Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...

Guterres Escalates Clash With Jerusalem, Threatens ICJ Action Over UNRWA Laws

By: Fern Sidman

By any diplomatic standard, the language was incendiary. In a letter dated January 8 and revealed this week, United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres warned the Israeli government that it may face referral to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) if it does not repeal new legislation aimed at the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) and restore property seized from the agency.

As reported on Wednesday by Israel National News, the letter marks a dramatic escalation in what has become one of the most fraught disputes between Jerusalem and the UN in decades—a confrontation that touches the core of Israel’s security concerns, the credibility of UN humanitarian operations, and the growing global rift over Gaza.

In the letter to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Guterres wrote that the United Nations “cannot ignore actions taken by Israel which are in direct contravention of Israel’s obligations under international law,” and insisted the measures “must be reversed without delay.” According to the information provided in the Israel National News report, the Secretary-General explicitly warned that continued defiance could result in Israel being referred to the ICJ in The Hague.

The Knesset’s legislation at the heart of the storm was passed in October 2024 and formally bans UNRWA from operating inside Israel, prohibits Israeli officials from coordinating with the agency, and, following an amendment last month, bars electricity and water supplies to UNRWA facilities. Israel has also seized UNRWA’s offices in eastern Jerusalem—an act Guterres claims violates international agreements governing UN property.

But in Jerusalem, the reaction has been defiant rather than conciliatory.

Israel’s ambassador to the United Nations, Danny Danon, dismissed the Secretary-General’s warning as nothing less than coercion.

“The UN Secretary-General is trying to intimidate Israel,” Danon said, as quoted by Israel National News. “Instead of addressing the serious issue of UNRWA employees being involved in terrorism, he is trying to whitewash crimes committed by UNRWA, which acts as a subsidiary of Hamas. We are done with UNRWA.”

This was not rhetorical flourish. Over the past two years, Israeli intelligence agencies have provided evidence—some of it now publicly released—alleging that UNRWA staff in Gaza collaborated with Hamas and even participated in the October 7, 2023 massacre that left over 1,200 Israelis dead and hundreds taken hostage.

According to the information contained in the Israel National News report, the government argues that its legislation is not punitive but defensive: a necessary step to sever institutional links between an aid organization and a terror group sworn to Israel’s destruction.

While critics long derided Israel’s accusations as politically motivated, new testimony has given the claims harrowing immediacy.

Emily Damari, a former Hamas hostage freed after 470 days in captivity, told Israeli media that she had been held inside an UNRWA facility. Her account, highlighted by Israel National News, electrified public opinion in Israel, reinforcing long-standing suspicions that UNRWA buildings were being used as operational infrastructure for Hamas.

In April 2025, the controversy deepened when USAID disclosed that the United Nations had obstructed an American investigation into alleged links between UNRWA employees in Gaza and Hamas operatives. The revelation, again carried prominently by Israel National News, suggested institutional resistance within the UN system to transparent oversight.

For Israeli officials, this sequence of events confirms what they say they have known for years: that UNRWA has become structurally compromised.

In response to Israel’s evidence, the UN convened a review panel led by former French Foreign Minister Catherine Colonna. The panel acknowledged “neutrality-related issues” within UNRWA but claimed Israel had not supplied conclusive proof that a “significant number” of UNRWA staff were members of terrorist organizations.

That finding satisfied no one. To Israel, it was an exercise in bureaucratic evasion. To critics of Jerusalem, it provided a veneer of legitimacy for continued UNRWA operations.

As Israel National News reported at the time, Israeli officials were incensed not merely by the conclusions but by the methodology: a review process perceived as designed to dilute accountability rather than enforce it.

The diplomatic tension intensified further after the International Court of Justice recently ruled that Israel must facilitate the entry of humanitarian aid into Gaza through UN agencies, including UNRWA.

The ruling was met with sharp rebuke in Jerusalem and Washington alike. Israel argued that the court had ignored the reality on the ground—namely, that UNRWA infrastructure had been weaponized by Hamas.

“The ICJ is mandating that we work with an organization we have proven is infiltrated by terrorists,” a senior Israeli official told Israel National News. “That is not humanitarian law; it is strategic blindness.”

To understand the ferocity of Israel’s response, one must understand UNRWA’s singular status.

Unlike any other refugee agency in the world, UNRWA does not resettle refugees. It perpetuates refugee status across generations, now claiming jurisdiction over nearly six million Palestinians. Israel has long argued that this structure entrenches conflict rather than resolves it, preserving a political grievance rather than alleviating human suffering.

For years, Israel tolerated UNRWA as a flawed but necessary mechanism to maintain stability. That tolerance evaporated after October 7.

Antonio Guterres’ decision to threaten legal action represents a high-risk gambit. By escalating the dispute to the ICJ, he is effectively internationalizing Israel’s domestic legislative process—an act that Israeli officials say undermines sovereignty.

“Guterres is not mediating; he is prosecuting,” a diplomat quoted by Israel National News remarked. “This is not the role of the Secretary-General.”

The letter also deepens Israel’s perception that the UN is less an honest broker and more an adversarial actor in the post-October 7 environment.

Israel does not deny Gaza’s humanitarian crisis. The debate is over the conduit.

“We will facilitate aid,” Danon said in remarks carried by Israel National News, “but not through a body that collaborates with our enemies.”

Jerusalem has proposed rerouting assistance through vetted international NGOs and direct bilateral channels—bypassing UNRWA altogether. The UN, however, insists that UNRWA’s logistical footprint in Gaza is irreplaceable.

This standoff now defines the humanitarian landscape: aid trapped in legal crossfire, while civilians in Gaza bear the consequences.

Whether Guterres will follow through on his ICJ threat remains uncertain. But the warning has already hardened positions.

Israel’s cabinet has signaled no intention of repealing the legislation. Indeed, officials speaking to Israel National News suggest that the ban on UNRWA may be only the beginning of a broader reevaluation of Israel’s relationship with UN agencies operating in conflict zones.

For its part, the UN appears determined to frame the issue as a matter of international law rather than national security.

That divergence may prove irreconcilable.

At stake is more than a single aid agency. The confrontation exposes a crisis of credibility at the heart of the UN system.

If UNRWA is, as Israel claims and as hostages testify, entangled with Hamas, then the UN faces a moral reckoning. If Israel is wrong, then its actions represent an unprecedented challenge to the authority of international institutions.

But as the Israel National News report emphasized, the burden of proof is shifting. With each new disclosure—from intelligence dossiers to hostage testimony—the argument that UNRWA is merely a neutral humanitarian body becomes harder to sustain.

Guterres’ letter may be remembered as the moment when quiet diplomacy gave way to open confrontation.

For Israel, this is no longer a debate about administrative oversight. It is a battle over the legitimacy of defending itself against an enemy that operates behind humanitarian façades.

For the UN, it is a test of whether institutional loyalty will trump uncomfortable truths.

And for the international community, watching through the lens of Israel National News, it is a reminder that in the Middle East, even aid agencies can become instruments of war—and that the struggle over who controls them may shape the next chapter of the region’s history.