Ending Dependency, Double Standards, UNRWA

As we move into a post-UNRWA era, the approach to Palestinian refugees reaches a historic turning point. By international standards, 30,000 to 100,000 Palestinians likely meet the accepted refugee definition. UNWRA’s policies have fostered dependency and statelessness; now is the time to empower refugees.

Israel’s sovereignty, formally declared in 1948 with historical and legal rights reaffirmed by the San Remo Resolution and the League of Nations Mandate, must remain intact. Sovereign rights can coexist alongside humanitarian efforts without compromising security. Israel’s integration of nearly a million Jewish refugees from Arab lands after 1948 serves as a model. Many Palestinian refugees reside in  countries that invaded Israel. Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, and Egypt should help expand options for Palestinian refugees that allow them to pursue stable futures.

Israel’s security-first approach post-Oct 7, a ‘Never Again’ Doctrine, highlights a shift away from any land-for-peace concessions, which have compromised national security. A sustainable path forward requires secure borders and shared regional responsibilities.

Tailored Integration by Host Countries

Flexibility is essential, given each host country’s constraints. Jordan can expand citizenship pathways to enhance refugees’ social and economic participation, while Lebanon could gradually grant legal residency and work rights. In Syria, integration efforts would proceed as security stabilizes, while Egypt can offer long-term residency options to promote dignity and security for Palestinian refugees. Iraq, while not a primary host, could acknowledge its role and support a balanced regional refugee compensation fund. This recognition of shared responsibility would lay a foundation for reconciliation and aid broader refugee integration goals.

Israel already granted full citizenship, civil rights, and opportunities to Palestinian refugees who became citizens, integrating them into society with equal access to healthcare, education, and employment. Additionally, Israel has supported cultural autonomy and representation in government, offering a stable, empowered life within its borders.

Institutionalizing Antisemitism with Double Standards

UNRWA reflects the UN’s institutional biases, where Israel faces disproportionate scrutiny. The IHRA’s definition of antisemitism includes “applying double standards by requiring of [Israel] a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.” Such biases undermine the UN’s credibility, perpetuating  a hypocritical blame narrative that demands unilateral Palestinian return rights— championed by countries that have yet to make restitution to the Jewish refugees displaced from the same war.

Using UNRWA’s standards, nearly two million Jewish refugees could be classified as such from countries that opposed Israel’s formation. Jewish refugees faced attacks, arrests, and state-sponsored antisemitism. While Israel integrated its Jewish refugees, the Arab countries contributing to the Palestinian refugee crisis have not done so, perpetuating their status under UNRWA. Despite the billions lost in property and assets, Jewish refugees received no compensation, while these same nations advocate for Palestinian claims.

UNRWA’s Role in Identity Formation and Dependency

UNRWA’s mandate has embedded perpetual refugee status into Palestinian identity, obstructing paths to self-reliance. Unlike the UNHCR, which seeks resettlement solutions, UNRWA has fostered dependency, shaping identity around grievance. Its curriculum has embedded hostility, and its staff’s associations with Hamas—leading to participation in the October 7 invasion of Israel—compromise the agency’s neutrality. Redirecting support from UNRWA to accountable host-country agencies could foster sustainable, rights-based solutions, strengthening local infrastructure, healthcare, and education for self-sufficiency.

Equitable Compensation and Historical Responsibility

A jointly managed compensation fund would address both Palestinian and Jewish refugee needs. Such a fund, supported by responsible states and international donors, would acknowledge Palestinian losses while compensating Jewish refugees expelled or forced to flee from Arab countries. This approach fosters integration and coexistence, rather than grievances, and distributes responsibility according to historical involvement. Jordan, Egypt, Syria, and Lebanon should at least lead in implementing this framework for regional stability.

Ending the Cycle of Dependency with Dignity

Disbanding UNRWA offers a chance to transition Palestinian refugees from dependency to self-reliance. Host countries should commit to multilateral agreements that ensure Palestinian refugees’ rights and opportunities, balanced with demographic stability and cultural preservation. Supporting Palestinian heritage through cultural programs enables integration without identity loss.

Toward Security, Stability, and Fairness

Reframing the refugee issue around security, fairness, and stability allows the international community to foster lasting peace. Israel’s renewed security focus over concessions reflects the understanding that stable, integrated populations support long-term peace. Shifting from outdated mandates to resilient frameworks addresses regional instability’s root causes, empowering refugees to contribute constructively.

Israel must resist any UN pressure to continue a dependency cycle in Gaza that undermines future peace. As Israel re-establishes control, it must continue to unconditionally do its absolute best to meet Gazans’ basic needs, notwithstanding their complex accountability for Hamas’s support, while upholding a vision of peace, dignity, and mutual respect.