Photo: TASS
In a special interview with TASS news agency, Philippe Lazzarini, Commissioner-General of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), outlined his visit to Russia, stressed Moscow's support for the agency, and commented on the motives behind some countries' efforts to liquidate UNRWA and undermine Palestinian interests.
Mr Lazzarini, I understand you have a busy schedule here in Moscow, so let me thank you for your time and willingness to give this interview. Your last visit to Russia in June 2021 took place after the escalation of relations between Israelis and Palestinians. Now the situation in the Gaza Strip is more escalated than ever. Could you provide some information about the purpose of your visit and the results you expect to achieve?
Thank you for inviting me. Actually, you almost answered the question yourself. I am in Moscow today because there is a meeting of BRICS members on the Middle East at the level of deputy foreign ministers or special envoys. I have received an invitation to address the BRICS meeting as a group. I have just returned from New York, where I was also in the Security Council. As you know, our agency is facing an unprecedented crisis. We are already facing an unprecedented crisis in Gaza. But on top of that, the agency is now under pressure and under numerous calls, including from the Israeli Government, to cancel or end its activities in the Gaza Strip.
So my aim now is to draw the attention of UN Member States on this platform to the impact of UNRWA being dismantled in Gaza or in Jerusalem, in East Jerusalem or in the West Bank. Above all, it would have an impact on our collective ability to respond to the current unprecedented crisis. As we know, Gaza has been a bit of a superlative if you look at the number of people killed, the number of children killed, the number of medical facilities and hospitals destroyed, the level of destruction, the level of displacement in the Gaza Strip, and today we are even talking about the artificially induced famine that is looming. Now the dissolution of the main organisation, which is also the main backbone of the international response in Gaza, can only weaken our joint efforts to avert this impending famine.
Secondly, however, I also warn about the impact of a possible transition period. Let's say tomorrow there is a ceasefire. There would not be a long time between the ceasefire and "the day after". Or I call it "the day in between". It could take one, two, three years. During that time, there will be an extraordinary protracted humanitarian need. UNRWA is the only organization that is capable of providing basic services, such as access to basic health care or access to education, to some extent in the absence of a functioning state. That is why I call once again on the Member States to say: if we get rid of UNRWA during such a transitional period, we will only increase the desperation of the people. We could sow the seeds of future resentment, revenge and violence, and we could also undermine any political process. One of the main objectives is also to reach out to the BRICS countries. For that, I am very grateful to have received this invitation.
Could you share with us your perspective on Russia's humanitarian assistance in the Gaza Strip and its position on UNRWA and the ongoing crisis the agency is facing?
Russia, as a member of the Security Council, has always provided political support to the agency, and I think that is important. This has been the case over the last few decades, it continues to be the case, and I think that this support is reflected and is also reflected in the invitation that I have received today to address the BRICS members.
The UN has repeatedly drawn attention to the unprecedented scale of human suffering in the Gaza Strip. And according to the latest statistics released by the Palestinian Ministry of Health, the number of casualties on lives in Gaza has unfortunately exceeded 34,000 people. However, some countries remain sceptical about these figures. How much do you believe these statistics?
In a war situation it is very difficult to have accurate numbers. However, I believe that the number that is being published gives a fairly good idea of the extent of the number of people who have been killed in Gaza. And that is terrible. It is unprecedented when you consider that more than 30 000 people have been killed in six months. We know that 13 000 children are among them. We know that more children have been killed in Gaza in six months than in all the conflicts around the world in the last four years. So it is unprecedented in terms of the scale and the degree of destruction.
I mean, in the past, whenever there were statistics about people killed, nobody questioned them too much because we always felt that the ratio seemed to be generally plausible. Today, if I look at the number of staff killed within UNRWA, 180, and compare that to the total number of staff that we have, 13,000, and then I look at the number of people killed within the wider population of Gaza and further compare that to the general population, I get more or less the same type of ratio. So I think the ratio in this case is certainly something that unfortunately sounds like a possibility.
Can you say with a high degree of certainty that the 34,000 figure is not an overestimate?
I wouldn't say it's an exact number, but I believe it's certainly on that scale the number of people who have been killed. And I'm not even sure that number captures all those who are still under the rubble, because usually the death toll is reported and recorded through hospital facilities. So I would say that the percentage given may be closer to reality, unfortunately. It may even be higher or it may be disproportionate. And I believe it is not an overestimate.
There have been reports that Israel has proposed disbanding UNRWA and transferring its staff to another UN-affiliated organisation. Could you confirm whether the World Organisation has received any such documents in writing to date as a formal request?
I am not aware of any such document, but I am well aware of the Israeli government's calls for UNRWA to be dismantled. I am very aware of the discussions about who can replace UNRWA and for what kind of activities in Gaza. That is also essentially what I have been talking about today, what I talked about last week, that we need to be collectively careful. You may recall that this week we had the final report of the Independent Review Panel, which clearly underlined how irreplaceable and indispensable this agency is. Which means that today, even in the case of acute humanitarian aid, there is no agency capable of taking over the work of UNRWA in Gaza.
UNRWA has 13,000 staff in Gaza. The next largest UN agency has a maximum of around 100 staff. Which means that you cannot just intervene. If you just look at the food aid in Gaza, we account for more than half of the supplies in the Gaza Strip, the rest is the World Food Programme and other international NGOs. But there is also no organisation that can intervene and provide access to basic health or access to education in the way that we do. Only a functioning government or administration could do that.
Remember that in Gaza we had 300,000 girls and boys in our primary and secondary schools. If you take into account those who were in Palestinian Authority schools, that's more than half a million girls and boys. If UNRWA were to leave now, who else would take over if there is no functioning state? There is no NGO or UN agency that is focused on providing public services as UNRWA has been.
So, yes, I am aware of the objective of abolishing UNRWA, and that is why we need to protect this agency from this kind of pressure. I am aware that there have been discussions about who else could take over some of the agency's activities, but I still say that this is a completely short-sighted discussion, because UNRWA is much more than just food distribution, it is basic health care, it is education, and these are services similar to government services that no other organisation can take over. And the only one who will be able to take them over will be the future state of Palestine, once there is a political solution.
Do you believe that until the acute humanitarian crisis in Gaza is over, UNRWA will be able to withstand external pressure and will not cease to exist?
Well, there's a danger. You may have seen the call last weekend in the West Bank and Gaza, according to which more than 80 % Palestinians believe that if UNRWA were abolished, it would also mean the end of the two-state solution. Now, I believe that the effort to abolish UNRWA will continue, but the primary objective of this effort is political in nature. It is the attempt to deprive the Palestinians of their refugee status, which was now clearly articulated by the Israeli representative on the Security Council last week. He said that UNRWA perpetuates the refugee problem. But it is not UNRWA that is perpetuating the refugee problem, it is the absence of a political solution that is perpetuating the refugee status. It is the same as saying that humanitarian aid perpetuates conflict. No, it is the absence of a political solution that perpetuates the conflict.
So here, too, I have made it clear to the Member States that we need to push the envelope, because the real intention to abolish the Agency is political in nature, which could undermine efforts in the future towards a political solution and a real solution to a Palestinian state.
So would you say that if common sense prevails, UNRWA will continue to exist and continue its current activities and humanitarian aid?
It depends on what common sense means. My common sense would be that there should be a political solution. And if there is a political solution, UNRWA may gradually disappear. That means the state will take it over. And our raison d'être will end. UNRWA was created as a temporary organization, and unfortunately it has lasted for 75 years. If we are now truly committed to a solution, we can, in that case, restore the temporary nature of the agency and help any transition leading to a solution. So, yes, I really hope that we will be able to fulfil our role and our mandate until there is such a solution. We will have to fight for that to be possible. I believe that the temptation to get rid of UNRWA and abolish the agency will continue. There will continue to be a lot of political pressure, and that is why I am now still asking Member States to help us to shield and protect the mandate of the Agency so that we can continue to do what is expected of us until there is a political solution. Will there be? I hope so. That is the fight we are now waging.
Could you describe the channels through which Israel is promoting the decision to close UNRWA?
They create many challenges for us. Firstly, there are a lot of smear campaigns, misinformation and accusations, and then there are calls for Member States to stop funding the organisation. Speaking of which, remember that there have been allegations concerning 12 employees who may have been involved in the massacre on 7 October. I found these allegations so appalling that, in consultation with the UN Secretary-General, Antonio Guterres, I decided to terminate the contract of these 12 people and an investigation was launched to look into all the individual cases. And the Secretary-General has also commissioned a review to look at the whole risk management system of our organisation and to see whether they are appropriate to maintain the neutrality of the organisation.
A report came out this week saying that the agency is not only indispensable and irreplaceable, but that it has developed policies and systems that are more robust than any other UN agency or international NGO, but given the complex environment in which we operate and the unique nature of the organization, we can always do more to improve compliance. That is exactly what we will be doing.
That is why there have been a lot of smear campaigns about the Agency and how little neutrality we have, but there have also been legislative efforts in the Israeli parliament to ban the presence of the Agency. We have seen repeated calls from the Israeli government for the agency to be abolished and for UNRWA to play no role in the 'day after' in Gaza.
We face an administrative bureaucratic type of harassment where visas are issued to our staff only on a monthly or bi-monthly basis, no longer on an annual basis. We have the Israeli Ministry of Finance trying to strip us of our immunity and privileges when it comes to taxes. So you have a series of activities aimed at limiting, reducing the operational space of the agency and making it almost impossible to function.
Only in the Gaza Strip, as you know, have we been prevented from organising convoys from south to north, even though the most pressing hunger and famine is taking place in the north. So UNRWA has been prevented from direct access of convoys to the north.
Is Israel trying to achieve the destruction of the organisation on its own, or is it supported in this campaign by other actors?
I think that's the attitude of the Israeli government. I am not aware that other governments are actively supporting it, but I also believe - and I draw this to the attention of other Member States - that we need to ensure that this issue is not dealt with or not just dealt with in technical terms, but also requires our political attention and vigilance. If we do not have that political attention, perhaps UNRWA could be operationally weakened.
I think that Israel's intention to close UNRWA has resonated abroad, especially in parliaments, and you saw that the US Congress recently decided to ban any funding for UNRWA. So that is the kind of traction that we are facing. But I also know that this debate sometimes takes place in other parliaments. So there is some pressure among politicians, but it does not necessarily translate into government policy.
As you mentioned, 12 UNRWA staff members have been dismissed, but do you believe that after the report is published this week, confidence might be restored in some of them and that they might continue their work in the agency?
We have 12 employees who have been laid off. To date, the employment contract with one employee has been renewed as this person has been completely cleared, but the others remain redundant.
Previous UNRWA reports have cited cases of torture of the agency's staff by Israeli authorities, as well as loss of life among its employees during the conflict. Have you advocated an independent UN investigation into these incidents? Do you believe that an International Criminal Court (ICC) mechanism could be enacted to investigate these matters?
I do not know what the best way is, but it is true that I have called on the members of the Security Council to ensure that the apparent disregard and attack on the premises and operations of UN staff is investigated and that accountability is taken. Because if we do not do that, we will set a new low standard for future conflicts. When you look at the number of staff killed - 180, the number of our schools and other premises damaged - more than 160, in which more than 400 people were killed seeking the protection of the UN emblem. More than a thousand people were injured while seeking protection. Some of our premises, when they were cleared, were used for military purposes, whether for the presence of the Israeli army or Hamas forces or other Palestinian fighters. We have accusations from employees who were arrested and then reported ill-treatment and torture.
We also hear stories of tunnels being discovered beneath our spaces. All of this is a blatant disrespect to the UN, and every Member State should be concerned about it. So, yes, we need an investigation. Yes, we need accountability. What the best platform for that is, I don't know yet. It could be the International Criminal Court, it could be a commission of inquiry. The path is yet to be determined, and I am sure that our experts should tell us what the best path is. But my challenge is that we cannot let this go without knowing exactly what happened, why it happened and without holding those responsible to account.
After some donor states stopped funding UNRWA, what is your estimate of how many Palestinians in Gaza are currently not receiving the scale of assistance they need?
It is difficult to answer the question as such because UNRWA is still continuing its activities. When the allegations came to light in January, we had as many as 16 countries that had suspended their contributions to the agency, and at that point I had not had a review for more than two or three weeks.
The good news is that most of the countries that had suspended activities have now reconsidered their decision and have contributed or resumed contributing to the agency, and some of the other wavering countries now have a more serious report that was released this week, and I am cautiously optimistic that it will help us rebuild trust with our donor base.
The only country that will not contribute to the agency is the agency's main donor, we know that it will not contribute until March 2025. We are talking about the US, so we have to find a way to fill the gap that the US has left behind. And that's why I'm also focusing a lot of effort and trying to encourage existing donors to increase their contributions, but also to bring in new donors.
A counter-argument from the US government could be that they are providing some humanitarian aid themselves. For example, they are dropping certain humanitarian aid by air. Do you think that such efforts can fully compensate for the lack of funding?
No, we know that airdrops will not make up for the lack of supply through the land crossing into the Gaza Strip, for example. Again, UNRWA is an organisation that is present everywhere, has staff everywhere. I do not believe that another agency could step in very quickly. Other agencies have also been very clear: we will not have the capacity. So UNRWA will remain an important partner and actor, especially during this acute response, and it should be in our common interest that the agency does not collapse because of a lack of funding. And that is why many donors have returned, and others have exceptionally chosen to support the agency. We must find a way to make up for the absence of American funding this year.
It was previously announced that UNRWA would be able to sustain its operations until June with current funding levels. Has this timetable been revised?
We rely heavily on hand-to-mouth assistance every month. Today I can say with confidence what I know, we will cover the needs until the end of June. After that, I don't know. It all depends on whether the donor has a reported contribution, whether they pay on time, whether new donors come forward. Our financial situation has been very precarious for more than four years. We are the only agency that even operates with a negative cash flow, which is very worrying for communities and staff. However, I am still cautiously optimistic that we will find a way to fill this gap before the end of the year.
To what extent do you think a possible Israeli operation in Rafah could worsen the current humanitarian crisis in the Gaza Strip?
The likelihood of an offensive in Rafah worries us all immensely. More than 1.45 million displaced people are already concentrated in the south of the country. Such an operation would take place in the middle of a sea of people. We believe, but not only we, the international community and all Member States have indicated that this offensive should not happen, that other avenues should be explored rather than creating another layer of tragedy in what is already unfolding before our eyes. Rafah is therefore very worrying. The idea that the ground operation could continue is very worrying. People are very worried because they have no idea where to go.
Do you think Israel will be able to provide safe passage?
It is very difficult to understand what is safe in Gaza. We have always felt that there is no real safe place in Gaza. So safe passage to where? To the safe places? But a safe place has to be safe, which up until now, in the last 6-7 months, it has become clear that there is no such place.
So there is no real possibility of "safe passage"?
There is no safe place in the Gaza Strip. And if there was a safe place, we would not have had such a high number of deaths since the beginning of the war.
Do you think that the new US military aid package to Israel could make the crisis worse?
You know, I'm now worried about what the Israeli military is planning to do, whether there is military aid or not. There seems to be preparations underway for a possible large-scale military intervention in Rafah. And in terms of the impact that this could have on the civilian population, the idea is simply unbearable. It is unbearable to think that people who have been displaced so many times, who are living on the streets, who have lost almost everything, will once again be the ones who will have to pay the price of a large-scale military operation.
How many people, if we are talking in numbers, could become victims if such an operation were to take place?
I really don't want to speculate, but today we are talking about 34,000 killed for the entire Gaza Strip. That is the estimate that is being shared. Every day we have more people killed and more children killed. There is no doubt that if such an offensive takes place, we will have thousands more dead. And I do not understand how it is possible that, after such a huge number of victims, the outrage of the international community has not yet been translated into an end to this killing, to this murder. And I don't understand why it has not yet led to a ceasefire. And a ceasefire, as we all know, would mean that we can build on it. Instead of talking about another military operation, we should be talking about the release of hostages, about extending aid, about the future.
I believe a ceasefire could save thousands of lives. And no ceasefire will mean more people killed.
In your view, is there a foreseeable path for the Gaza Strip and its people to restore stability and sustainable living conditions once the current escalation with Israel ends, or will it become a no-man's land?
You see the level of destruction here. And certainly, the Gaza Strip is not only destroyed, but it is also infested with unexploded ordnance. So it's certainly going to require a major collective effort, and I think that progress on the reconstruction of Gaza will happen when we have a firm timetable on the table for a political solution that both the Israelis and the Palestinians and the international community are confident about.
This is, in my view, the only way Gaza can look to the future. But that would take a long time. It will also require a lot of healing. It is not just a political solution, but we need to address the deep trauma of the Palestinians collectively, but also individually. We must also address the trauma that the massacre of 7 October caused in Israel. We need to acknowledge this relevant trauma. Only when we acknowledge it will we be able to look to the future with greater confidence. Because in the end, I believe that the Palestinians and Israelis will have no choice but to live together as neighbours.
What lessons from the current Palestinian-Israeli escalation do you think will be used to improve the Agency's work in the future? Have you already identified any specific mechanisms that will be subject to change if they occur?
UNRWA has been evaluated more than once. We are certainly one of the most audited organizations and the effectiveness of our services has been demonstrated. But now, going forward, I think it will be important for UNRWA to see how we can build better partnerships with other UN agencies, international NGOs, and also host countries to ensure that Palestinian refugees continue to have access to quality services. And those quality services will be provided within the UNRWA mandate, but not necessarily directly by UNRWA. And I think that is something that we will have to address in the future. It is not that UNRWA is distributing aid indirectly, but it is important to ensure that Palestinian refugees have access to services. I do not think that UNRWA is asking anyone to provide education on its behalf, but if you look at food, for example, we cannot provide food for everyone in the Gaza Strip on our own, and it is good that we have another organisation that is prepared to provide food. I think it is important to remember that when they do so, they are also supporting UNRWA in fulfilling its mandate.
I will now come back to some of your questions. I think it is important that, if we are really committed to a political solution, we can restore the temporary role of UNRWA, which I think we should protect, and we will be able to help the emergence of a future Palestinian administration and state. Because our ultimate goal is handover, and that is what we have to do.
Otherwise, the experience gained relates to a lack of trust in the agency by many partners, which was largely related to issues of perceived neutrality. We should never forget that our agency relies on staff from the community we support, and these people suffer as much as the rest of the community and have feelings; but at the same time, they are UN staff and we expect them to behave as UN officials. And the report that we just received this week will help us further strengthen our mechanism to give our donors confidence that UNRWA is indeed an indispensable but also neutral organization.
Before we end this interview, is there anything else you would like to mention?
The crisis in Gaza is unprecedented because of the scale of the suffering, in terms of the number of people killed compared to the population: the number of children, the number of UN staff, the number of media workers, the number of health workers and the overall level of destruction. Incredibly, we are confronted with an artificially induced famine that is taking place under our watch and can only be solved by political will, and I really hope that together we can reverse it. That is all.
TASS/gnews.cz-JaV_07
https://tass.com/world/1781577
English 
Czech 
Spanish 
French 
Italian 
Russian 
Chinese 
German