International condemnation as UNRWA funding suspended while Israel’s brutal actions in Gaza continue

When will governments call for an end to Israel’s bombing and killing in Gaza? How many more innocent people have to die?

In the midst of escalating tensions and the ongoing humanitarian crisis in Gaza, recent actions by Israeli forces and the subsequent international response have drawn strong condemnation and raised questions about the principles guiding international relations and humanitarian aid. The suspension of funding for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees—based on unsubstantiated claims made by the Israel government—by countries such as the United States and Australia, has broader implications on international protocols and the plight of the Palestinian people.

Israeli forces have fired at crowds of Palestinians in Gaza for nine consecutive days, targeting individuals gathered to collect humanitarian aid and the severity of the situation is underscored by the attack on trucks carrying humanitarian aid for northern Gaza. These actions have taken place against a backdrop of Israel blocking aid to the north of the Gaza Strip, exacerbating the dire humanitarian situation faced by the Palestinian population.

The suspension of funding for UNRWA by the United States and Australia marks a significant escalation in the international response to the conflict. This suspension, justified by unverified accusations from the Israeli government regarding UNRWA members’ involvement in Hamas attacks against Israeli civilians, represents a worrying shift away from the established norms of evidence and investigation in international relations. The acknowledgment by U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken of the U.S. government’s inability to independently verify the claims, while still considering them “highly credible,” underscores the duplicity of Western governments. These governments have been all too willing to overlook the acts of genocide and ethnic cleansing carried out by the Israeli government.

This situation raises critical questions about the role of international aid organisations, the responsibilities of donor nations, and the impact of geopolitical considerations on the provision of humanitarian aid. The suspension of funding for UNRWA without a thorough investigation not only undermines the credibility of the international system but also deprives Palestinian refugees of essential services and support. The decision by Australia and other countries to follow suit, without concrete evidence, suggests a broader alignment with political pressures rather than an adherence to principles of justice and humanitarian need.

The implications of these developments are profound. Firstly, they underscore the vulnerability of international aid organisations to political manipulation and the potential for such actions to disrupt essential humanitarian services. Secondly, the lack of consistency and apparent double standards in the international community’s response to the crisis in Gaza point to a broader erosion of trust in international norms and institutions. The immediate consequence of these actions is the further entrenchment of suffering among the Palestinian population, which finds itself caught between the violence of military actions and the political machinations that hinder the flow of aid.

The unfolding crisis in Gaza and the international response to it reveal deep-seated challenges in the realms of humanitarian aid, international law, and geopolitical strategy. The suspension of UNRWA funding on questionable grounds and the apparent impunity with which military actions are conducted against civilians highlight a troubling departure from the principles of evidence-based decision-making and respect for human rights. There is a critical need for a return to principled action that prioritises the wellbeing of vulnerable populations and the pursuit of peace over political expediency. This is not happening in Gaza.

Not all politicians are looking away

The escalating humanitarian crisis in Gaza has not only drawn international condemnation but has also sparked significant debate within national governments, including Australia’s. The Australian Greens have been vociferous in their criticism of the Australian Government’s one-sided support for Israel, highlighting a broader discourse on the complexities of international alliances and the principles that should guide them. The Federal Labor member for Fremantle, Josh Wilson, provides a stark contrast within the Australian Labor government itself, offering a poignant insight into the devastating human toll of the conflict in Gaza:

“The truth is that Gaza is being bombed into rubble, with 70 per cent of buildings damaged and the entire population being squeezed further and further south in starvation conditions, without basic medical services. In four months, 28,000 civilians have been killed, two thirds of whom are women and children. It is wrong, and it has to stop—history tells us that violence almost never solves anything, and state sponsored violence almost always causes enormous disproportionate harm to innocent people.”

Wilson’s statement highlights the severe situation in Gaza, characterised by extensive bombing that has led to widespread destruction and a significant humanitarian crisis. However, there appears to be a lack of collective voice within the Labor government. While there have been some instances of isolated commentary, notably from Senator Fatima Payman and Minister Ed Husic, the response from Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Foreign Minister Penny Wong has been underwhelming.

There is an urgent need for a commitment to peace and the protection of human rights, as opposed to militaristic strategies that invariably harm innocent individuals. The question arises as to when the Labor government will confront the actions and influence of the Israel lobby in Australia. How many innocent civilians must be killed in Gaza before governments finally denounce Israel’s actions as genocide and ethnic cleansing? Is the threshold 30,000? Or 50,000? Does it need to reach 100,000, or even one million?

The behaviour of the Israeli government and the Israel Defense Force in Gaza is reminiscent of those willing to inflict extensive torture, as evidenced by the Stanford University Prison Experiment in the early 1970s and the abuses at Abu Ghraib within the Guantánamo Bay Naval Base in the 2000s. Israel acts like the unhinged psychopath who does not know when to stop, primarily because no one is telling them to stop.

The situation in Gaza and the international response to it raise critical questions about the responsibility of governments to act in accordance with international human rights standards and the principles of justice and peace. The disparity in the global reaction to crises, as illustrated by the contrasting figures in Gaza and Ukraine, underscores a perceived inconsistency in the international community’s commitment to these values. This inconsistency not only undermines the credibility of international law but also exacerbates suffering by allowing political considerations to override humanitarian needs.

For meaningful progress to be made, there must be a concerted effort to bridge the gap between rhetoric and action. The growing calls for a reassessment of the situation in Gaza, both within Australia and internationally, reflect a broader demand for policies that prioritize human dignity and the protection of civilians in conflict zones. As more voices within government and the international community advocate for change, the pressure mounts for a re-evaluation of support mechanisms and for holding accountable those who violate international norms.

There are no safe zones in Gaza

The escalation of hostilities in Gaza, particularly in the city of Rafah, marks a critical juncture in the ongoing conflict between Israel and Palestinian factions. The Israeli Defence Force’s actions in Rafah, including bombings and a planned ground offensive, have intensified the humanitarian crisis and raised significant international concerns. The reported killing of at least 112 people in Israeli air and sea attacks on Rafah, as stated by the Ministry of Health in Gaza, underscores the dire consequences of military operations on civilian populations.

The strategic significance of Rafah, coupled with the Israeli Defence Force’s justification of its actions as being for the “safety” of Palestinians, reveals a disturbing aspect of the conflict. The bombardment of areas into which Palestinians have been forced into raises profound questions about the efficacy and ethics of such military strategies. Furthermore, the potential derailment of captive exchange negotiations by a ground offensive in Rafah, as indicated by senior Hamas leaders, highlights the intricate interplay between military actions and diplomatic efforts in the region.

The international reaction to the situation in Rafah has been muted. The communication between U.S. President Joe Biden and Israeli President Benjamin Netanyahu, which emphasised the need for a “safety” plan for the over one million people sheltering in Rafah, reflects global concern over the humanitarian implications of a ground assault. However, similar to Senator Wong’s meaningless rhetoric of “deep concerns”, it is clear that no one in the West is prepared to take action to defend Gaza and halt the daily massacre of innocent civilians, including women and children.

Similarly, the obstruction of vital supplies, as evidenced by the blocking of a shipment containing a month’s supply of food for Gaza at Israel’s Ashdod Port, further exacerbates the humanitarian crisis and underscores the urgent need for international intervention to ensure the provision of aid.

Senator Wong’s expression of concern about the “potentially devastating consequences” for the civilians of Rafah is in stark contrast to the growing international sentiment that calls for an immediate cessation of hostilities and a re-evaluation of military strategies that risk civilian lives. The “potential” that Senator Wong refers to has already been reached: Rafah is already being devastated and the war against innocent civilians is continuing.

In light of these developments, the international community stands at a crossroads. Just as we discovered the effectiveness and value of their actions during the massacres in Rwanda and Bosnia in the 1990s, and in Darfur in the 2000s, it has become evident that the United Nations functions as a “paper tiger”—incapable of responding to any international disaster or atrocity unless the permanent members of the Security Council are prepared to agree to act. Given their divergent fields of geopolitical interests, such consensus on Gaza is highly unlikely.

The events in Rafah demand a concerted and unified response that prioritises the protection of civilian lives, the facilitation of humanitarian aid, and the pursuit of peaceful resolutions to the conflict. The juxtaposition of military objectives with the humanitarian needs of the Palestinian population in Gaza necessitates a re-evaluation of the strategies employed in the conflict and a renewed commitment to peace, human rights, and international law.

The imperative to prevent further loss of life and address the humanitarian crisis in Gaza demands a recommitment to peace, non-violence, and the principles of international law. Only through such reorientation can the international community hope to resolve the conflict in Gaza and restore dignity and hope to its people. However, this goal is unlikely to be achieved as long as governments in the West lack courage and continue to acquiesce to and appease the genocidal behaviour of the Israeli government and the Israel Defense Force.