In an unprecedented move, the Israeli government passed a sweeping ban on the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) on October 28. The decision will have a profound impact on humanitarian efforts in the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT), harming everything from food aid to education services. In the shadow of increasing international pressure on Israel to improve the humanitarian situation in Gaza, such an act will further harm Israel’s reputation while immediately placing its allies in a difficult position—one that could force their hand in defense of the international system and Palestinian lives.
The decision to ban the UN agency was the culmination of a long-running campaign by the Israeli government, accusing UNRWA of prolonging the conflict and being infiltrated by terrorists. Following the October 7 Hamas attacks on Israel, those criticisms expanded, with Israel identifying UNRWA as a terrorist organization indistinguishable from Hamas. The agency rejects these claims—including accusations that 10 percent of its workforce are members of the terror organization.
International pressure has bolstered Israeli attacks on the agency, increasing post-October 7. When Israel originally accused twelve UNRWA staff of participating in those attacks, multiple countries cut funding—including the United States—even after it immediately released the staff in question and began an investigation. UNRWA argues that Israel has not presented it with evidence, that some of its staff were coerced into false admissions, and its investigation could not corroborate Israeli claims.
The 92-10 and 87-9 votes in the Israeli Knesset fall against this backdrop, with international funding cuts earlier in the year almost certainly empowering the Israeli government’s decision to ban the organization from Israel and the OPT. The first vote bars UNRWA from operating in Israeli territory, while the second vote prohibits state authorities from any contact with the agency.
The move will have a profound impact on the humanitarian situation in the OPT, with serious repercussions for Gaza. UNRWA serves 5.9 million people across four countries, including upwards of 3 million Palestinian refugees in the OPT. Founded in 1949 after the Nakba—a term Palestinians use to define their forced displacement and ethnic cleansing from historic Palestine upon the founding of Israel—the agency is the core coordinating agency for humanitarian operations in the OPT. It provides food aid, educational services, medical assistance, and development aid across its roughly $1.5 billion in funding.
Thus, the Israeli ban will foster chaos across the OPT—possibly by design. Gaza will face the most immediate and painful impacts given the territory’s widespread humanitarian crisis. Currently, nearly all 2.1 million people in Gaza need assistance. Over 345,000 people face famine conditions in the enclave. Israel is effectively laying siege to northern Gaza, with nearly no aid reaching the roughly 400,000 Palestinians still in the area today.
While some Israeli officials claim aid efforts in Gaza have already shifted to other stakeholders, reality paints a different picture. Regardless, such a claim cannot justify outlawing the main aid agency operating during one of the worst humanitarian crises this century—as leading humanitarian groups and the United Nations continue to stress. Further, any day-after strategy will require experienced stakeholders with knowledge, networks, and infrastructure to advance Gaza’s reconstruction—something best suited to UNRWA, especially as the territory’s primary employer.
A ban on the agency also raises serious concerns about the safety of UNRWA staff, particularly in Gaza. Since October 7, nearly 300 humanitarian aid workers have been killed in Gaza since the start of the Israel-Hamas war. There are ongoing deconfliction issues between the Israel Defense Forces and humanitarian actors, bringing to the fore serious questions regarding Israel’s interest in both civilian protection and international law. Now, with Israeli domestic law associating UNRWA with terror, how will the IDF view the agency regarding its operations in the OPT?
This concern is one of many likely held by Israel’s international backers. Indeed, the decision to ban UNRWA makes it exceedingly difficult for the United States, Germany, the United Kingdom, and others to defend and justify Israeli military and political decisions surrounding the conflict. This situation was already the case before the ban, with key moments like Israel’s killing of seven World Central Kitchen humanitarians in a targeted attack on their convoy earlier this year drawing condemnation.
Washington faces a particular test, having just given Israel thirty days (beginning October 15) to improve the humanitarian situation in northern Gaza or risk military aid. With a consequential presidential election in days, President Joe Biden faces a difficult task after pigeonholing his administration into blind support for Israel since October 7. Ultimately, it will be incredibly difficult for his team to make any case that Israel is improving the humanitarian situation on the ground after its UNRWA ban, unlike multiple instances in the past when they largely sidestepped U.S. and international law.
While this U.S. administration has largely lawyered for Israel’s worst impulses throughout the conflict, it may find it difficult to do so post-election. To be sure, whether the Biden administration was buying time ahead of the election before pressuring Israel remains to be seen —just as Israel’s interest in what that administration says could be dependent on the election outcome.
Regardless, Washington would be wise to consider sticks that help end the conflict and ensure humanitarian aid access in Gaza—not more carrots. Free from the constraints of electoral politics post-election, Biden could have his best opportunity to check Israeli excesses, honoring the thirty-day warning by cutting military support and aid. Ultimately, the banning of a UN agency marks such a stain on Israel and its war conduct that it presents a unique opportunity for the president to reverse a widening conflict that threatens U.S. interests. The question is simple—will he take it?
Alexander Langlois is a foreign policy analyst focused on the Middle East and North Africa. He holds an M.A. in International Affairs from American University’s School of International Service. Follow him at @langloisajl.
Image: Anas-Mohammed / Shutterstock.com.
