The Blogs: Selective name and blame puts UNRWA and UNIFIL to shame

A recent and now widely-discussed statement by the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees (UNRWA) on the violent hijacking of one of its humanitarian aid convoys in Gaza is, frankly, remarkable – both for what it chooses to say, and not to say.

UNRWA, a UN agency, is founded on a mandate which involves abiding by principles such as neutrality and impartiality. UNRWA’s own website defines neutrality as “not tak[ing] sides in hostilities or engag[ing] in controversies of a political, religious, or ideological nature”, so that UNRWA can “operate on all sides… to ensure the safe, sustained and unimpeded delivery of assistance and protection”.

One would think that these principles would require a certain consistency when it comes to pointing out violations which impede this work. A consistent approach would mean that, if you specifically allege that Israel has committed such an act, you should (in theory) have no problem doing the same for allegations against actors who aren’t Israel (such as Hamas or Palestinian Islamic Jihad). By the same token, if you would rather avoid naming and shaming Hamas in this way, you would apply the same treatment to Israel.

In practice, UNRWA has issued a litany of strongly-worded statements condemning Israel over the past year, at least some of which may well be true in and of themselves. But choosing to blame one side also requires UNRWA to muster up the courage to identify and blame others when necessary.

Turning to the event in question, we see yet another example of this consistency not being adhered to in practice.

On 18 November, UNRWA issued a statement relating to an incident of mass looting of a humanitarian aid convoy inside Gaza two days prior. The convoy was “violently looted”, with 97 of the 109 trucks lost and “drivers forced at gunpoint to unload aid”. This took place after the trucks passed into Gaza through the Kerem Shalom crossing. In wider reporting by the BBC, eyewitnesses said the convoy was attacked by grenades thrown by masked men.

The identity of the culprits is not known, but it realistically could only have been Hamas, other proscribed terrorist groups such as Palestinian Islamic Jihad, or unaffiliated armed gangs. Hamas blamed the latter, claiming it had killed gang members involved in stealing aid trucks – but it has been extensively reported over the past 12 months that Hamas itself has been hijacking swathes of aid destined for Gazan civilians. Either way, here was a violation that UNRWA could not lay at the feet of Israel.

It is almost depressing that you can probably now see where this is going. Not once did UNRWA’s statement even attempt to blame, let alone identify, the culprit. All that is given is a descriptive analysis of what happened to the convoy, with no attempt to create and attribute any culpability for that incident. This may have been acceptable from a neutrality angle, had UNRWA not wanted to call out Israel for similarly serious incidents – again, this is something it has had no problem doing. But it gets worse. In the very same statement, UNRWA did identify some culpability – and proceeded to pin it all on Israel. Its statement read:

“The Israeli authorities continue to disregard their legal obligations… to facilitate the safe delivery of aid. Such responsibilities continue when trucks enter the #GazaStrip, until people are reached with essential assistance…”.

It is quite unbelievable, that in a pithy four-paragraph statement, UNRWA failed to even condemn what happened to its own aid trucks, only in the very next breath to condemn Israel for something else entirely. And in maintaining in this statement that Israel is responsible for aid deliveries “when trucks enter” the Gaza Strip, “until people are reached”, UNRWA’s statement abdicates its own responsibilities as distributor-in-chief of humanitarian aid in Gaza, conveniently using Israel as a way to detach itself from well-documented failures of its own, or from others who aren’t Israel.

Unfortunately, it isn’t just UNRWA. Two recent statements by the UN Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL), a peacekeeping mission that has unfortunately become caught in the cross-fire between Israel and Hezbollah, especially since Israel moved into Lebanon in October, show again just how unequally the blame is spread.

UNIFIL does not explicitly operate under neutrality when it comes to furthering its mandate, which arises under Security Council Resolution 1701/2006 (this aimed to cease hostilities between Israel and Hezbollah, withdraw Israeli forces from Lebanon, disarm Hezbollah and withdraw its forces to above the Litani River). However, that Resolution justifies the need for continued peacekeeping, and as such, the UN’s Principles of Peacekeeping are engaged and brought into play. These principles include impartiality, which is described as being “impartial in [UNIFIL’s] dealings with the parties to the conflict”, and “scrupulously avoiding activities that might compromise its image of impartiality”.

UNIFIL, like UNRWA, has also been issuing very strongly-worded statements against Israel, for allegedly firing upon its peacekeeping forces, forcibly entering a base, and deliberately destroying fences or other property in UNIFIL positions.

But on 19 November, when UNIFIL announced that among two other incidents, its peacekeepers were injured by a rocket (Israel does not use rockets) which was “fired most likely by non-State actors within Lebanon…”, it disingenuously left us to guess at who exactly these ‘non-state actors’ might be. And this was only enough for UNIFIL to “inform the Lebanese Armed Forces” about the incidents, and to remind “all actors involved” to respect the inviolability of its peacekeepers and premises.

Similarly, on 17 November, when UNIFIL stated that one of its patrols was denied movement and later “fired upon about 40 times from behind“, it could only conclude that this was “likely from non-state actor members”, and followed it with a comparatively weak rebuke of the Lebanese authorities. And a rocket attack on 29 October fired from north of UNIFIL’s HQ in Lebanon was deemed by UNIFIL to be only “likely by Hizbullah”, and to warrant a mere slap on the wrist, as UNIFIL reminded “Hizbullah and all actors” of their obligations.

The above are all examples of these UN bodies not being afraid to take a very strong stance against Israel for alleged violations (which, again, may be true in and of themselves), but adopting a comparatively meek tone with the other main actors in these conflicts, primarily the proscribed terrorist organisations Hamas and Hezbollah.

Ultimately, UNRWA and UNIFIL taking this strong public stance against Israel should not be a problem so long as, in line with their own defined standards of neutrality and/or impartiality, a broadly equal standard is applied to others. Unfortunately, with these latest statements, and much else besides, it is no wonder so many feel that these bodies are violating their own standards when it comes to the embattled State of Israel.