• UK pauses funding for the biggest UN agency operating in Gaza
• Is it a consequence of the UN ICJ ruling?
As hundreds of thousands of people in Gaza have taken shelter in UNWRA-owned facilities, the UK, US, Australia, Italy, Canada, Finland, the Netherlands, Switzerland, and Germany have all suspended additional funding to UNWRA, a UN agency responsible for aid, healthcare, education, and other humanitarian assistance to Gaza. UNWRA is the largest UN agency in Gaza and is responsible for aid reaching Palestinian hands. According to the former chief spokesperson of UNWRA, Christopher Gunness, “one million displaced people are currently taking refuge in and around UNRWA buildings. They are the ones who will suffer as a result of this decision.”
The reasoning being used by these nine nation states to justify their halting of aid is based on Israeli allegations that there are UNWRA employees in Gaza who were involved in the 7th October offensive by Palestinian resistance groups. This claim not only has no evidence presented with it but is of itself an unjustified justification to halt aid to UNWRA. To punish an entire population that is starving based on the decisions of a few individuals within an agency does not equate to justice; rather, it exacerbates the lethal suffering that is already in mass. The very concept that one shouldn’t celebrate or support the Palestinian resistance during Palestine’s first major counter-offensive against its occupation is not just absurd but unjustifiable. According to a UN report, the entirety of the 2.3 million population of Gaza is currently starving, with famine imminent. Added on with the continuous bombardment of buildings across both north and south Gaza, it questions one to think, what is the end goal for the west?
Why now?
It was on Friday, the same day as the ICJ ruling for Israel to take measures to stop the killing of Palestinians, that these claims were made. On Friday, an adviser to the Israeli prime minister told the BBC that the 7 October Hamas attacks had involved “people who are on their [UNRWA] salaries.” This is said without evidence. Yet believed by the most powerful nations in the world even after Israel’s consistent lies and exaggerations. Why did Israel make these claims against the biggest UN agency in Gaza on Friday, the same day the court hearing had taken place? It’s likely it was to inflict reputational damage on the UN to make it easier to avert public attention when disobeying the ICJ. The ICJ, or world court, is a court that falls under the umbrella of the UN. It is this that took mass precedence on TV screens on Friday, and for its legitimacy to be fractured will be a boon for Israel. The fact that nine closely related western nations had cut aid to UNWRA all or around the same day shows that there must have been some coordination between nations regarding the timing and fashion of the stunt. If it is true that this was a coordinated event of halting aid all in a timely fashion, then there’s a strong possibility that it could have been done to send a strong message to the ICJ that it does not agree with its ruling and, at the same time, a message to Israel that it still has the green light to do what it wants to destroy the Palestinian resistance that it claims to be doing.
Tweet reposted by UNWRA on X
Complicit in genocide, complicit in global dictatorship
The UN is an internationally recognised organisation, recognised by most countries in the world. Even among the most polarised of nations, it has still been seen as a key body in helping to limit the suffering of humanity. Yet, eight NATO states have without warning withdrawn aid to a major UN agency, impacting hundreds of thousands of people within Gaza. Instead of taking the decision to withdraw aid from a global debate in the UN general assembly or leading the calls for a UN general assembly vote, they have hammered UNWRA, whom they helped to create. This creates uncertainty about international law and the nature of the internationally-led order. If a handful of certain nations are capable of decimating a UN organisation without the consent or consultation of others, then it creates a feeling that the international global order is not just led but controlled by a few and not many. In a time when the UN world court has been too afraid to call for a ceasefire and UN security council votes for a ceasefire have been vetoed even when the majority have wanted it to happen, it creates uncertainty about the legitimacy and very existence of the UN.
