What does the ban on UNRWA passed by the Israeli Parliament imply?

On Monday, October 28, the Israeli Parliament (Knesset) voted by a large majority – 92 votes for, 10 against – two laws banning the United Nations Agency for Palestinian Refugees (UNRWA) from operating in Israel and Israeli officials to communicate with the organization, effectively preventing its work in Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem. This legislation must come into force within three months.

Much of the international community, including Switzerland, humanitarian organizations and the United Nations (UN) denounced the decision, recalling the agency’s key role in providing aid to Palestinian refugees, particularly in the Strip. of war-ravaged Gaza.

Why this ban?

Historically opposed to UNRWA, Israel believes that this humanitarian organization, created in 1949 and which continues to provide support to the descendants of Palestinians displaced by the 1948 war, perpetuates the Israeli-Palestinian conflict by allowing the transfer of refugee status. from one generation to the next.

Since the beginning of the year, the Israeli government has accused UNRWA of being infiltrated by Hamas, accusing several agency employees of having participated in Hamas attacks against Israel on October 7, 2023. Allegations mentioned by the legislators who wrote these laws.

An internal investigationExternal link of the UN led to the dismissal of nine staff members due to their possible involvement in these attacks. Another external investigation found no major flaws regarding the organization’s neutrality.

Plus

What consequences for UNRWA and humanitarian aid?

UN Secretary General António Guterres said on the X platformExternal link that “if they were applied, the laws […] would likely prevent UNRWA from continuing its essential work in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. An observation shared by the Commissioner General of UNRWA, the Swiss Philippe Lazzarini, according to whom “these laws will only aggravate the suffering of Palestinians, particularly in Gaza, where people have been living in real hell for more than a year “.

The ban on operating on Israeli territory directly threatens UNRWA headquarters in East Jerusalem, part of the city occupied by Israel since its annexation in 1967, as well as its activities in the Shuafat refugee camp.

The ban on communicating with the agency endangers its operations in the West Bank and Gaza, because to transport and distribute aid in these two areas, UNRWA is obliged to collaborate with the authorities and the Israeli army, particularly for its security. However, according to the new legislation, Israel will no longer provide the agency’s staff with the necessary work permits or visas.

Interviewed at the RTS microphoneExternal linkJonathan Fowler, spokesperson for UNRWA, said he was “worried” about the future, even if the concrete consequences remain difficult to predict while waiting for these texts to be put into practice.

“But indeed, if this law is implemented, it could interrupt our operations in the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza, where we are the backbone of international humanitarian assistance,” he added.

In the Gaza Strip, where 9 out of 10 PalestiniansExternal link have been displaced after more than a year of destructive war, UNRWA remains the main provider of humanitarian aid on which other organizations rely. The agency employs around 13,000 people there. It also runs numerous schools and health centers in the West Bank, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria.

swissinfo.ch / Kai Reusser & Abdelhafidh Abdeleli

Is it possible to replace UNRWA?

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu saidExternal link on October 28 be “ready to work with [ses] international partners to ensure that Israel continues to facilitate humanitarian assistance to civilians in Gaza in a manner that does not threaten Israel’s security” or through other organizations.

António Guterres and Philippe Lazzarini say that the agency is “irreplaceable”. A message supported by other humanitarian actors regularly mentioned as possible replacements, including the International Organization for Migration (IOM)External link. In April, the director of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) also told the TempsExternal link that the Geneva organization “does not [reprendrait] not the mandate of UNRWA”.

Interviewed at the RTS microphoneExternal linkJean-Daniel Ruch, former Swiss ambassador to Israel (2016-2021) believes that it is “not realistic in an emergency” to replace UNRWA with another actor, whether private or UN. “It seems extremely difficult to me. Because to provide this humanitarian assistance, it is necessary to have networks of suppliers for the purchase of equipment, networks for delivery to the Gaza border, trucks and a distribution network within Gaza itself by people who know the terrain.”

What does international law say?

The heads of the UN and UNRWA as well as several states have asserted that the Israeli Parliament’s vote flouts international law.

Professor of international law at the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies (IHEID) in Geneva, Fuad Zarbiyev believes that this is indeed a “new scandalous violation” of the United Nations Charter and international law by Israel.

By becoming members of the UN, States undertake to provide it on their territory with the conditions necessary for the conduct of its activities. Conditions defined in the UN Charter as well as in the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the UN, two treaties that Israel is committed to respecting. “The decision of the Israeli Parliament constitutes a serious and unjustifiable violation of these agreements,” adds the professor.

UNRWA operates under a mandate from the General Assembly, a UN body in which all member states sit. According to Fuad Zarbiyev, Israel cannot legally unilaterally prohibit the activities of this agency on its territory, nor prohibit the necessary contacts between its authorities and the organization.

“The UN must not depend on the goodwill of the Israeli authorities. We are talking about commitments made under international law. Unless Israel leaves the United Nations, it will be difficult for it to assert that this decision is legally justified,” he said.

UNRWA head, Switzerland’s Philippe Lazzarini said the legislation will “aggravate the suffering of Palestinians” and threatens to “weaken our common multilateral mechanism.”

Keystone / Salvatore Di Nolfi

What can the UN and the international community do?

On October 29, António Guterres sent a letterExternal link to the President of the General Assembly in which he raises the possibility that a “situation exists in which a dispute has arisen between the United Nations and Israel concerning, inter alia, the interpretation or application of the Convention on the Privileges and UN immunities.

According to Fuad Zarbiyev, this means, between the lines, that he encourages the members of this body to ask the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the highest UN judicial body, to produce an “advisory opinion” on the possible dispute which pits Israel against the UN on this point.

“According to the terms of the convention, this advisory opinion must be recognized as binding by the parties,” he explains. If the International Court of Justice (ICJ) finds that Israel is not respecting the law, “this will further undermine its legitimacy”. He added: “It is one thing for the General Assembly or the Secretary General to declare that this is a violation of international law. But it’s a completely different matter if this opinion comes from the main judicial organ of the UN.”

If the ICJ rules that international law does not permit Israel to ban UNRWA, then the Security Council or General Assembly can act on that basis. Their action could range from a firm resolution condemning Israel to a decision to withdraw certain rights, or even to impose sanctions or exclude it from the UN, an option that is however not realistic. International pressure could influence how Israel implements these laws.

What consequences for the UN?

Philippe Lazzarini believes that the decision of the Israeli Parliament creates a “dangerous precedent” and threatens to “weaken our common multilateral mechanism”.

Director for the United Nations within the Crisis Group think tank in New York, Richard Gowan, however, qualifies this observation. “The idea that this is an unprecedented situation and a dangerous precedent for the United Nations is exaggerated.”

This is not the first time that a state has opposed UN activities on its territory. The Malian government, which took power following a coup d’état in 2021, had for example criticized the UN peacekeeping mission in Mali, imposing operational restrictions on it before obtaining its withdrawal at the Council security.

“But it is true that it is unusual for a country to de facto ban the operations of a UN agency in this way,” specifies the expert.

If Israel ignores the decisions of the UN bodies, “then that sends a very strong signal that we can push the UN towards the exit as we wish,” he adds. “And if Israel does it, then others will think they can do it too.”

Text proofread and verified by Imogen Foulkes/livm/ptur