Did you say, Israël rejects UNWRA
Post-Gaza Has Already Begun
For nearly eight decades, UNRWA has shaped the fate of Palestinian refugees. Established in 1949 to address the humanitarian crisis that followed the first Arab-Israeli war, the agency has gradually evolved into an institution that is humanitarian, political, and deeply symbolic.
Today, its future is more uncertain than ever.
At first glance, the debate appears to revolve around a United Nations agency. In reality, it reflects two fundamentally different visions of peace.
For many governments and humanitarian organizations, UNRWA remains indispensable until a comprehensive political settlement is reached. Eliminating the agency now, they argue, would leave millions of civilians without essential services.
For others—Israel foremost among them—it is precisely UNRWA’s continued existence that has helped freeze the conflict by preserving mechanisms established in 1949. From this perspective, lasting peace cannot emerge without changing the institutions that have accompanied the conflict for nearly eighty years.
The post-Gaza era, therefore, is no longer simply about rebuilding shattered cities. It is about deciding who will govern Gaza tomorrow—and according to what principles.
Why Israel Now Rejects UNRWA
Israel’s rejection of UNRWA is not based solely on the allegations that surfaced after the October 7, 2023 attacks, when investigations found that some agency employees had participated in or assisted Hamas operations. For Israeli leaders, those revelations merely confirmed a long-standing belief: UNRWA has become part of the problem rather than part of the solution.
Israel raises several major criticisms.
The first concerns the hereditary nature of refugee status. Unlike the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), UNRWA extends refugee status to descendants of the original refugees. As a result, the approximately 700,000 Palestinians registered in 1949 have become several million beneficiaries today.
From Israel’s perspective, this system perpetuates the concept of a “right of return” that is fundamentally incompatible with the continued existence of the State of Israel. Rather than gradually fading, the conflict is institutionally carried from one generation to the next.
The second criticism concerns UNRWA’s relationship with Hamas in the Gaza Strip. Israel argues that Hamas made systematic use of civilian infrastructure throughout Gaza, including facilities operated by UNRWA. Although the agency strongly denies any institutional collaboration, these allegations have severely undermined its credibility in the eyes of Israeli authorities.
Finally, Israel contends that the political neutrality expected of a United Nations agency has not always been maintained. Questions surrounding school curricula, educational materials, and the ideological environment in which successive generations of young Palestinians have grown up have become central to this debate.
An Agency Unlike Any Other
UNRWA occupies a unique position within the United Nations system.
Whereas UNHCR seeks to reduce refugee populations over time by encouraging integration, resettlement, or voluntary repatriation whenever possible, UNRWA serves only Palestinian refugees under a separate and highly specific mandate.
For years, critics have argued that this exceptional status has helped preserve the problem rather than resolve it.
Beyond this institutional uniqueness lies a political reality that is rarely discussed.
Since 1948, neighboring Arab states have, with very few exceptions, made little effort to permanently integrate Palestinian refugees. Jordan remains the principal exception, having granted citizenship to a large share of its Palestinian population.
Elsewhere, refugee status has largely remained permanent.
This has led some observers to conclude that UNRWA has gradually become less an instrument for achieving a political solution than a shield behind which the absence of such a solution has been allowed to persist.
International funding has made it possible to manage the humanitarian consequences of the conflict while leaving its underlying political causes unresolved.
Education: A Defining Issue
Few subjects generate as much controversy as education.
UNRWA operates one of the largest school systems in the Middle East, educating hundreds of thousands of children.
Its supporters argue that these schools provide an indispensable education in territories deeply affected by poverty and conflict.
Its critics contend that several generations have been educated in an environment where hostility toward Israel, the glorification of martyrdom, or the absence of mutual recognition have appeared in some educational materials—or in the way those materials have been used.
Investigations conducted in recent years have prompted several donor countries to demand stronger oversight and comprehensive reviews of school curricula.
UNRWA says it has strengthened its internal monitoring procedures and insists that it officially applies United Nations standards of political neutrality.
Yet the debate remains unresolved.
Because beyond the textbooks lies a much deeper question: how can lasting peace emerge if successive generations continue to grow up embracing national narratives that remain fundamentally irreconcilable?
Post-Gaza Changes the Rules
The war has fundamentally reshaped the diplomatic landscape.
The United States now supports the creation of a new governing structure for Gaza.
Israel shares that objective and has made clear that it does not envision UNRWA retaining the central role it previously held.
Several European governments remain far more cautious. Many continue to finance the agency, arguing that no alternative organization currently possesses the logistical capacity to deliver humanitarian assistance on the necessary scale.
The debate therefore extends well beyond funding.
It pits those who believe the existing system should be preserved despite its shortcomings against those who argue that no lasting political reconstruction can succeed without replacing institutions inherited from previous decades.
UNRWA has consequently become the focal point of a broader diplomatic confrontation involving Washington, Jerusalem, the United Nations, and several of the agency’s principal donor countries.
A Question That Goes Beyond UNRWA
Ultimately, the central question may no longer be whether UNRWA should be reformed, replaced, or dismantled.
The real issue is even more fundamental.
Can peace truly emerge while preserving the institutions that have accompanied this conflict for nearly eighty years? Or does any durable settlement require a profound transformation of the political, administrative, and educational structures that have become its institutional legacy?
This is the dividing line that now separates Israel, the United Nations, the United States, several European countries, and parts of the Arab world.
The debate over UNRWA has therefore become far more than a discussion about a humanitarian agency. It reflects two competing visions of peace. One argues that institutional continuity protects vulnerable populations until a political agreement can be reached. The other maintains that this very continuity has itself become one of the principal obstacles to achieving such an agreement.
History will ultimately determine which of these two approaches offers the better path toward peace. But one thing is already clear: the future of post-Gaza will be decided as much in institutions as on the battlefield.
