On October 30, 2023, Israel’s parliament passed two controversial laws targeting the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA). These laws bar the UNRWA from operating within Israeli territories and prohibit any formal communication between the Israeli government and the agency. The UNRWA, founded in 1949, provides humanitarian services to Palestinian refugees, including education, healthcare, and financial support across Gaza, the West Bank, Lebanon, Jordan, and Syria. While UNRWA claims to be a neutral humanitarian organization, Israel has long expressed concerns over its alleged affiliations with extremist groups like Hamas. Here, we examine both sides of the debate surrounding this legislation.

Background and Reasons for the Ban

The laws were passed against the backdrop of Israel’s accusations that UNRWA employees have been involved in terrorist activities. After the October 7, 2023, attack on Israel by Hamas—which left over 1,200 Israeli civilians dead—Israel claimed that several UNRWA staff members were implicated in the attacks. Additionally, evidence emerged that Hamas had concealed a military facility underneath the UNRWA headquarters in Gaza. According to Israel, UNRWA’s failure to monitor or control these elements within its ranks has provided a form of indirect support for Hamas and other extremist groups operating in the region.

Furthermore, Israel’s intelligence reportedly linked the late Fateh Sherif Abu el Amin, a Hamas commander killed in Lebanon, to UNRWA. He had been employed by the organization until March 2023. Some prominent voices in Israel argue that the agency, intentionally or not, enables Hamas’ activities and anti-Israel indoctrination within its schools and facilities. According to former UNRWA head Peter Hansen in 2004, UNRWA was “sure” to be employing terrorists, but the organization continued to defend its approach as neutral.

The response from international donors has been mixed. While several countries, including the United States, froze UNRWA funding after the October 7 attacks, some have resumed financial support. Nevertheless, the U.S. has maintained its suspension of funds, reflecting concerns that UNRWA may indirectly enable or ignore terrorist affiliations within its ranks.

Arguments in Favor of the Legislation

1. Security Concerns: Israel’s primary duty is to protect its citizens, and the presence of alleged terrorists within UNRWA’s ranks represents a direct threat to national security. By banning the agency from operating in Israeli territory, Israel reduces the risk of infiltration or espionage from those who may sympathize with or actively support terrorist agendas.
2. Financial Transparency and Accountability: UNRWA’s operations are funded by international donors, and repeated reports of extremist affiliations among its staff erode donor trust. These ties raise questions about whether humanitarian aid inadvertently supports terrorism and extremism. By taking a hard stance against UNRWA, Israel is setting a precedent for accountability in international aid organizations.
3. UNRWA’s Questionable Role in the Region: Critics argue that UNRWA’s policies do not encourage Palestinian integration or resolution of their refugee status, but rather perpetuate the crisis by classifying Palestinian descendants as refugees indefinitely. This can foster generational resentment, keep the conflict alive, and prevent Palestinian self-reliance and peace-building.
4. Supporting Israel’s Sovereignty: Israel, as a sovereign nation, has the right to decide which international organizations it engages with and to protect itself from any that it views as compromising national integrity.

Arguments Against the Legislation

1. Impact on Palestinian Refugees: UNRWA provides critical services to Palestinian refugees, including healthcare, education, and food assistance. A ban on its operations could lead to a humanitarian crisis, affecting tens of thousands of individuals in the region who rely on UNRWA’s services for survival and stability.
2. Potential Diplomatic Fallout: Israel’s relationship with various UN bodies and international allies, including the U.S. and European nations, could be negatively impacted by this legislation. The move could be seen as a violation of international norms regarding humanitarian aid, straining relations with countries that prioritize aid to Palestinians.
3. Reinforcing Hostilities and Undermining Peace Efforts: Critics argue that the ban may exacerbate hostilities between Israelis and Palestinians, further alienating Palestinians and increasing regional tension. UNRWA supporters maintain that the agency’s work provides stability in the Palestinian territories, indirectly reducing the risk of violence. Limiting UNRWA’s role could ultimately backfire by leaving a vacuum that radical groups may exploit to gain influence.
4. Limiting Oversight and Accountability: Israel’s refusal to engage with UNRWA eliminates a direct channel for dialogue and oversight, potentially removing Israel’s ability to address UNRWA’s shortcomings diplomatically. Instead of barring UNRWA, some believe that closer scrutiny and reform would be more effective in ensuring that the agency aligns with neutral, humanitarian goals.

Conclusion

Israel’s decision is best evaluated through the lens of biblical principles and practical implications for peace and security in the region. Israel, as a sovereign nation with a God-given duty to protect its people, is justified in addressing security concerns and in ensuring that international organizations operating within its borders are free from terrorist influence. Proverbs 22:3 reminds us, “A prudent man foreseeth the evil, and hideth himself: but the simple pass on, and are punished.” Ignoring potential threats from within UNRWA could expose Israel to greater harm.

On the other hand, we are also called to compassion for the needy. Palestinian refugees, many of whom are innocent, should not suffer unduly because of administrative failings or security lapses. Matthew 25:40 reminds us of Jesus’ words, “Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.” Thus, humanitarian needs must also be acknowledged.

Balancing security with compassion is complex, yet Israel’s stance against UNRWA seems prudent given its recent experiences and the credible allegations against the agency. However, Israel should pursue alternative humanitarian channels to ensure that essential aid reaches Palestinians in need without compromising its own security. This course would uphold justice while maintaining the compassion Christ advocates, making it a reasonable path forward for both Israeli and Palestinian welfare.