The unilateral action of the Israeli government to ban the UN specialised agency UNRWA and its humanitarian work in Palestine is wrong, both morally and legally. Moreover it threatens the substructure of specialised agencies that underlies the UN system generally, on which relief and humanitarian assistance for poverty stricken or famine affected regions and their displaced persons, rely.

Further the undermining of these operations as seen in and around Gaza recently, whereby the delivery of critically needed provisions and urgent medical assistance for the people was shut out or arbitrarily restricted, was contrary to international law and conventions. The immunities whereby the status of these organisations and their accredited personnel should be respected, and their safety protected in situations of armed combat, have been widely ignored. Case after case of infringements in these respects have been noted and reported.

What the Israeli government overlooks is its long-standing debt of gratitude to the UN and its General Assembly back in 1948 when its representatives were pressing for the establishment and recognition of a Jewish state or homeland against the background of massive displacement of its people during and after the Second World War. The intended territory for this state was in Palestine then in the control of British forces being attacked by armed Jewish gangs or terrorists such as the notorious Stern Gang determined to take it by force if necessary.

To bring order into this messy situation the UN stepped in with broad support from the international community. However this brought forth the other unresolved issue at the time, the future of the Palestine people already living in the territory and their wellbeing. They were not without support from the Arab world generally and the Soviet Union particularly, as the Cold War was then pre-occupying, and bearing in mind too that the Soviets had a permanent seat and veto power in the Security Council. That meant that the locus of diplomatic activity swung to the General Assembly necessitating the need for broad support for any constructive outcome of the Palestine issue. Australia’s Dr Herbert Vere Evatt, then Minister for External Affairs, and a strong advocate for middle power influence in the UN, was at the forefront of these endeavours and was justly applauded for his efforts in seeking a solution.

A key to these efforts was the formation of a specialised agency which became UNRWA to be concerned with the condition of settlements in Palestine, their well being and rights of protection. It might be recalled that the UN Declaration of Human Rights had just been proclaimed. Without UNRWA Israel would not immediately have received the recognition it sought which it gained in 1948 from a suitably drafted UNGA resolution passed with almost unanimous support. This was despite the fact, even though one of the essentials for the recognition of a state, that it should have defined boundaries which at that stage Israel didn’t. The border issue has become even more problematic following a succession of subsequent wars in the region.

Another condition for recognition in this case was that the displaced Palestinians should retain the right of return to their lands in due course. Discussion of a separate state was then in its early stages.

Obviously the status, modus operandi and funding of UNRWA was secured in copious documentation extant to this day, some with clear imputations, some left vague awaiting to evolve. But its establishment came with much relief and a good measure of goodwill. It was supported by Australia at the start which continued over the years with its performance being reviewed by the General Assembly at its annual sessions. The debates tended to be centred around some disgruntlement by Arab delegates at the slow pace of Palestinian resettlement. But UNWRA was alive and well over this period, until the present day when the need for it is no less than ever before given the needs of an increasing Palestinian population. Unfortunately it has been drawn into controversy recently over allegations that some UNWRA personnel have harboured Hamas sympathies, not exactly surprising in the circumstances. It has developed coordinating arrangements with other UN agencies and non-governmental relief organisations, essential to its own humanitarian work and its critical medical services.

A takeaway message from this experience is that the removal of UNRWA would not only be devastating to the Palestinian people and their future, but would compromise the standing of UN welfare bodies in other conflict situations.. One has only to look at the photographs of the tens of thousands of displaced people wending their way back in endless lines to the ruined sites of their former homes to appreciate the magnitude of the situation. It is a world scale problem. Israel does not have the resources itself to meet the minimal needs of the Gazans or to fufil its obligations as the occupying power. The situation should never have gotten like this when one thinks of the progress made in other respects on humanitarian issues which we had thought were clear and settled in the time between Auschwitz and now, much of which seems to have counted for little with those with reason to be more concerned than most.

Much more needs to be done to ensure that neutral accredited aid bodies are protected in their humanitarian work when deployed by the international community in conflict situations, especially when lately the world and its governments have tended to turn a blind eye to abuses at this level . The legality of Israel’s purported ban on UNRWA turns on the credibility of unsubstantiated assertions and what is understood by ‘sovereignty’ in the present conflicted international situation.

If a UN endorsed body or agency can be dislodged on the unilateral say so of a member state there is something wrong with the system in need of correction.