War on Gaza: Israel’s Ban on UNRWA and the Challenges of Global Governance

Israel’s ban on UNRWA imposes severe humanitarian challenges on the beneficiaries of its services in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. It is considered a political and legal overstep in light of the agency’s mandate, history, and roles. Additionally, the ban highlights the issue of global governance and its ability to provide an appropriate response in an increasingly tense world, especially in terms of relief efforts and humanitarian aid.

On October 28 the Israeli Knesset passed a law banning the activities of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA) in the territories under its control. The law passed with a 92–10 vote along with the adoption of a second resolution, 89–7, prohibiting Israeli officials from contacting or interacting with UNRWA and its staff.

The two laws are set to take effect within three months, effectively ending the agreement between Israel and UNRWA that had been in place since 1967 regarding the agency’s operations in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. This decision is a severe blow to the agency’s ability to provide services to Palestinian refugees in accordance with the 1949 UN General Assembly’s resolution. This move is part of an Israeli campaign against UNRWA, which has intensified since the breakout of the war, and this paper will explore its significant political, humanitarian, and security implications.

UNRWA and the Role of the Parallel State in the Palestinian Territories

UNRWA operates in five regions: West Bank (including East Jerusalem), Gaza Strip, and Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon, the host countries for Palestinian refugee. The agency employs more than 30,000 people to help the approximately 6 million registered Palestinian refugees. Specifically, UNRWA plays the role of a parallel state in the Palestinian territories. Its role in providing services—to 1.58 million refugees and eight camps in the Gaza Strip and 912,000 refugees and more than 19 camps in the West Bank—predates the establishment of the Palestinian Authority (PA) in 1994

UNRWA primarily focuses on providing essential health care (primary, reproductive, and rehabilitation), education (primary and vocational), relief and social services (food aid, cash subsidies, and social services programs), employment, micro-finance offices, emergency assistance, and infrastructure and camp services (waste management and infrastructure maintenance).

In the health sector, the agency operates 65 primary health care centers across the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip that, in 2023 alone, provided preventative and curative services to more than 1.6 million Palestinian refugees.

In education, UNRWA serves around 335,000 students enrolled in approximately 280 schools. Additionally, the agency offers higher education institutes that provide intermediate degrees, bachelor’s degrees, and vocational training programs.

UNRWA also runs a social security program that benefits more than 135,000 refugees in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and it operates more than 25 specialized centers for women’s services. Moreover, the agency has a loan program that has provided small loans to more than 250,000 refugees cumulatively. Besides its relief efforts, UNRWA also plays a key role in employing around 18,000 staff in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, including about 13,000 workers in the education sector and 1,500 in the health sector.

The Israeli decision threatens around 2.3 million Palestinian refugees who rely on UNRWA’s services and aid. If the Israeli decision is implemented, it could deprive them of essential services or, at the very least, significantly hinder their access to these services. This would lead to a severe deterioration of their living conditions and an escalation of their suffering. A large number of Palestinians already live under difficult economic conditions and are heavily dependent on these services, particularly in the Gaza Strip, which has been facing an unprecedented humanitarian crisis since October 7, 2023. UNRWA is the primary UN agency providing aid to the Gaza Strip, with approximately 1 million people seeking refuge in its facilities and shelters.

Context and Background of Israeli’s Escalation Against UNRWA

The law banning UNRWA’s activities in Israel and East Jerusalem stipulates that “UNRWA shall not operate any representative office, provide any services, or conduct any activities, directly or indirectly, in Israel.” Additionally, the Knesset approved a second law prohibiting Israel, its entities, and individuals holding public office from establishing relations with UNRWA. This law also removes the tax exemptions and diplomatic immunity previously enjoyed by the agency.

These decisions came after the Knesset’s first reading approval on May 29 of these laws, which also involved classifying UNRWA as a “terrorist organization.”

In fact, the law banning UNRWA’s activities followed a series of escalations in Israel’s relationship with the agency in the later stages of the war in the Gaza Strip. An intelligence report presented by the Israeli government in late January 2024 alleged that at least 12 UNRWA employees were involved in the October attacks, and that 10% of the agency’s 12,000 employees in Gaza had ties to Hamas and Islamic Jihad. This led the United States and several Western countries—including the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, Italy, France, Japan, Germany, the Netherlands, Finland, New Zealand, Switzerland, Austria, Romania, Sweden, and Estonia—to suspend their funding for the agency.

However, they later resumed funding after Israel failed to provide evidence to support its claims, except for the United States, which froze its contribution until at least March 2025. This came after a report—published by the Times of Israel and broadcast by Israel’s Channel 12 in December 2023—revealing a plan by the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs to end UNRWA’s operations in three phases.

The first phase: criminalize UNRWA through comprehensive reports linking it to terrorism by accusing it of cooperating with Hamas. The second phase: reduce its services by searching for alternative international organizations to take over its role. The third phase: transfer UNRWA’s responsibilities to the administration or body that would take control of the Gaza Strip after the war. In February 2024, Israel’s Bank Leumi froze UNRWA’s bank account, claiming suspicion of funds being transferred to Hamas.

Moreover, the Israeli accusations extended to the agency’s facilities, with Israel alleging that UNRWA facilitated Hamas by allowing the group to dig tunnels under its schools and that these facilities were used for storing weapons or as command and control rooms. UNRWA, which fervently denied the allegations, condemned Israel for targeting approximately 70% of its schools in the Gaza Strip since the beginning of the war up until July 2024.

The Israeli Decision and Its Stance on International Law

The Israeli decision has sparked a wave of international and regional condemnations from both states, UN organizations, and international institutions. The UN Security Council had previously warned on both October 10 and 30 against attempts to dismantle or diminish UNRWA’s operations, considering such actions a measure of Israel’s compliance with its international obligations. In practice, these decisions end the agreement signed in 1967 between Israel and UNRWA regarding the agency’s operations in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, severing official relations between the two parties. As a result, the privileges and immunity enjoyed by UNRWA employees within Israel, including exemptions from prosecution and taxes, will be revoked. Israel officially notified the United Nations of its decision on November 4.

From a legal standpoint, the Israeli decision to end its cooperation with UNRWA is considered a violation of international law. On October 29, 2024, Norway announced that it would submit a draft resolution to the UN General Assembly requesting an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on the question: “Does Israel violate international law when it prevents the United Nations, international humanitarian organizations, and states from providing humanitarian aid to Palestinians under occupation?"? ?This position was confirmed by the UN Secretary-General António Guterres,who called on Israel to “act in accordance with its obligations under the UN Charter and international law,” stressing that “national legislation cannot alter these obligations.” On October 31, the Arab League adopted a resolution presented by Jordan, declaring the Israeli decisions “illegitimate” and a violation of international law and Israel’s obligations as the occupying power in the Palestinian territories.

The Israeli decision is legally contentious due to its potential conflict with provisional measures issued by the International Court of Justice in January and March that called for Israel to facilitate the provision of essential humanitarian and relief aid to the Gaza Strip. It also contradicts UN Security Council Resolution 2730, adopted in May, that obligates Israel to respect and protect UN institutions and their staff. Furthermore, the decision goes against the 1946 Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations that grants immunity to UNRWA as part of the UN system to ensure the independence and functioning of its staff in carrying out their duties.

The UN secretary-general reiterated these points, highlighting that if the Israeli law is implemented, it would undermine the independence and protection of UN personnel and agencies operating under international law.

If Israel attempts to implement this law in the West Bank, East Jerusalem, or the Gaza Strip, it will face significant legal consequences. According to international law, there is no legal Israeli sovereignty in these territories, as they are considered by the United Nations and classified under international law as occupied territories. International law requires occupying powers to approve humanitarian programs and to facilitate their delivery to those in need, using all available means and resources.

Moreover, an advisory opinion issued by the ICJ on July 19 emphasized the illegality of Israel’s presence in Palestinian territories, stating that Israel is obliged to end its occupation as soon as possible.

The Implementation degree of the Israeli Decision in the West Bank and Gaza Strip

In practice, Israel could influence the operational mechanisms and activities of UNRWA in the Palestinian territories through several means.

First, Israel could issue military orders similar to the 1,700 it has applied in the occupied Palestinian territories since 1967. These orders are issued under the framework of Military Order No. 2 of 1967, which stipulates that any existing laws in the occupied territories are null and void if they conflict with orders issued by the occupying power’s administration.

Second, the Palestinian Authority does not have full sovereign state status in either the West Bank or Gaza Strip. In the West Bank, its theoretical legal authority is limited by the Oslo Accords. The PA exercises both civil and military control over Area A, which constitutes 11% of the West Bank’s total area. In Area B, the PA’s authority is restricted to civilian matters, while Israel retains full military and legal control. In Area C, which makes up about 61% of the West Bank, Israel holds full legal, military, and civilian sovereignty.

As for the Gaza Strip, there is no Palestinian Authority presence, and Israel rejects any such presence, particularly in the day after the war.

Third, the approval of the law banning any interaction between Israeli institutions and officials with UNRWA representatives and staff, as well as the cancellation of privileges for its employees, means that Israel will not issue work permits or entry visas for its staff. It will also halt coordination between the agency and the Israeli military, which will restrict the agency’s activities and stop the entry of its aid into the Gaza Strip, where all the crossings and entry points into the area are controlled by Israel. In the West Bank, forbidding coordination between the Israeli government and UNRWA will negatively affect the agency’s operational activities and undermine its ability to run its offices in all its areas of operation due to its reliance on coordination with the Israeli government or authorities. This will hinder the delivery of UNRWA’s goods and services to the Palestinian territories, which first enter through Israeli ports before being sent to the West Bank and Gaza.

Fourth, the restrictions on UNRWA’s work mean that Israel is no longer obligated to facilitate its operations, protect its offices, or ensure freedom of movement for its staff. UNRWA staff no longer enjoy diplomatic immunity. In a preemptive move, the Israeli army radio announced on October 10 that an order had been issued to confiscate the land housing UNRWA headquarters in the West Bank, specifically East Jerusalem, and allocate it for the construction of settlement units.

The Ban on UNRWA and the Day After the War

The ban on UNRWA does not only create a gap in its core role of providing protection and care for Palestinian refugees, but it also leads to direct and indirect consequences, imposing urgent and long-term arrangements.

The restriction of UNRWA’s role, particularly in the West Bank, could exacerbate the economic and social challenges faced by the Palestinian Authority, which will have the responsibility to fill the vacuum created if UNRWA stops providing its services. This is especially true for the Department of Refugee Affairs in the Palestine Liberation Organization. Such a situation could deepen the fragility of the Palestinian Authority, particularly given its inability to address the added challenges arising from the war in Gaza and Israeli measures against it, including the withholding of billions of dollars of tax money earmarked for the PA’s budget. At a time when the PA needs additional funding to cover health, education, and social services that UNRWA typically provides—or at least prepare for this eventuality—it would also have to deal with the thousands of agency employees whose jobs are threatened by the cessation of UNRWA’s operations. Since the ban that applies to the agency also applies to its staff, there are also fears of Israeli pursuit or other measures against the staff, such as being denied travel or entry into Israel.

Importantly, the ban on UNRWA is necessary for Israel to fulfill its vision for the post-war scenario in the Gaza Strip. Israel seeks to control aid distribution operations in the area and has engaged in discussions with the American Global Delivery Company to deliver and distribute aid in northern Gaza. This follows earlier talks in May with American security companies to manage the Rafah crossing. Israel’s aim is to implement practical steps in line with its vision for the post-war situation as outlined in Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s one-page “"Day After Hamas - document of principles" approved by the Israeli security cabinet on February 22. The document addresses the dissolution of UNRWA and the replacement of its services with other agencies and entities. It also covers the agency’s role in education, with Israel accusing the UNRWA’s curricula of promoting extremism and hatred. The document calls for educational programs across all religious, educational, and social institutions to prevent extremism.

The most dangerous aspect relates to the long-term consequences of the ban and its indirect ramifications, particularly in light of the Israeli government’s shift towards resolving the conflict rather than managing it. In this moment of war, Israel sees an opportunity to advance its plans, specifically in the following areas.

Israeli Sovereignty over the West Bank

The practical measures Israel is taking to resolve the conflict and liquidate the Palestinian cause. The ban on UNRWA fits into Israel’s broader vision, which includes a gradual transformation of the governance and sovereignty system in the West Bank. This is evident from the Israeli Broadcasting Authority’s announcement on November 11that Netanyahu will push to apply Israeli sovereignty over the West Bank immediately upon Trump’s return to the presidency, as well as statements by Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich preparing for this move. Prior to this, the Israeli government had taken several escalatory steps aimed at undermining the two-state solution and the establishment of a Palestinian state.

During the war, there were the largest land expropriations in the Jordan Valley since the 1991 Oslo Accords. The Israeli military also transferred a number of its legal authorities in the West Bank to the Civil Administration, which is headed by the Finance minister. In May, for the first time, a civilian was appointed as the deputy head of the Civil Administration, and in June the military granted the government the authority to demolish Palestinian homes. Further evidence of Israel’s vision was seen in the Knesset’s overwhelming vote against unilateral recognition of a Palestinian state on February 22, its vote on July 17 to reject the establishment of a Palestinian state, and its refusal to unify the West Bank and Gaza under the Palestinian Authority’s administration.

Removing the “Right of Return” for Palestinians

The decision reflects an Israeli denial of the political and legal responsibilities on which the agency was founded, according to Resolution 302, derived from UN General Assembly Resolution 194. Paragraph 11 of Resolution 194 clearly states: “The refugees wishing to return to their homes and live in peace with their neighbors should be permitted to do so at the earliest possible date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those who decide not to return to their homes, and for any loss or damage suffered.”

There are serious concerns regarding the future role of the UN agency in the Palestinian territories and its neighboring regions, especially with Trump in the Oval Office. Under his first administration, the United States froze funding for UNRWA in August 2018; it was later reinstated under the Biden administration. At that time, Israel welcomed the Trump administration’s decision to accuse UNRWA of “prolonging the Israeli-Palestinian conflict” by maintaining the “right of return” principle for refugees. This aligned with the three reasons presented by the Trump administration for its position: the continued operation of UNRWA contributes to the ongoing Palestinian-Israeli conflict through the “right of return,” which disrupts the peace process; the agency’s financial operations suffers from “irreparable dysfunction;” and the agency exaggerates the number of refugees by continually registering the descendants of those who experienced the Nakba (Arabic for catastrophe) of 1948 that witnessed the mass displacement and dispossession of about half of the Palestinian Arab population from their land during the Arab-Israeli war.

Israeli Ban on UNRWA and Aspects of Global Governance

The Israeli decision to ban UNRWA reflects the growing weakness within global governance institutions and a decline in their ability to manage humanitarian crises, conflicts, and the implementation of international resolutions, particularly those related to the protection of human rights. This is especially evident in the case of the UNRWA, which operates under a mandate from the UN General Assembly. In this context, the Israeli decision represents a challenge to the global governance system and a setback to the worldwide push for reforming governance mechanisms rather than bypassing them or seeking alternative tools.

Regarding UNRWA, there was potential to support and empower the agency to undertake internal and institutional reforms if it was found to have certain issues within its facilities or with the background of some of its staff. This could have been achieved by intensifying monitoring and oversight in these areas, which would have had a positive impact on other global governance institutions, positioning UNRWA as a model for reforming other bodies. Moreover, it would have represented an opportunity for multilateral cooperation among the host countries, donor nations, and those supporting UNRWA.

However, Israeli’s decision to ban the agency under the pretext of needing reform undermines efforts to reform other UN institutions and obstructs these institutions from fulfilling their humanitarian mandates. It highlights the ease with which states can withdraw from UN agreements, impose restrictions on the work of their staff, and strip them of their diplomatic privileges and immunities. Given the multitude of conflict zones around the world and the effectiveness of these institutions in providing humanitarian aid, this is a highly concerning precedent. It opens the door for states or other actors to use such actions as leverage in political conflicts, especially in the absence of a viable, agreed-upon alternative capable of delivering services in the same manner.

In reality, the Israeli decision to ban UNRWA is the latest example that illustrates how conflicts, interests, and geopolitical rivalries affect international organizations. Behind this decision are Israeli calculations, supported by active allies, particularly the United States, to transform the Palestinian issue from an international matter into one constrained by the perspectives of the Israeli right-wing government.

While the United States and the international community are urged to pressure Israel to broaden its approach toward UNRWA, the changes expected when Donald J. Trump becomes president on January 20 make the consequences of banning the agency and the entire global governance system even more grim. This is because Trump’s stance on the UN and its agencies, especially UNRWA, is generally negative. President-elect Trump is expected to support Israel’s decision to ban UNRWA and may even push to dissolve it, replacing it with other international agencies that lack the legal, political, and service-related weight of UNRWA.

Finally, the Israeli decision to ban UNRWA is an integral part of the Israeli government’s efforts to impose its own vision regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, attempting to resolve the conflict by imposing a final solution rather than seeking a settlement. More recently, there are expectations that Donald Trump’s victory will provide the Israeli government with ample opportunity to enforce its control over the West Bank. Less than a week after Trump won the November 7 presidential election, Smotrich called to “apply Israeli sovereignty” over the West Bank.