Banning of UNRWA decried as decision with ‘unimaginable’ consequences

By Marine Henriot

Last week the Israeli parliament passed two laws regarding UNRWA, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees. The first text adopted by the Knesset bans ‘UNRWA activities on Israeli territory’ while the second prohibits Israeli officials from working with UNRWA and its employees. Experts say both actions risk seriously disrupting the Agency's activities, while Israel would have tight control of all humanitarian aid shipments entering Gaza. 

The two laws are due to take effect 90 days after their adoption, according to the Knesset.

Since 1949 this United Nations relief and development agency has been managing health centres and schools in Gaza and the West Bank, meeting the basic needs of more than five million Palestinian refugees in the Middle East. The humanitarian consequences of its ban are ‘unimaginable’, as Jonathan Fowler, the Agency's spokesman, explained in the following interview with Vatican News.

Interview with UNRWA spokesman, Jonathan Fowler, by Vatican News' Marine Henriot

How should this decision be interpreted in terms of international law?

Israel has absolutely no right to ban UNRWA. You have to remember that we were created by a mandate from the United Nations General Assembly in 1949, and since then our mandate has been regularly renewed. It should also be remembered that the General Assembly has since grown to include several countries, all of which are additional voices in the international community to renew our mandate.

This is how international law works, with United Nations resolutions. A single member cannot decide and say ‘We don't like this or that agency, it goes against our interests, so goodbye’. That's not how it works.

We're asked how we react to these laws, but unfortunately we're used to it. We have been subjected to a campaign to dismantle UNRWA for various reasons since well before the start of this war, but this dismantling effort has taken on an unprecedented scale. These laws are a further step.

What about the specific case of East Jerusalem?

The case of East Jerusalem illustrates the whole problem. Israel has considered East Jerusalem to be an integral part of its territory since it was annexed in the 1980s. But in the eyes of the international community, East Jerusalem is an occupied territory, and when we talk about the West Bank, that includes East Jerusalem.

Israel says in its law that UNRWA does not have the right to operate on its sovereign territory, i.e. in East Jerusalem, but that's where the problem lies, it's not considered as such by the international community.

Our offices have been in East Jerusalem since the early 1950s. Our landlord is Jordan, and will remain Jordan. Our lease is still valid and there is no reason to revoke it.

How can UNRWA respond to this situation?

Firstly, the Secretary General of the United Nations will refer the matter to the General Assembly. The General Assembly decides here. It is here that decisions are taken on whether or not to continue the mandate of a United Nations agency.

This is the first option that has been mentioned, and Norway has announced that it intends to refer the matter to the International Court of Justice. These are measures taken within what can be considered the multilateral system.

But there are also actions being taken by countries and groups of nations trying to say ‘No, this is not acceptable and these laws must either be revoked or not implemented at all’.

Is this another blow to multilateralism?

That's exactly what it is. The problem is that if these laws are maintained here, who's to say that they won't happen elsewhere tomorrow? A government or a country could, for one reason or another, declare the same thing on its territory. 

If this starts to set precedents through unilateral action, it's almost the death knell of multilateralism, which is not a perfect system, but it's the best system we've had for settling our differences since the end of the Second World War.

What impact could these laws have on the people of Gaza?

In Gaza, we are the backbone of the international humanitarian operation. If we take the image of a body and remove the backbone, the body doesn't stand upright.

And that is unfortunately exactly the risk in Gaza, where the international humanitarian operation can start to unravel little by little or even come to a halt overnight. We have 13,000 employees in Gaza, of whom around 5,000 are able to continue working.

These are employees who are for the most part displaced, who have suffered repeated deaths in their families, but who continue to work. There is no other UN agency like us; the other agencies can't work without us. The consequences of the end of humanitarian operations are unthinkable for the population. Famine is already lurking in Gaza, and epidemics are rife. Polio is back on the scene 25 years after it was eradicated, and we are heading for the worst. It's unimaginable.

UNRWA is also present in the West Bank. How would life be without UNRWA?

We are a unique agency in the United Nations system, and our primary vocation is to provide services directly to the population. We have schools, clinics and a few hospitals, as well as social services, refuse collection, etc.

And if this stops, the standard of living of the people in the West Bank, which is not high, is likely to radically change.

It's not possible to replace an agency that does everything we do. And what's more, we shouldn't replace it because no one else in our international system has the mandate to do what we do.

Original report on Vatican News' French page