Hillel Neuer appeared on John Donvan’s Open to Debate to face off against Richard Gowan of the Crisis Group on the question of whether the UN’s efforts in the Middle East are helping or hurting.
Open to Debate, formerly known as Intelligence Squared, is a leading platform for debate and has been named “a salon for movers and shakers, writers and thinkers” by the New York Times.
Full Transcript:
John Donvan: This is open to debate. I’m John Donvan. Hi everybody today, a focus on the Middle East and Israel and Gaza and the United Nations. It is ironic that a critical moment in the foundation of the State of Israel was the day that it won recognition by the United Nations. That happened in May of 1949 when Israel was new, and frankly, so was the United Nations.
So it can be said that the UN played a critical role in the birthing of Israel as a state since then, however, and here’s the irony, at many junctures and at a variety of issues, the two have often been in collision, while the prospects for a permanent peace, which is a goal of the United Nations to promote, don’t seem any closer today than they did in 1949 there has long been tension over one UN agency in particular, known as UNRWA those are initials that stand for United Nations Relief and Works Administration.
UNRWA has been on the ground in refugee communities, and its defined mission has been to provide Palestinians with social services like education and health care, which it has been delivering for decades, since 1950 as you’ll hear in this debate, there are widely conflicting views on UNRWA impact, and this divide was exacerbated after it was revealed that some local UNRWA personnel were involved in the Hamas terror attack of October 7 that killed more than 1200 Israelis. They were members of Hamas or collaborating with it. United Nations officials investigated and confirm this, and this is a fact that returned the spotlight to the fraught relationship between Israel and the United Nations, and that prompts the question we’re taking on in this debate: is the UN helping or hurting in the Middle East?
Let’s meet our debaters arguing that UN efforts in the Middle East are helping. I want to welcome Richard Gowan. Richard is the UN and multilateral diplomacy director at the International Crisis Group. He’s a non-resident Fellow at NYU center on international cooperation. His background also includes time spent as consultant for organizations such as the UN Department of Political Affairs and the UN Office of the Special Representative of the Secretary General on international migration. Richard, welcome to open to debate. It’s so great to have you and with all of your expertise on the program.
And here to argue that UN efforts in the Middle East are hurting, I want to welcome Hillel Neuer. Hillel is the executive director of UN Watch. He formerly taught international human rights at the Geneva School of diplomacy, in addition to having served as vice president of the NGO Special Committee on Human Rights in Geneva. Hillel, welcome to the program.
We discovered when we asked each of you to take part in the program that you have communicated with each other in the past over X with messages or postings that perhaps to some degree, take aim at each other. I don’t mean in a personal way, but you had some sharp disagreement. We’re just curious, is this the first time that the two of you who have met that way, virtually, are actually going to be talking and addressing one another directly?
Richard Gowan: That is correct.
John Donvan: Alright, well, we’re glad to be able to make that happen. Our goal here is to do exactly what we’re doing is to get people who disagree with each other to at least talk with each other. And we really appreciate that each of you is willing to do this, and we look forward to the outcome. So let’s get on to our opening statements in our first round. And our first round is comprised of opening statements, in which each of you take a few minutes to tell us why you’re taking the position that you are Richard, you are up first, and you are arguing that UN efforts in the Middle East are helping. Here’s your chance, please, to tell us why.
Richard Gowan: Well, look, I think I have an uphill battle here, because we have to be honest that right now, nobody thinks that the UN is doing a great job in the Middle East. I think Israelis are furious over the allegations around UNRWA that you referred to. They also feel that the UN has been very biased to them during the war between Israel and Hamas. But actually Arab states are also very cross, and Arab publics are very angry because they believe that the UN has not protected the Palestinians. They blame the UN for not bringing an end to the war. So why would I argue that the UN is still helpful in the Middle East?
I would want to zoom out for a second before we get into the details, and emphasize three reasons, I think the UN matters in the region. Firstly, the UN is still an essential player in humanitarian assistance around the whole Middle East. There are about 60 million people in that region who are hungry or vulnerable. The UN gets some sort of assistance to between 30 and 40 million of those people, and if the UN wasn’t providing that assistance, we would see more refugees, more violence and more suffering across the entire Middle East, from Yemen to Syria and further afield. And that is still a crucial stabilizing function that the UN plays in.
Secondly, the UN does have a security role in the Middle East. There are still UN peacekeepers on Israel’s borders with Lebanon and with Syria. Now, Israel has complained that UN peacekeepers in southern Lebanon have not done enough to deal with the threat of Hezbollah, and we can discuss that, but it was striking that after the clashes between Israel and Hezbollah last year, the ceasefire that was agreed kept the UN in place, and actually asked the UN peacekeepers in Lebanon to assist the Lebanese armed forces take over areas which Hezbollah had previously controlled. So Israel has recognized that for all their faults, UN peacekeepers are a useful part of their security framework, at least on the Lebanese border going forward, and there’s no one else who will really do peacekeeping in the Middle East.
There’s been talk of NATO peacekeepers in the Middle East. Well, NATO is focused on Ukraine. Now, there’s been talk of an Arab coalition of peacekeepers potentially going into Gaza. I mean, Arab governments have made it fairly clear that they don’t want to do that. So when we look for an organization that can send peacekeepers to stabilize areas around Israel, I’m afraid that you do come back to the UN, even if it is not perfect.
And then finally, the UN still has an important diplomatic role bringing together countries on issues like sanctions against jihadist groups in the Middle East. The UN does play a significant function on sanctions, sanctions against al Qaeda, sanctions against the Islamic State, and potentially sanctions again, against Iran. Obviously, Iran’s nuclear program is a huge source of concern to Israel. Well, the Trump administration has said that it wants to reimpose previously suspended sanctions against Iran to try and get it to end that nuclear program.
So even the Trump administration sees that the UN is useful to it diplomatically when it comes to regional security. Now we are going, I think Hillel and I to disagree on a lot of points about the details of what the UN does. There are very valid criticisms of the UN, but I think this humanitarian, security and diplomatic function of the UN remains essential, and that’s why I think that it helps.
John Donvan: Thank you very much. Richard, now, Hillel, it is your turn again to remind our viewers and listeners that you are arguing that the UN is hurting in the Middle East. Here’s your chance, please, to tell us why.
Hillel Neuer: Thank you. Look, you know, I have an organization called UN Watch. We’re dedicated to seeing that the United Nations lives up to its noble charter. So we want the UN to work. The UN could play a vital role. Even President Trump has said the UN could play a wonderful role. But sadly, they’re not.
You know, the founder of our organization was civil rights leader Morris Abram. He was a UN expert in the 1960s who sat on the committee of the United Nations that helped write the Convention on the Elimination of Racism. So my organization and myself, we want the UN to work, sadly, with with only a handful of exceptions, the UN, in most cases, is not helping bring peace and human rights to the Middle East.
Certainly, we’re talking today about the Israeli-Arab conflict, it is doing the opposite. It is hindering chances for peace. And let’s look across from the UN you know, and again, the bar is what, what could be done. The United States took the lead in achieving the Abraham Accords that was bringing peace between Israel and Arab countries. The United Nations had no role in that. The Camp David peace agreement, the United Nations had no role in that. If you look at the major peace agreements, the United Nations basically had no role.
If anything, they’re harming. How are they harming? Well, Secretary-General Guterres has been shocking since the October 7 massacre. You know, the United Nations declarations of human rights in 1948 was adopted in response, and I quote, “to barbarous acts which outraged the conscience of mankind.” When barbarous acts were committed by Hamas, Guterres instead of leading the world and confronting them, he said, Yes, I condemn Hamas, but there was a context. Nothing happens in a vacuum. And when he said those words early on, he gave the message, basically justifying what Hamas did and saying their grievances were justified. That’s a Secretary-General who set the tone for the organization as a whole.
Let’s look to the Parliament of the United Nations, the General Assembly. They adopt one resolution on Iran, one on North Korea, one on Syria, and 17 on Israel. It’s 17 to one Israel versus North Korea. All right, so the United Nations General Assembly, Parliament of the UN is demonizing Israel, and that message is heard around the world and the United Nations has become Ground Zero to the demonization of Israel.
And it’s not accidental that there are violent attacks against Jews in America, in Europe, where I live, in Australia and Canada, and the notion that Jews are supporting genocide is the rallying cry of the antisemites. No one is supporting that more than the United Nations own special rapporteur on Palestine, Francesca Albanese, who’s been condemned by four countries, Canada, the United States, Germany, France recently also the Netherlands for spreading antisemitism and Holocaust distortion. And she’s the leading promoter of the genocide libel, the false claim that Israel is committing genocide when they were responding militarily to an attack that killed 1200 of their own people on one single day.
We mentioned UNRWA. UNRWA, the agency early on had good motives. Its purposes initially were good, but it’s become a pathological agency which seeks to keep Palestinians in a permanent state of dependency. They’ve received billions of dollars. Haven’t resettled a single Palestinian in decades, and instead, they teach Palestinians that they have a right to dismantle Israel, and they are infiltrated with terrorists.
John Donvan: Thank you, Hillel, all right, so we are very pleased to hear both of your arguments presented with such clarity and force. I just want to talk a little bit about what I heard in your opening statements, Richard, I heard you say that, first of all, absolutely, you acknowledge that the UN has room for criticism in many, many ways. But then in terms of the question that we’re debating, whether it’s helping or hurting in the Middle East, you would argue that despite any of those problems, it’s overall helping.
You’re saying it plays an essential role in humanitarian issues, that it is serving some 60 million people, including refugees and many who are suffering in various ways. You also say that UN peacekeepers are playing, still a critical role, again, despite criticism, still playing a critical role in its placement of an organization called UNIFIL where it’s been since 1978 along the border in Lebanon, along the border with Israel and Syria. You acknowledge that, in fact, Israel wants to include UNIFIL in future arrangements, and that that demonstrates that it is actually playing a constructive role. And you also say that the United Nations plays a critical role in plays, playing, placing sanctions and enforcing sanctions against rogue outfits and rogue states such as Iran and other terrorist organizations. And so the overall, you’re saying that it there’s a constructive role that the UN is playing, has been playing for a long time, and should continue to play.
Hillel Neuer, I hear you saying that in the large framework of whether the United Nations is helping to support and promote a peaceful resolution to the conflict in the Middle East, that it generally fails that although an organization like UNRWA the United Nations Relief and Works Agency has a positive mission, that it’s been corrupted through politics over a long period of time, that the organization overall, the United Nations organization overall, because of a strong as you depicted, anti Israel tilt is, is actually hindering peace in the Middle East.
So I see those are the two, two dividing lines. There are many, many pieces of this and many details to talk through. So I want to get started by talk this focus on UNRWA that you brought up Hillel, I want to note that in February of last year, you testified before the US Congress, and you were making the case then that the US should stop funding sending funds to UNRWA, I think, to the tune at that point of about $300 million and what’s what happened subsequently, is the divide. Administration did suspend that aid, and the Trump administration has not resumed. And, in fact, the Trump administration has pulled out of that council.
But I want you to talk a little bit more about the degree to which the compromising of UNRWA, as you depict it, supports your argument that the UN overall is doing a bad thing, when you know that Richard’s position is that nevertheless, the organization helps a lot of people in a lot of very material ways.
Hillel Neuer: Look, I think, or what Richard said underscores my point. Our debate is focused on the UN in the Middle East, but particularly on the Israel Arab conflict, Israel Palestinian conflict. And I agree with Richard that there are places in the world outside of that conflict, if you remove Israel, if you remove the Jews, there are places where the UN can play an important role.
And I support UN agencies that, however flawed and imperfect, can do good. You know, I work next to the UNHCR, that’s the UN Refugee Agency, whose mission is to resettle refugees. And when there are refugees from wars in Yemen, in Syria, in Russia and Ukraine, they have resettled hundreds of 1000s, and over decades, millions of people.
UNRWA is the opposite. That’s the problem is UNRWA hasn’t resettled a single Palestinian in seven decades. They are the opposite of the UNHCR the goal of resettling refugees is not the goal of UNRWA UN school, effectively, is to dismantle Israel. They tell Palestinians in Gaza who are living in what the UN calls the state of Palestine. They’ve been in Gaza for decades. They are told, this is not your home. Your home is in Tel Aviv. Your home is in Haifa.
And so Palestinians are brought up, 90% of whom, according to Johann Soufi, the former head of the UNRWA’s legal office in Gaza, 90% of Gazans go to UNRWA schools. And we shouldn’t be surprised that 1000s of them took part in the massacre of October 7 because they were told this is how you are supposed to act. You have the right to dismantle Israel, the right of return, which involves resistance, which means terrorism. Similarly, Richard mentioned, you know, sanctions, and I agree with Richard that the UN when they after the—
John Donvan: Could we hold off just on the sanctions point first, I just want to ask Richard to depict, to respond to your depiction of UNRWA Richard, take the floor, please.
Richard Gowan: Well, look, I mean, there is no doubt that UNRWA has been infiltrated by Hamas. I think it’s probably also been infiltrated by Israeli intelligence, but that’s another story. But I’m afraid my view on this is actually quite cynical. There’s never been a humanitarian operation in the world that hasn’t been manipulated by bad actors on the ground it comes with the territory, and in Gaza in particular, We’d always known and Israel always knew that, you know Hamas had penetrated UNRWA although I would also say there are many very fine UNRWA officials who I think are actually deeply motivated by a desire to help the Palestinians.
Why then did Israel continue to agree that UNRWA should operate in Gaza and the West Bank? The answer is that it was stabilizing the situation. My colleagues at Crisis Group have called UNRWA a “substitute for the state.” It was providing sanitation, it was providing health, it was providing education. And yes, that education has been controversial, but if you hadn’t had UNRWA there, you would simply have had chaos.
And I think that we should be honest with ourselves that until the seventh of October, Israel and Israel’s friends were happy to support UNRWA because it kept a lid on the perceived problem in Gaza and also in the West Bank. Now Israel wants to close UNRWA. I understand those emotions, but I think that what we’re going to find is that there is no credible alternative private companies cannot provide the sort of services that UNRWA provided. So there is a risk that we simply just allow the suffering of the Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank to deepen because we’re not going to provide them real aid.
John Donvan: Okay, I’d like to let Hillel respond to that.
Hillel Neuer: Richard’s right. Those who are insiders and who are honest know that Israel did not try to destroy UNRWA. Actually, Israel thought— and I agree with Richard on this— that it provided stability and Israel did not try to destroy UNRWA.
Netanyahu made critical remarks but that was largely rhetoric and he did not try to destroy UNRWA. And the truth is that that stability was a false stability. It’s the same— Israel thought that Hamas was deterred. Hamas was not deterred. Hamas was very cleverly very masterfully building a terrorist army with the help of Iran carefully mapping out over five years of so-called protests at the border wall they were preparing the onslaught.
And UNRWA buys a false stability. I mean, Richard says “What will replace UNRWA?” The answer is two words and that’s: Palestinian responsibility. And I’m quoting Dr. Einat Wilf who wrote a terrific book called the War of Return on this. And you know Palestinians are very capable people if we look— and I respect them.
If we look at what happened in Gaza they built hundreds of miles of terror tunnels. They built a very sophisticated very large army which overwhelmed Israel massacred 1,200 people in one day. Palestinians can run things on their own. The problem is that for decades the UN said “You don’t do this” “You’re going to be aid recipients.” Why should a people a very capable people who can do good things if they want to can do terrible things if the government if the people vote for Hamas which they voted for Hamas they could run their own economy.
They can collect taxes and instead of using it to buy rocket launchers and build terror tunnels they could use it to feed their own people. So, I think keeping Palestinians in dependency is wrong. And I think—Hamas said openly they said, “The UN takes care of the refugees we take care of the fighters.” “We don’t bring the Palestinian people underneath to give them bomb shelter.
That’s for our fighters, our gunmen. We, you know, abandon them.“ “The UN will take care of them.” So it’s just developed a horrible culture. The truth is that those who want to see Palestinians and Israelis live together which I do it can be a magnificent Riviera, absolutely. But if the people running it are not Dubai Arabs who know how to build up into the sky and into the future but they’re Hamas— and UNRWA encouraged that culture.
UNRWA tells Palestinians “Your home is not in Gaza.“ Again, they live in Palestine. Same thing in the West Bank. They’re living in Geneva—
John Donvan: Hillel. I’m just going to jump in for the interest of time. Rich, you can respond to that, or, if not, I have a question for you.
Richard Gowan: Well, I think everyone would say that we want to end up in a situation where there is a functional Palestinian state. And I don’t think that that is in doubt. I actually don’t think that the key to that is whether which particular UN agency you have there, it requires political compromises by both Israel and the Palestinian Authority. And I don’t know if we’re going to get those political compromises, but I think if you, if you talk to serious UNRWA officials, and let me emphasize again, I do know very, very good, very caring UNRWA officials, they will tell you, know, we are no we are sort of holding the ring. We’re waiting for a solution. We’ve been waiting for a solution for decades, when there is a political way out of this situation. Yeah, UNRWA—
John Donvan: So, that does lead to the question I wanted to ask you, Richard based which comes from something that that that Hillel said in his opening, which is that UNRWA has not worked to resettle the refugees, that it’s persuaded them to stay in place and to aspire to returning to the places that they fled from in 1948 and in 1967. Do you agree with that assessment, and would UNRWA ‘s mission, should UNRWA ‘s mission have been the notion of resettlement?
Richard Gowan: So, you know, UNRWA’s mandate back in the 1940s was essentially to assist the Palestinians, both in the Palestinian territories, but also in neighboring countries like Jordan, until the right of return was possible, and it doesn’t have a mandate to do resettlement, and it doesn’t actually have a mandate to facilitate the return of Palestinians to their former homes, although that obviously is impossible at the present time. It is just meant to assist them for what was, I think, expected to be a few years.
I mean, Hillel may know the history of this better than me. No one thought this was going to be a 75 year process. And so, you know, the UN has been left holding this problem with a mandate to keep supporting the Palestinians in the hope of there being a political way out. And without there being a political way out, then you are going to have this situation. And again, as I say, it’s inevitable, when you have a very big humanitarian operation in a very small area like Gaza, that it will be penetrated, that it will be manipulated. That is just, sadly, an inevitability of international assistance.
Hillel Neuer: I think I’m afraid that Richard is downplaying the infiltration of UNRWA. And again, there’s two problems, even if UNRWA were not infiltrated, again, the purpose has become pathological.
John Donvan: Can we just point out to people who don’t know that the 99% of the staff of UNRWA working in Gaza, some 13,000 people, 99% of them are Palestinians, and I’m just not sure that people know that, that we’re not talking sure UN officials from outside coming in and working there.
Hillel Neuer: That’s right. Actually, it’s a good point that you make, because that conflation is sometimes encouraged by the UN and UNRWA, depending on the talking points they want to achieve. But I would just want to make two points to respond to Richard.
One is that, you know, it’s true that at the beginning of the original resolution, the idea of UNRWA was to help them actually find relief and works where they were. America sent the head of the Tennessee Valley Authority to try to help them start new lives where they were. And they refused. They said that the jihad against Israel, that there should be no Jewish state, is something they’re not prepared to renounce. And the idea that they would return was conditioned on—that some would return—was conditioned that they returned peacefully.
That has never been the goal of the Palestinians who declare the right of return, and we saw it on October 7. They’re not interested in some peaceful return. But just one final point important to keep in mind, Richard has spoken about UNRWA officials and their noble intentions. We sent a dossier to the current head of UNRWA, Philippe Lazarini, who appears as a very well intentioned Swiss humanitarian about the fact that the head of the teachers union in Gaza Fathi Sharif was a leading Hamas member, and he did nothing. Okay, he gave him a slap on the wrist and suspended him, but refused to fire him, and UNRWA teachers rallied on his behalf.
So it’s not a drop in the bucket. This is the entire system in Gaza, sorry, in Lebanon, and in September or October, the missile took him out. And on that same day, Hamas announced that Fathi Sharif, the head of the UNRWA teachers union, was the head of Hamas, and you have to assume that they approve of this behavior that is UNRWA.
Richard Gowan: I don’t believe they approve of that behavior. I think that for the last what, 18 months, however long, UNRWA officials have been just desperately trying to find any way to get any assistance they can into Gaza. And that has meant very difficult conversations with the Israelis and very difficult conversations with Hamas. Now, if you go back to the period before the atrocities on the seventh of October, I think actually honest UN officials, honest UNRWA officials, would say, yes, there were cultural problems in UNRWA and, you know, before the seventh of October, there was actually quite a lot of thinking behind the scenes at the UN about how to shake up the institution that, I mean, there was a recognition that it had real problems.
As I say, since the seventh of October, just everyone has been on emergency watch. The one thing I would say though Hillel is, let’s imagine we took UNRWA out, which, again, is the Israeli [??]. Let’s just imagine that it disappeared whoever came in, whether it was other UN agencies, like the World Food Program, whether it was private contractors, whether it was Palestinian institutions, they would be relying pretty much on the same individuals to provide health services, to provide education, and they would also face the challenge of penetration by Hamas.
I mean, Hamas retains quite a sort of strong deep state in Gaza despite military defeat. And it’s not just about the institution, one specific institution which you can take away and remove the problem, and those problems will continue to be there. And again, there is a way out of this. We all want a way out of it, but the way out of it is some sort of political solution. And as you say, if that means strengthening the Palestinian Authority, good, we’re on the same page.
John Donvan: You wanted to talk about sanctions earlier. UN sanctions in the region, Hillel, and you had some response to Richard’s point that they play a very constructive role in imposing sanctions, and I wanted to see what your response to that is.
Hillel Neuer: Sure. So I agree with Richard that UN sanctions that were imposed after the 9/11 terrorist attacks by al Qaeda were useful, and there are rare occasions when the UN can agree that terrorists like al Qaeda or ISIS are terrorists. Sadly, they’ve never done so with Hamas, the opposite or Islamic Jihad, or any of the other Palestinian terrorist agencies, with maybe a rare exception of an agency that might be affiliated with al Qaeda or ISIS, the main Palestinian terrorist groups are get a free pass in terms of the UN. In fact, the UN Relief chief, Martin Griffiths, last year, said, I do not regard Hamas as a terrorist organization. The UN refuses to call them a terrorist group. Says their political organization.
Richard Gowan: Well, this actually takes us back to a moment of deep frustration for many of us in New York, which was back in October 2023, within a few weeks of the 7 October attacks, Brazil, which was then a member of the Security Council, tabled a Security Council resolution that, for the first time ever, condemned Hamas, and I think, described Hamas as a terrorist organization.
And that resolution failed, but it failed because the US vetoed it. Now the US vetoed it because it said that it didn’t give Israel sufficiently strong support in terms of self defense. But a lot of diplomats, including a lot of US diplomats, thought there was a moment there. They thought there was a moment where the UN would finally condemn Hamas, would finally sort of start to treat it as a terrorist organization. It could have been a real breakthrough. You know, I’ve spoken to Arab diplomats who look back on that as a major failure. I think that was a lost opportunity.
Hillel Neuer: Well, we know that the United States, under Nikki Haley, actually brought an amendment to a resolution to specifically declare Hamas a terrorist organization. And actually, interestingly, it did get a majority, but it didn’t get the super majority that was needed, and it never passed.
And when you see Philippe Lazzarini, the head of UNRWA who openly meets with Hamas, and yes, you could say, in some cases, he needs to for on the ground, you know, function all this, it’s hard to see that there’s any true will at the UN to regard Hamas as a terrorist organization. Again, if you look at the most active UN official on this issue, who’s Francesca Albanese, who writes every single day and who speaks all around the world, spoke in November 2022 at a conference organized by Hamas leader Basem Naim—
John Donvan: In a few minutes, we’re going to be joined by some other voices who will be asking some questions. But I have a question that we haven’t gotten to yet that came up in the opening and that has to do with UN peacekeepers. There’s a force that was placed in Lebanon, southern Lebanon, in 1978 following an Israeli incursion. It’s known as UNIFIL, the United Nations International force in Lebanon, some 10,000 troops from more than 40 countries that have been there all of this time to be kind of a buffer and a monitor, and in theory, peacekeepers, although they’ve also often been criticized for not keeping the peace. But you made the case, Richard, that their role is important. It’s vital. It’s doing something. Can you go deeper on that? And then I’d like to let Hillel respond to it.
Richard Gowan: Well, firstly, just to say it’s actually the UN interim force in Lebanon, and that, again, tells you how these things, UN presences can go on much longer than people realize.
John Donvan: Yeah, very good correction, and I think we need to leave that in the edit, my mistake.
Richard Gowan: I’m always aware of it, because I was born in the same year that it was deployed. So I think of myself as the Richard interim Gowan. But look UN peacekeepers in southern Lebanon, and they’ve been there for a long time. After the 2006 Israeli Hezbollah war, the force was expanded, and the idea was that it would help the Lebanese army deploy in areas in southern Lebanon that were controlled by Hezbollah.
Now, the Lebanese army, until last year, has never been able to do that, and so the peacekeepers were left in a bit of a limbo, and there has been a lot of criticism that they stood by while Hezbollah actually strengthened its position in southern Lebanon. Now the peacekeepers would say it wasn’t our mandate to fight Hezbollah. We were waiting for the Lebanese army. I understand that the Israeli military found this intolerable.
Where we are now, after the ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah, is that once again, the UN is meant to be assisting Lebanese Armed Forces takeover areas where Hezbollah is exiting. The US strongly supports that there are US officials, sort of directly involved in the process, and this time around, it might just work.
Hillel Neuer: Look, UNIFIL gave a lot of hope when they were initially created, and over the years, certainly after 2006 there was a very strong resolution that was adopted to put an end to the Second Lebanon War, resolution, 1701 and the gist of it was that Hezbollah would have to be disarmed south of the Litani River. And people hope that UN would play an important role. And of course, it also required action by the Lebanese Forces.
Sadly, in that time, we can see now that UNIFIL did very little in terms of helping to disarm Hezbollah, and in fact, it seems that they turned a blind eye, or maybe even did worse. When Hezbollah attacked Israel on October 8, one day after Hamas launched the massacre of October 7 and killed about 1200 Israelis. The next day, Hezbollah launched their own attack, guided by Iran, funded by Iran, armed and trained by Iran, they displaced 10s of 1000s of Israelis in the north. Many of them have still not been able to return home, and they did so from areas where you have 1000s of UNIFIL peacekeepers, and it seems that, in fact, worse, it seems that UNIFIL allowed Hezbollah, funded by the IRGC, to use their outposts as hiding places that UNIFIL turned a blind eye, as underneath their very noses, Hezbollah built terror tunnels.
These are deep terror tunnels. Thosuands of rockets were placed in homes all across South Lebanon and Shiite villagers homes and UNIFIL, of course, saw all of this happening, but on the rare occasions where they did try to intervene, Hezbollah responded very aggressively. Even killed a few UNIFIL peacekeepers back in the day, and Hezbollah, kind of like a mafia, gave them the message, if you dare to intervene and do your mandate, you’re going to wind up in body bags. And it seems, sadly—
John Donvan: I just wanted to jump in with I have some experience reporting on UNIFIL from going back to the 1980s and in particular, I spent time among the Irish, the Irish contingent. And what I recall at that time, that in addition to everything that you’re depicting happened subsequently, that the Israelis felt that they were supportive, that they were, in the sense, tilting towards people who were fighting against Israel.
The Lebanese felt the opposite, that they didn’t trust UNIFIL either, and felt that there was intelligence information being shared with the Israelis, and they were kind of in the middle on this sort of thing. And I’m wondering, is this kind of just the lot of being a peacekeeper when you’re in the middle and it’s not really your conflict that you’re going to lose the support of both sides?
Hillel Neuer: Well, if we look at their language, we can see in UNIFIL, also they will routinely condemn Israel if Israel acts in their vicinity. But when they refer to Hezbollah, we see that they’re very hesitant to even criticize or condemn Hezbollah. Can the facts speak for themselves? UNIFIL is situated in Lebanon. Hezbollah controlled the entire area, to the detriment not only of Israelis, but of the Lebanese. Hezbollah destroyed Lebanon. Hezbollah destroyed Lebanon.
John Donvan: Richard, come on, in your response, a lot said there, yeah, and actually, many points I would agree on.
Richard Gowan: I think that it is true that, you know, Hezbollah has succeeded in menacing UN peacekeepers over the years. And, you know, I recall late 2022, an Irish peacekeeper was killed, I think because the Irish were seen to be a little too forward in their approach to some Hezbollah actions. If you go back to 2006 and expansion of the force, I think for time, the Israelis were quite happy that UNIFIL did something for the security blanket. It did get in the way of Hezbollah operations. It did sort of dampen down what Hezbollah could do by 2022 2023 Yes, it was clear that that was no longer the case, and Hezbollah’s presence had sort of grown hugely.
The question now is, after Israel has struck some very significant blows against Hezbollah, can unifill help with the sort of post ceasefire stabilization working with the Lebanese Armed Forces? As I say, I think it is just striking that for all the complaints, Israel accepts that UNIFIL is the one international framework they have to work with, and that there isn’t an alternative.
John Donvan: I want to do a pivot in the program now to bring in some other voices, people who have been listening to the debate and who know this topic because they think about it and write about it. And the first person I want to welcome is Natalie Ecanow. Natalie is a research analyst at the foundation for the defense, defense of democracies. Natalie, thank you for your patience in listening to the debate so far, and we’d love to hear what your question is for our debaters.
Natalie Ecanow: Yeah, thank you for having me. In my assessment, the Israelis are at minimum, wary of allowing the Palestinian Authority into Gaza at this point, given the problems that the Palestinian Authority has right now in the West Bank. So if the Palestinian Authority can’t go into Gaza and UNRWA can’t continue providing services in Gaza. What alternatives do you see for providing services to Palestinians once the war wraps up?
Hillel Neuer: So look, I think you’re right. You’ve touched on a conundrum, which is that you know, what are the next steps? Not clear what the next steps are, if you have elections, Hamas gets elected. And today, Hamas controls Gaza if you hand it over to the Palestinians, which you know, Israel is currently only in a small part of Gaza, so effectively, Hamas is controlling large parts of Gaza.
And my point was that I don’t think UNRWA helps anything. That was the main point. And it comes back to something that Richard had touched on, which is that, you know, UNRWA provides stability. They’re better than the alternative. I don’t think they are. I agree with Richard that whoever leaves, whoever enters that space, certainly in the near term, is entering a Hamas controlled zone. Whatever UN agency would be there, whatever Palestinian agency would be there. So it’s true.
However, my main point was that the UN shouldn’t be giving their international legitimacy to this, and that’s very significant by the UN being there and legitimizing that narrative. It’s one thing for Hamas to say our goal is to destroy Israel, but UNRWA in a neat way, basically, white washes, that legitimizes it. I’d rather it be clear as day if, if Gaza is Hamas, and if the schools are Hamas, we’ll know that it is, but they won’t be telling us that this is some kind of UN agency, UN school that’s dedicated to peace and human rights when it’s the opposite.
John Donvan: Richard.
Richard Gowan: I mean, I fear that we may end up with a sort of broken, backed humanitarian effort in Gaza, Israel has laid out two alternatives to UNRWA. One is that other UN agencies, like the World Food Program could take over relief efforts, but you have to remember that UNRWA has also been doing things like sanitation, like trash collection, like running health centers. And there actually is no other UN agency that I think has the capabilities to take on all those tasks.
And then the alternative to the UN is that you bring in private contractors. There are a lot of private contractors who I think hope to get quite a lot of money in post war Gaza, but again, I don’t actually think that any of those contractors could fulfill all the tasks that UNRWA has fulfilled. I think they would be highly susceptible to penetration.
So I worry that we end up with a much diminished level of assistance to the people of Gaza and the people of Gaza, Hillel describes their mentality, but I think they’re also just hungry, and I think they also just want peace, and if they’re left without proper services, then we are just creating the resentments and the anger that will lead to violence down the road.
John Donvan: Natalie, thank you for that excellent question. I now want to welcome Sarah Yerkes. Sarah is a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Sarah, thank you for joining us, and please come in with your question.
Sarah Yerkes: Thank you so much. So the question that I have for you both, one thing we haven’t touched on is one of the UN alternatives that currently exists, which is the multilateral Force and Observers and Sinai. You know, this was established. An alternative to the UN peacekeeping force based on negotiations between Egypt and Israel to monitor their peace treaty, and I would say that it has arguably more credibility than some of the UN bodies in the region. So do you think that the MFO could be a model for elsewhere in the Middle East, and how would you compare its performance to other UN peacekeepers?
John Donvan: So just to clarify for people, after the Camp David Accords, when Israel and Israel and Egypt reached a peace accord, a kind of buffer force, smallish buffer force, was put into the Sinai, which is where Israel meets, meets Egypt. When you say MFO, you’re referring to them. And very, very importantly for your point, they’re not UN. So you’re asking, What about that as a solution. Take that first to Hillel.
Hillel Neuer: Look for the Gaza Strip. Let’s be realistic. First, it was mentioned that there should be two states for two peoples. That’s the ideal. The reality now is no one in Israel—including, you know, I would say 90% of those who historically were major activists for two state solution—they’re not calling it for that today, because, you know, it was the peace activists on the Gaza border who were dedicating their lives to helping people in Gaza who used to drive over to the border with Gaza and bring Palestinians to hospitals. They were the ones who were massacred in front of their families. They were the ones who were taken hostage.
So the idea that tomorrow, anyone is going to grant sovereignty and allow, you know, allow groups like Hamas or even the PA which continues to fund terrorists that if you get convicted for terrorism, it’s not just Hamas that supports you. The Palestinian Authority gives money, has been giving millions of dollars to the families of those who are convicted for terrorism against Israelis, so most Israelis tomorrow are not willing to allow state—
John Donvan: So Hillel, I’m just jumping in, in the interest of time. Your your answer is that having an MFO, as opposed to UN forces is, it’s just that’s not a, at this point, a viable alternative
Hillel Neuer: Yes, there is no country or combination of countries that are going to fight Hamas to protect Israelis.
Richard Gowan: Well, we finally found something which Hillel and I 100% agree upon. So that’s progress. I don’t think, as I said in my opening remarks, that in Gaza, or indeed in southern Lebanon, there’s any coalition that is willing to take on the risks of putting boots on the ground. I just don’t think NATO countries, who obviously are currently very focused on Ukraine, want to put in forces at scale in Gaza.
And I think Arab militaries are very, very nervous about suggestions they go into Gaza, because you know, they are very scared of the optics of Arab soldiers or Arab police having to suppress Palestinian protests, it would cause huge blowback.
John Donvan: So I really appreciate that question. I got an interesting point onto the table. So thank you very much for joining us, and now we’re going to bring it around to our closing round. And our closing round is where each of our two debaters gets a chance to make a closing statement to one more time try to persuade you to their side of the argument. Again, the question is, you, is the UN helping or hurting in the Middle East? And Richard, you’re up first with your closing.
Richard Gowan: I think what has come through this conversation is that actually, Hillel is a great idealist about the UN, and I am a pragmatist. I would fully agree that the UN is not living up to all its ideals in the Middle East. And I would, I would actually agree with the idea that in some cases, maintaining a UN presence in parts of the Middle East elongates, prolongs conflict, rather than resolving conflict.
But I also don’t see, as we’ve been discussing, credible alternatives for helping the people of the Palestinian territories or many of their neighbors, in humanitarian terms or in security terms to the UN, I think that the UN, for all its imperfections, remains the one body that is able to provide the life saving assistance and in some cases, security assistance that is necessary in the region.
I wish that the UN could do that job better, but I think that we should not blame humanitarian workers for the fact that we cannot find a political solution to the long running conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians. Ultimately, it comes down to Israel and to the Palestinian leadership to find a political way out of this crisis.
I agree with Hillel that it doesn’t look like there is much appetite at the moment to find a political way out of the crisis based on a two state solution, and so in the absence of that political will, I think we are left with a reality that it falls to the UN to hold the ring to keep people alive and to maintain a minimum degree of stability going forward for a lot of civilians who have been isolated and who have been let down, and I think that’s true also for Israeli civilians who deserve to be protected, and the UN is there to do that.
John Donvan: Thank you very much, Richard. And Hillel, you get the last word with your closing statement, once again to remind people you are arguing that the UN efforts in the Middle East are hurting.
Hillel Neuer: The UN was founded on noble principles and to promote humanitarianism, human rights, security for all. Sadly, when it comes to the Arab-Israeli conflict, the UN is not the firefighter. They are the arsonists. If you look at UNRWA, which we’ve been talking about, the Palestinians and the Hamas, terrorists who invaded Israel, were mostly educated by UNRWA, and they were acting out what they were taught.
The UN is acting in the name of humanitarianism but actually they are only encouraging war and terrorism. Their leading expert on the issue so called is someone named Francesca Albanese, who, every day promotes the false libel that Israel is committing genocide.
And you know the group, if you dare to speak out against what the UN is doing, because if you say that the UN is incentivizing Hamas, because every time Hamas attacked Israel from civilian areas, committing a double war crime, inviting Israel to attack civilian areas to stop the rockets. And if you call this out, you are punished.
We are the dissenting voice at the Human Rights Council. My organization, UN Watch and for speaking out, for calling out the fact that there’s a special agenda item focused only on demonizing Israel. We were attacked. The head of the Human Rights Council bureaucracy, a man named Eric Tistounet instructed his employees to remove us from speakers lists, to manipulate the speakers lists that we wouldn’t speak. All of this was confirmed in an affidavit signed by Emma Riley, his own employee.
So sadly, the UN not only does it incentivize Hamas, legitimize Hamas terrorism, but if you dare to speak out, you will be attacked and censored, and that’s very sad for what the UN was meant to be.
John Donvan: Thank you, Hillel, and what I want to say to both of you is thank you very, very much for taking part in this debate and for the manner in which you conducted it. As I said in the beginning, I know that you’ve had some been across purposes on social media. This was the first time you were able to address one another directly, and you did so with the civility that we aim for at open to debate, and particularly for this series that we’ve been developing a series of debates around developments in the Middle East. So one more time to both of you. Thank you so much for joining us on Open to Debate.
