. But this isn't the first time that UNRWA, and the UN more broadly, have come under attack, physically or otherwise, by Israel's government. The war in Gaza has been the deadliest conflict for UN workers, killing more than 220 staffers from the relief agency.
UNRWA’s aid facilities have been targeted and destroyed in Israeli attacks, and crucial funding to the agency was cut off by western states after Israel accused some of its members of being involved in the deadly October 7 attacks.
But will this latest effort to shun the UN have more serious consequences for Israel? This is Beyond the Headlines and I'm your host Nada AlTaher. This week, we look at the impact of the Knesset's UNRWA ban on Palestinians in Gaza and we examine the legal consequences it could, or should, have on Israel.
The scope of the humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza is unquantifiable at this point. Amid the weeks-long siege and continued air strikes, and violence in the north of the strip, horrific scenes are unfolding before our eyes. Hospitals are completely decimated, people are starving and only a negligible amount of aid has actually entered the enclave - not nearly enough for what the people really need. And the death toll only climbs and climbs.
Chris Gunness is a former director of communications and advocacy at UNRWA and says the new legislation will make a dire situation even worse.
CG: This is going to turn a humanitarian catastrophe into a humanitarian apocalypse. And I use that word advisedly, because I believe that what we're seeing is history's first televised industrial-scale death camp.
It means, first of all, that 400,000 people who are being forced out of northern Gaza will not, if implemented, have an organisation to give them shelter, to give them clean water, to give them medicine, to give them food.
It means that 1.5 million people reliant on UNRWA for food handouts will not get those. It means that 650,000 children will not receive an education. The list goes on. It's absolutely appalling and I hope the world will not allow this decision by the Knesset to be operationalised on the ground.
NA: The war has also taken a toll on the agency's workers, who have not only been working under impossible circumstances to try to bring relief to the population, but have also come under attack themselves.
CG: We've heard the Israeli ambassador to the United Nations call for the UN to be destroyed and we've seen 70 per cent of UNRWA's facilities in Gaza either being damaged or totally destroyed. We've seen Israeli snipers taking aim at first responders. Those are the reports we're getting, certainly from the north of Gaza. So yes, UNRWA is absolutely under threat, and my concern is that rogue elements are going to take revenge on UNRWA as they see it, because of this legislation.
But what is remarkable is that, although 225 members of UNRWA staff, the highest in a single conflict in the history of the UN, have been killed, the staff remain absolutely committed to their mandate. Many have remained behind in northern Gaza, despite the commissioner general [Philippe Lazzarini] telling them to move south.
I have no doubt that, in spite of this decision by the Knesset, the staff of UNRWA will continue as they can and within the resources they have to deliver services. And they realise that only the General Assembly gives UNRWA its mandate, and only the General Assembly can change that mandate.
NA: Chris says the Knesset’s decision could have serious consequences for any long-term prospects for peace.
CG: It's very bad news for the peace process. This is a unilateral attack, first of all, on Palestinian self-determination, because it's aimed at denying the 5.9 million refugees registered with UNRWA any say in the final peace process. But it's also an attack on the very idea of a peaceful resolution, because make no mistake, there can be no just and lasting solution to the Middle East peace process unless six million of the refugees, the Palestine refugees, are brought out of their statelessness and dispossession. So without that happening, the Middle East will remain an inherently unstable place and Israel will remain an inherently insecure place.
NA: Israel may also need to consider the impact of its decision on its own interests. Chris says that, not only could this decision compromise Israel’s standing at the UN, but it could also have legal repercussions.
CG: To be frank, that the Knesset’s done is entirely illegal. It's a violation of the UN Charter. It's a violation of the 1946 Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the UN, which grants the UN all sorts of privileged statuses. Thirdly, it's a violation of the war, of the rules of belligerent occupation under which Israel is obliged to deliver services. And very lastly, it's a violation of the Genocide Convention, which makes it very clear that these kinds of actions are utterly illegal.
NA: Could Israel really be expelled from the UN because of this? Or should it? I discussed this with Saul Takahashi, an international human rights lawyer who used to work with the UN human rights agency in Palestine. I asked him whether the Knesset's decision could stand up to the standards of international law and the UN Charter.
Saul, back in February, the International Court of Justice issued provisional measures to Israel, obliging it to facilitate the distribution of aid in Gaza. Not only has Israel continued to obstruct aid, as documented by rights groups, but it has also banned the most important organisation in the enclave from operating.
The Israeli decision has been called illegal and a violation of the UN Charter. Is this decision also a violation of the ICJ order? And what other international laws could Israel be breaking by making this move?
ST: First of all, it is definitely a violation of the UN Charter and of various treaties, which Israel has signed on to, not the least of which is the treaty that outlines the privileges and immunities of the United Nations.
It violates the order, the binding order, of the International Court of Justice, which told Israel in no uncertain terms that it had to make sure there was adequate humanitarian aid going into Gaza at scale. But it hasn't been anywhere near enough.
So we have this very unprecedented situation where we have a UN member state, which is basically thumbing its nose at the UN, at international law in general and at the entire international system. And this really is an accumulation of decades and decades of impunity that Israel has enjoyed. It's a serial violator of its obligations as a UN member state to abide by UN Security Council resolutions.
I think it was the last resolution that was adopted by the Security Council, one of those very unusual ones that the Americans didn't veto. The Americans just tried to immediately explain it away by saying Security Council resolutions are not binding if they're not adopted under a certain procedure, Chapter 7 of the UN Charter. But this is not true.
The UN Charter says very, very clearly that member states have obligations to abide by the decisions of the Security Council. It's very, very clear. And there's also a procedure for the expulsion of a state that refuses to abide by its obligations. It's not directly connected in the text with the obligation to abide by Security Council resolutions, it's obvious that's part of it.
You have to abide by certain obligations. First and foremost, you have to be a peace-loving country. And I would certainly argue that already Israel fits the bill of not fulfilling that fundamental requirement.
NA: So there's a very big difference between what is being done, what can be done and what should be done, which brings us to my next question. You just talked about whether Israel should be suspended from the UN, but do you think that's actually going to happen given who the biggest ally to Israel is and the veto power the US holds?
ST: There's a formal process under the UN Charter for expelling a state, or even suspending a state, from the UN, but that has to go through the Security Council. So I think it's pretty clear that's not going to happen in the foreseeable future because the Americans are going to protect Israel and they're going to veto that process.
But even should that happen, the General Assembly has its own procedures to deal with this kind of thing. With South Africa, they basically manoeuvred around the requirement for a Security Council recommendation. But it's not necessarily just a rubber stamp, technical exercise. I mean it involves governments making statements about whether they recognise the legitimacy of particular governments. What I'm saying is, it's a technical procedure, but it has political aspects.
NA: Saul, in the case of South Africa, the UN Security Council could not expel it, but the UN General Assembly was still able to discredit it from participating. Did this have any impact on South Africa at the time? And how can this or other measures be taken by the UN to hold Israel accountable, if not by expulsion?
ST: So what happened in the case of South Africa is there was a proposal for it to be formally expelled. And the expulsion procedure has to go basically to the Security Council. So no surprise what happened, the western countries protected South Africa. And so the Americans, the Brits and the French all vetoed this course of action. So that fell apart.
But then it went back to the General Assembly. And the General Assembly basically said, “Look, in the face of the Security Council inaction, we've got to do something.” And so basically they used the credentials process to disqualify the South African delegation from coming to the GA. They basically said, “Look, we don't recognise you as a legitimate representative of anybody basically, and certainly not of the South African people.” And so South Africa was suspended from the GA de facto. So they couldn't come to the UN General Assembly, which basically amounted to a suspension from the United Nations. And that was the case until they dismantled apartheid.
We could debate about whether that's ideal, but the point is that's another practical way to go forward, perhaps within the UN framework to hold Israel accountable, but something has to be done.
NA: Can you explain to us the difference between the UN General Assembly and the UN Security Council? What would the suspension or expulsion of Israel from the UN General Assembly mean versus suspension from the Security Council?
ST: The Security Council is basically the only body of the United Nations that can issue an order for enforcement action on all of its members. So basically it can adopt a resolution saying all member states must exclude Israel from their national fora and must levy economic and political sanctions against Israel. From then on, no member state is allowed to provide weapons to Israel. Theoretically, that's the kind of thing that it could do.
And it's done that, of course, for example, with Iraq in the First Gulf War. After 9/11, there were various resolutions adopted about terrorist funding and that kind of thing.
So it's the only body that can adopt resolutions that are mandatory to enforce international law. But the catch, of course, is that permanent member states of the Security Council have veto power.
When the Security Council does not fulfil its mandate, there are other processes that the General Assembly can use to try to push forward the cause of international peace and security. But the catch is that the General Assembly, unlike the Security Council, cannot adopt a resolution that dictates enforcement. It can't adopt a resolution saying all member states of the UN must levy economic sanctions against Israel. It can adopt a resolution, and recently it has, saying that we really believe all member states should do this. It's like a technical decision saying, “We do not recognise this delegation and we're going to continue not recognising the delegation from Israel insofar as it continues to defy international law.”
NA: Did anyone surprise you in terms of the statements that came out condemning the Israeli decision to ban UNRWA? We've seen the US mildly criticising this and saying to pause the vote. But we also saw Germany coming out, which has been staunchly pro-Israel during this past year.
ST: It's not such a surprise, frankly. Because, first of all, the atrocities that Israel is committing in Gaza are just so undeniable. And the groundswell of support for the Palestinian cause is at the point where really governments simply can't ignore it.
But the thing is, words are cheap. And we've seen before how the Americans, needless to say, and the Europeans as well, they issue these statements: “We are gravely concerned.” But it doesn't do anything. I mean, without teeth behind these kinds of statements, they're just going to remain words on paper and the Israelis will ignore them.
The other thing that’s also important, the International Court of Justice, besides those binding orders on Israel to stop actions that could violate the Genocide Convention, there's also an advisory opinion that they issued in July, stating in no uncertain terms that the Israeli occupation of the 1967 territories is illegal, that Israel has to vacate them, that countries should make sure it vacates them, and that there should also be a ban of provision of weapons and other economic sanctions. The General Assembly has also adopted a resolution basically stating those terms.
We don't have to wait for action or instructions from the Security Council. That's the kind of thing that should also happen immediately. The UN exists to uphold international law, that’s what it exists for. But also the UN is, at its core, a club of nations. It's a club of countries. There's no God-given right for any country to be a member of the UN and, if we have a rogue state that is violating the rules, that persistently defies the authority of the United Nations - and this UNRWA ban is just the latest one of them - then we have to get together and say, ‘Look, this guy shouldn't be a member of the club any more.’ What's going on here?
NA: So is that what Antonio Guterres meant when he said he's going to keep the UN General Assembly briefed on the matter? Do you actually think Israel could, in our lifetimes, be suspended or expelled from the UN, or even ostracised in one way or another?
ST: I think there's a very big chance. I actually have no doubt it will happen pretty soon. I think the suspension from the GA, a la what happened to South Africa, is something that's actually very realistic.
Remember, the UN General Assembly is one country, one vote, and there is huge support for the Palestinian cause among the countries of the world. And if you look at the western media, it just makes it seem like Palestine is not really a state, nobody's recognised it, nobody accepts it. It's complete nonsense. I mean, more than 140 countries have recognised Palestine as a state.
The Americans have not always been successful in their efforts to suppress the Palestinian cause in the GA. Quite often they've been unsuccessful. The 2012 vote accepted Palestine as a non-member state to the UN. The Americans went around really trying to strong arm other countries into not voting with the Palestinians, but they lost. They were just not successful at the end. And I think there's a very, very big chance this could happen very soon.
NA: That's it for Beyond the Headlines this week. This episode was produced by Fadah Jassem and Ban Barkawi. It was audio engineered by Arthur Eddyson. Yasmeen Altaji is our assistant producer and Doaa Farid is our editor. And I'm your host, Nada AlTaher.