World Peace

THE UNRWA

What is the UNRWA and what does it do in Gaza?

GoogleAI Mode: “The United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) is the primary humanitarian organization responsible for providing essential services to approximately 5.9 million registered Palestinian refugees. 

Established by the UN General Assembly in 1949 following the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, it is unique as the only UN agency dedicated to a specific regional refugee group. 

UNRWA Operations in Gaza

In the Gaza Strip, UNRWA serves as the “backbone” of humanitarian response, directly providing services to roughly 1.4 to 1.6 million residents. Its key activities include: 

Healthcare: It is the top provider of primary care in Gaza, delivering over 10,000 medical consultations daily through its network of clinics and mobile teams.

Emergency Relief: The agency distributes critical food parcels, flour, and water to nearly the entire population. In 2025 alone, it distributed 880,000 cubic meters of water.

Education & Shelters: While formal schooling has been largely suspended due to the conflict, UNRWA operates nearly 100 schools as temporary shelters for hundreds of thousands of displaced persons. It also provides “learning spaces” and psychosocial support to over 520,000 children.

Sanitation: Its teams manage waste collection and maintain hygiene in overcrowded shelters to prevent disease outbreaks.

Employment: With approximately 11,000–13,000 local Palestinian staff in Gaza, it is a major employer, providing critical income in a region with extreme unemployment.

Recent Status and Controversies (2025–2026)

The agency’s role has become highly contentious following Israeli allegations that some staff participated in the October 7, 2023, attacks. 

Israeli Ban: In January 2025, Israeli legislation went into effect banning UNRWA from operating in Israeli-controlled territory and severing all official contacts with the agency.

Funding Shifts: While many international donors suspended then resumed funding, the U.S. government extended its funding prohibition through March 2025.

Current Reality: As of February 2026, UNRWA continues to operate in Gaza despite severe resource shortages, staff layoffs, and the destruction of much of its infrastructure.”

FINDINGS OF THE UN’S INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATIONS

GoogleAI Mode: “The findings from independent investigations into UNRWA involve two separate processes initiated by the UN Secretary-General in early 2024: an internal criminal probe and an external review of the agency’s neutrality. 

1. Internal Investigation (OIOS)

The UN Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS) investigated allegations that individual staff members participated in the October 7 attacks. 

Termination of Staff: As of August 2024, the UN terminated nine staff members because evidence indicated they “may have been involved” in the attacks.

Inconclusive Cases: In nine other cases, investigators found the evidence provided was insufficient to support involvement, and in one case, no evidence was found at all.

Authentication Issues: The OIOS noted it could not independently authenticate much of the information used by Israel to support the allegations, as direct access to some evidence and witnesses was restricted. 

2. Neutrality Review (Colonna Report)

Led by former French Foreign Minister Catherine Colonna, this group assessed UNRWA’s overall neutrality. 

Systemic Findings: The April 2024 report found that UNRWA has “elaborate” rules to ensure neutrality—more rigorous than many other UN agencies—but identified 8 critical areas for improvement.

Lack of Evidence for Broad Claims: The panel stated that Israel had not provided supporting evidence for its public claims that a “significant number” of UNRWA employees were members of terrorist organizations.

Recommendations: It issued 50 recommendations, including better staff vetting, stronger donor transparency, and addressing “problematic content” in host-country textbooks. 

3. Perspectives on the Findings

Israel’s Stance: The IDF maintains that the UN’s probe was too narrow. They have released intelligence—including phone intercepts and surveillance footage—alleging that over 450 UNRWA staff are “military operatives” for terror groups.

Watchdog Groups: Organizations like UN Watch argue the Colonna report ignored “systemic” ties between UNRWA and Hamas, citing cases where Hamas tunnels were found under UNRWA facilities.

International Court of Justice (ICJ): In an October 2025 advisory opinion, the ICJ found that Israel had not substantiated claims of widespread Hamas infiltration within the agency.

AI responses may include mistakes. For legal advice, consult a professional.”

UNRWA’S PROGRESS

GoogleAI Mode: “As of February 2026, UNRWA has made significant progress in implementing the Colonna Report’s 50 recommendations. According to the Q4 2025 Progress Report, the agency has fully completed 20 recommendations, with the remaining 30 under active implementation. 

The specific measures being integrated into UNRWA’s Strategic Plan 2026–2029 include:

1. Staff Vetting and Neutrality 

Digital Staff Lists: UNRWA now regularly shares digital lists of all staff with host countries and Israel to allow for external screening and red-flagging.

Promotion Vetting: New protocols require vetting staff members upon every promotion, rather than just at the initial hire.

Union Reform: The agency is working to reform its Staff Union statutes to align with standard UN regulations, aiming to prevent political factions from influencing leadership. 

2. Education and Curriculum Reform

Textbook Reviews: While UNRWA uses host-country curricula, it has strengthened its review process to identify and address content that may not align with UN values or UNESCO standards.

Teacher Training: Expanded training for teachers on human rights, conflict resolution, and tolerance to ensure “problematic content” in textbooks is mitigated during instruction. 

3. Operational Oversight

Facility Inspections: UNRWA has committed to inspecting every facility at least twice every six months (increasing to four times for high-risk sites) to ensure they are not being misused for military or political purposes.

Digital Identity Verification: The agency is rolling out the eUNRWA platform for biometric or digital identity verification to ensure aid only reaches eligible, registered refugees.

Independent Monitoring: A new Working Group on Neutrality and Integrity now provides intergovernmental oversight of these reforms to rebuild donor trust. 

Current Challenges

Implementation is currently hampered by a $220 million budget deficit for 2026 and Israel’s January 2025 ban on UNRWA operations, which has led to staff layoffs and restricted access to facilities.

AI can make mistakes, so double-check responses.”

THE LEGAL BATTLE SURROUNDING ISRAEL’S BAN ON UNRWA OPERATIONS

PART I

GoogleAI Mode: “Israel’s ban on UNRWA is currently unfolding across three main fronts: domestic Israeli courts, the International Court of Justice (ICJ), and the UN General Assembly.

As of February 2026, the key developments include:

1. Domestic Challenges in Israel 

While two laws passed in October 2024 officially banned UNRWA and severed all state contact, the legal battle has shifted to the Israeli Supreme Court: 

Emergency Injunction Rejected: In late January 2026, the Supreme Court rejected an urgent request to halt the implementation of laws that allow the seizure of UNRWA property and the cutting of essential utilities like water and electricity.

Constitutional Review: The court has postponed a full hearing on the laws’ constitutionality until later in February 2026. Petitioners argue the legislation causes “irreversible harm” while its legality is still being reviewed.

Headquarters Demolition: On January 20, 2026, Israeli authorities enforced the new laws by demolishing structures at UNRWA’s East Jerusalem headquarters, an action Israeli officials celebrated as defensive but the UN condemned as a “gross violation” of international law. 

2. International Court of Justice (ICJ) Findings

The ICJ issued a landmark advisory opinion in October 2025 that directly addresses the ban: 

Obligation to Cooperate: The court ruled that Israel, as an “Occupying Power,” is obligated under the Fourth Geneva Convention to agree to and facilitate relief provided by UNRWA.

Irreplaceability: The ICJ found it is “not possible to replicate” UNRWA’s capacity on short notice and that Israel has no right to unilaterally revoke the agency’s privileges and immunities.

Evidence Dismissed: The court explicitly rejected Israel’s argument that unsubstantiated allegations of Hamas “infiltration” justified restricting the agency’s essential operations. 

3. UN Institutional Response

Violation of the UN Charter: UN Secretary-General António Guterres warned Prime Minister Netanyahu in early February 2026 that the crackdown violates the UN Charter. He indicated he may refer the matter to the ICJ for further formal legal proceedings if the laws are not repealed.

Mandate Renewal: In December 2025, the UN General Assembly voted by a large majority to renew UNRWA’s mandate until 2029, a move that provides the agency a continued international legal basis to operate despite Israel’s domestic ban. 

The “No-Contact” Conflict

The most critical legal friction point is the “no-contact policy,” which prevents Israeli officials from coordinating aid convoys with UNRWA staff. Legal experts argue this makes safe humanitarian movement nearly impossible and creates a “de facto” expulsion that contradicts the ICJ’s orders.”

PART II: THE ISRAELI SUPREME COURT CONNECTION

Since the ban creates a “humanitarian vacuum” that leads to widespread, preventable death, on a scale of 1 to 5, what is the likelihood the Court may rule that the law violates the core “Right to Life” protected by the Basic Law?

GoogleAI Mode: “Based on recent Israeli Supreme Court rulings and the implementation of the UNRWA ban as of February 2026, the likelihood that the Court will rule the laws violate the “Right to Life” is a 2.

Current Legal Context (February 2026)

1. Recent Precedent (Gisha v. Government of Israel)
   In a major judgment published in March 2025, the Court rejected petitions demanding the state ensure unimpeded aid. The Court ruled that while Israel has humanitarian obligations, it is not an “Occupying Power” with affirmative duties to provide aid directly because Hamas still maintains some governmental authority. This precedent severely limits the “Right to Life” argument as a basis for overturning the UNRWA ban, as the Court views the state’s duty primarily as facilitating aid rather than being responsible for the survival of the population through a specific agency. 
2. Dismissal of Interim Relief
   On January 30, 2026, the Supreme Court dismissed an emergency request to freeze the ban’s implementation. The Court refused to issue an injunction despite warnings of “immediate and irreversible harm.” By allowing the law to proceed—including the seizure of UNRWA’s headquarters and the cutting of utilities—the Court signaled it does not currently view the “humanitarian vacuum” as a clear enough violation of the Basic Law to warrant stopping the state’s actions. 
3. Expansion of Bans
   The legal landscape has become more complex as Israel expanded its restrictions. On January 1, 2026, it banned 37 additional international humanitarian organizations (including Doctors Without Borders and Oxfam) for failing to meet new registration requirements. The Court’s continued deference to these broad “national security” regulations suggests it is prioritizing the state’s security vetting over claims of humanitarian rights. 

Factors Maintaining the “2” Rating

Administrative Deference: The Court grants the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and security agencies wide latitude to determine which organizations are “delegitimizing” or “security risks.”

The “Alternative” Burden: To win, petitioners must prove no other agency can deliver aid. The state maintains that it is coordinating with other partners, and the Court typically accepts these state declarations as sufficient unless “grossly unreasonable.”

International Law vs. Domestic Law: While the ICJ’s October 2025 opinion held that UNRWA is irreplaceable, the Israeli Supreme Court has stated that advisory opinions are non-binding in the face of explicit domestic Knesset legislation.”

PART III: EXPECTED LEGAL ARGUMENTS

GoogleAI Mode: “In the upcoming February 18, 2026 Supreme Court hearing, the Israeli state must provide evidence that the “humanitarian vacuum” caused by the UNRWA ban is being filled by viable, secure alternatives. 

Specific Evidence Required by the State

To justify the “proportionality” of the ban under Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty, the state is expected to present:

Capacity of Permitted NGOs: The state must prove that the 20+ organizations still holding permits—which COGAT claims currently provide roughly 1% of aid—can rapidly scale up to handle the 99% previously managed by UNRWA and the 37 recently banned NGOs.

Alternative Logistic Hubs: Evidence that new distribution points, such as the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, have the infrastructure (warehouses, trucks, and vetted staff) to replace UNRWA’s systemic presence.

Security Vetting Success: Proof that the new registration requirements—which require NGOs to share full Palestinian staff lists—have identified specific, credible security threats that justify the mass disqualification of major groups like Doctors Without Borders (MSF).

Transition Plans: Detailed timelines showing how the state will ensure the continued delivery of water, electricity, and telecommunications to essential health facilities now that it has been legally empowered to sever these services to UNRWA-affiliated sites. 

The Petitioner’s Counter-Evidence

The petitioning organization, Adalah, is expected to counter with:

The “Irreplaceable” Argument: Citing the October 2025 ICJ advisory opinion, they will argue that UNRWA’s role is unique and cannot be replaced “on short notice and without a proper transition plan.”

On-the-Ground Crisis Data: Recent reports showing mounting deaths and famine since the ban’s implementation as proof that the “proper transition” claimed by the state does not exist.

The court has already rejected an interim injunction, meaning the state’s actions will continue while this legal review takes place.”