以色列與黎凡特 → 聯合國近東巴勒斯坦難民救濟和工程處

摘要

On 28 October 2024 the Knesset passed two laws: one barring UNRWA from operating in territory under Israeli sovereignty, the other prohibiting contact between Israeli state bodies and the agency. They took effect at the end of January 2025. An amendment passed on 29 December 2025 defines the supply of electricity, water and banking services to UNRWA facilities as prohibited contact, and in January 2026 it was applied to the agency's East Jerusalem sites, which a rights organisation challenged in court. Israel's position is that the agency is compromised by Hamas; a UN internal oversight review made findings concerning nine staff members. The ICJ's advisory opinion of 22 October 2025 found that Israel, as occupying power, must ensure the population's basic needs and facilitate relief, including by UNRWA, and rejected Israel's allegations about the agency's neutrality; the opinion is not binding, and Israel has rejected its findings. UNRWA has since cut staff in Gaza.

為何重要

UNRWA runs schools, clinics and services for refugees in Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem, and the laws turn its operation into a question of Israeli law at every crossing and site Israel controls. Resolution 2803 routes Gaza's aid through the UN, the Red Cross and the Red Crescent without naming UNRWA, so the agency's place in Gaza's recovery is not settled by the arrangements now in force.

相關事件

• 以色列國會通過兩項針對UNRWA的法律 2024年10月28日（2025年1月生效）

  Humanitarian · Political

仍然未知的事項

• The texts of the 2024 laws and the December 2025 amendment were not read; their provisions come from the event record and reporting.
• Which UNRWA operations continue in Gaza and the West Bank, and with what international staff, is not established from a current UNRWA figure.

證據同樣支持的其他解讀

• Israel presents the laws as security measures against an agency it says Hamas penetrated; the agency treats them as obstruction of relief, and the ICJ found Israel obliged to facilitate it. The record states the measures and attributes both positions.

列出這些解讀，是因為該紀錄本身的評估並非其來源所允許的唯一評估 — 而不是對上述評估的保留。