UNRWA funding should not be a bargaining chip

Editor's note: Bradley Blankenship, a special commentator on current affairs for CGTN, is a Prague-based American journalist, political analyst, and freelance reporter. The article reflects the author's opinions and not necessarily the views of CGTN.

As of January 28, the United States and at least six of its allies including Canada, Australia and Italy have temporarily pulled funding for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) after it was alleged that some of the group's staff were linked to Hamas, including 12 who are suspected of being involved in the October 7, 2023 cross-border attack on Israel.

With this, UNRWA's primary funders have backed away at a time when Gaza is undergoing a grave humanitarian crisis. On Monday, the Hamas-run Health Ministry in Gaza said that the death toll from the Israeli offensive on the enclave had reached 26,637. Oxfam International reported in January that the current conflict in Gaza has the highest daily death rate of any major conflict in the 21st century. There are also millions more who have been made homeless by Israeli bombs and at risk of starvation due to the Israeli siege.

"UNRWA is the primary humanitarian agency in Gaza, with over 2 million people depending on it for their sheer survival.  Many are hungry as the clock is ticking towards a looming famine. The Agency runs shelters for over 1 million people and provides food and primary healthcare even at the height of the hostilities," the agency said in a statement.

The agency also mentioned the fact the International Court of Justice (ICJ) had, the day before, ordered: "Israel must take immediate and effective measures to enable the provision of urgently needed basic services and humanitarian assistance to address the adverse conditions of life faced by Palestinians in the Gaza Strip."

The decision by Western nations to withdraw financial support for UNRWA signals a significant shift in the geopolitical landscape. Ostensibly framed as a response to allegations of terrorist collaboration within the agency, this move also carries geopolitical undertones that extend beyond the realm of humanitarian aid.

Critics argue that the decision to cut funding is a reckless gamble with the lives of Palestinian refugees, who rely heavily on UNRWA for their basic needs. By depriving the agency of essential resources, Western nations risk exacerbating the already dire humanitarian situation in Palestinian refugee camps, potentially fueling resentment and instability in an already volatile region.

While concerns about accountability within UNRWA are perhaps valid, the abrupt decision to withdraw funding without a viable alternative raises questions about the sincerity of Western nations in addressing the root causes of the agency's challenges. Given that there are over 13,000 employees in Gaza working for UNRWA, according to the agency's official data, and Hamas operatives have day jobs, it would also be more surprising if no one there had ties to the group.

A more nuanced approach involving diplomatic engagement and collaborative efforts to reform UNRWA might have been a more constructive path forward.

The West's decision also underscores the broader geopolitical shifts in the Middle East. As nations recalibrate their alliances and priorities, the fate of Palestinian refugees becomes a bargaining chip in a complex game of regional power dynamics. This, in turn, could further complicate efforts to find a just and lasting resolution to the Israel-Palestine conflict.

One cannot ignore the potential consequences of this funding cut on regional stability. Palestinian refugees, already grappling with the trauma of displacement, could find themselves more susceptible to radicalization and extremist influences in the absence of essential services provided by UNRWA. The West, by neglecting the humanitarian dimensions of the conflict, risks inadvertently contributing to the perpetuation of cycles of violence.

While the decision not to fund UNRWA may appease certain political constituencies, it does little to address the root causes of the Israel-Palestine conflict. A comprehensive and just solution requires a multifaceted approach that encompasses diplomatic efforts, respect for human rights, and a commitment to addressing the legitimate concerns of all parties involved.

It must also be mentioned that Western nations' decisions to cut funding one day after an ICJ decision demanding Israel prevent actions that could kill civilians and allow humanitarian aid into Gaza is a blatant repudiation of the basic tenets of international law and multilateralism. The decision also comes as William Burns, the head of the Central Intelligence Agency, is working to iron out a two-month ceasefire in Gaza.

As we witness the unfolding consequences of the West's decision to abandon UNRWA, we must question the broader implications for the pursuit of peace and stability in the Middle East. The plight of Palestinian refugees should not be reduced to a bargaining chip or a casualty of shifting geopolitical alliances. The international community must reevaluate its priorities and recommit to addressing the humanitarian needs of vulnerable populations, recognizing that peace and justice are intertwined in the quest for a better future for all.

(If you want to contribute and have specific expertise, please contact us at opinions@cgtn.com. Follow @thouse_opinions on Twitter to discover the latest commentaries in the CGTN Opinion Section.)