The notion that UNRWA is “indispensable” is contradicted by the UN’s own standard practice in every other conflict zone. From Ukraine to Sudan—contexts involving millions more people and larger geographic areas—humanitarian relief is coordinated by the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) and its cluster system. OCHA brings together relevant UN and non-UN organizations—such as the World Food Programme (WFP), UNICEF, and UNDP—to deliver services efficiently and collaboratively.[1]

Most of these organizations already operate in the Gaza Strip.[2] The only reason a similar, coordinated approach has not been implemented for the Palestinians is that UN Secretary-General António Guterres explicitly instructed other UN agencies not to take any steps that might “erode” UNRWA’s position.[3] This is a political decision—not a humanitarian necessity.

Beyond delivery of aid to Gaza, UNRWA provides basic public services: education, healthcare, and municipal infrastructure like garbage collection and sewage treatment. Even UNRWA Commissioner-General Philippe Lazzarini has acknowledged that these services should be managed by local Palestinian authorities.[4] Donor countries could easily redirect funding to the appropriate local governments, just as they would in any other context.

UNRWA claims its model is cost-effective because its local staff are paid 40–70% less than other UN local employees. ^[5] But that isn’t a justification for maintaining a parallel UN system. Most of these workers—especially the 20,000 in education[6] and 3,000 in healthcare,[7] who together make up 75% of UNRWA’s workforce—would naturally transfer to local government payrolls. In places like Jordan, where most UNRWA beneficiaries are also Jordanian citizens, the Jordanian government is fully capable of absorbing responsibility. The same applies in the West Bank, where the Palestinian Authority has jurisdiction and should assume these functions.

In truth, UNRWA’s continued existence is not only unnecessary—it’s counterproductive.

According to UNRWA’s website, UNRWA exists to preserve the so-called “right of return” for millions of Palestinians classified by UNRWA as “refugees”[8]—a euphemism for the destruction of Israel through an October 7^th-style invasion and massacre. Senior UNRWA officials, both international and local, routinely reaffirm this ideological mission.[9] Similarly, UNRWA’s Palestinian beneficiaries consider UNRWA their “right” until they can “return” to sovereign Israeli territory.[10]

This message is deeply embedded in UNRWA’s educational system. Students have publicly admitted that their UNRWA schooling teaches that Israel is “blowing up Al-Aqsa,”[11] that Jews are “our enemies,”[12] and that the only solution is “jihad.”[13] UNRWA does not promote peace. It fosters radicalization, resentment, and permanent victimhood.

UNRWA’s entrenched ideological bias was fully exposed on October 7, 2023, when several of its employees took part in the Hamas massacre of Israeli civilians. UNRWA social worker Faisal Ali Mussalem al-Naami, for example, was documented dragging the body of 21-year-old Yonatan Samerano into Gaza. This direct participation in terrorism, along with UNRWA’s chronic failure to hold staff accountable for neutrality breaches, irreparably taints the agency. It exposes a pattern of complicity in terrorism masked as humanitarianism.

If the international community is truly committed to a peaceful future for both Palestinians and Israelis, it should be advocating for the dismantling of UNRWA—not preserving it as some untouchable institution. Several countries, including the United States, Netherlands, and Sweden have already re-directed their funds from UNRWA to other aid organizations.

UNRWA is not indispensable. It is an obstacle to peace and an outdated relic of a failed strategy.