CCPCJ: Israel and Palestine work together to safeguard children

By Lucinda G10

On Saturday the 23rd of November 2024 during the BAMUN conference, the question of whether or not measures to promote safeguarding of unaccompanied Palestinian child refugees should be implemented, was posed. Since October 7th 2023, the Israeli-Hamas conflict has resulted in more than 16,920 Palestinian children’s deaths and an estimated 17,000 children having been separated from their guardians or left completely alone (“A Year”). Recently, investigations have emphasized that unaccompanied children are at a high risk of exploitation, child labour, neglect, starvation, and possible long-term development impacts (“Gaza: The IRC warns”). These children are also being denied access to ample food, the starvation caused by this has been leading to health issues, ranging from stunted growth to death. Israel and Palestine–who this concerns deeply due to their involvement in the current conflict–as well as 15 other countries’ delegates, face this issue together. 

After a twenty-five-minute caucus time–in which delegates discussed together, explained their views on the subject at hand, and wrote resolutions together–4 resolutions were introduced. Each had different values at its core, and each worked towards safeguarding unaccompanied Palestinian child refugees. The two main resolutions will be further discussed.

UNRWA Resolution

The United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) is an organisation which helps to bring education, social services, medical aid and more. The Delegate of the United Kingdom as the main submitter explained how they are ‘deeply concerned’ about the lack of funding that the UNRWA has, and how that has affected the 5 million refugees in Palestine who rely on the UNRWA. The United Kingdom along with co-submitters, Japan, United States, France, Ukraine, Palestine, Italy, Romania, China and Iraq, have created a resolution whose operative clauses have only the benefit of refugees at heart. The nine clauses detail how many countries hold responsibility for the safety of refugees and action to support them needs to be taken. Examples of, “reopening schools and vocational training centres for Palestinian refugee children, expanding healthcare services to meet urgent medical and psychological needs, supporting food and housing programs to ensure a basic standard of living” were given. The final clause of this resolution was the request for the Secretary-General to present a report in the next year that describes the progress of how the UNRWA will have moved forward. 

This resolution was met with resistance from Israel, due to the perceived bias that the UNRWA has for Israel. Israel requested an amendment to the resolution making sure that the UNRWA will have no connection with Hamas and is committed to working constructively with Israel. This amendment was promptly denied as said by both Japan and the United Kingdom, due to Hamas’s role in Palestine, by having no connection to Hamas, the UNRWA would be alienating and isolating Palestinians and thus actively showing bias towards Israel. This amendment would also distract and lessen the priority of the children’s safety.

The United States, in an attempt to negotiate the resolution so that the vote would be unanimous, suggested another amendment to the resolution. The delegate stated how they understood Israel’s concerns, however saw how completely removing Hamas would not be beneficial. Therefore, they requested“ to add increased measures to make sure that funds for this clause are used transparently and efficiently and to ensure neutrality for the funding without any bias and ensure that activities do not compromise Israeli security”.  This amendment would allow for Israel to see all monetary transactions and after Israel stated that should there be a way for them to work with the UNRWA, that would function, the amendment was passed.

Despite this amendment being added to the resolution, when it came to voting, Israel was the lone resistor. This meant that sixteen delegates agreed with the purpose of the resolution, and it was therefore passed.

Palestinian and Israeli Resolution

By working with Italy, Syria and Iraq, Palestine and Israel worked together to create a resolution which would establish a new organisation in place of the UNRWA called PCRPC (Palestinian Child Refugee Protection Coalition). This organisation would be committed to protecting and creating a safe passage for unaccompanied Palestinian children. Despite this new organisation, the resolution was questioned by everyone not involved. When being questioned, Israel said that by creating safe passage, they meant that Israel would not help Palestinian children should they seek aid, but they would allow them to leave without question. The establishment of PCRPC allowed Israel to help the children without interacting with the UNRWA, as they have said that they never intended to hurt children. 

After having heard this statement, many delegates replied with questions, facts and accusations. Afghanistan asked how Israel could say that they had never intended to hurt children, when one Palestinian child dies every half hour. Israel’s actions violate international humanitarian law. In response, Israel described how they had already been exposed to genocide, and it is through this exposure that they are able to confidently say that what is happening now is not a genocide. They confidently said that the only reason children were injured was because Israel was looking for Hamas, and they needed to invade. Palestine then defended Israel, repeating points about true intentions, also stating that now Israel’s priority is to safeguard Palestinian unaccompanied child refugees. The delegation of Palestine also made a statement for Israel, detailing how Israel is prepared to stop all bombings in Palestine, in order to allow children to pass through to safety. Another decision made by Palestine and Israel was that the military forces stationed in Israel funded by the US would be split and some would be used for aid in neighbouring countries. 

Despite all of these clauses looking to benefit the aid of child refugees, the voting revealed that twelve delegations disagreed with the resolution, resulting in the resolution being dismissed. The many resolutions presented by the delegations in the debate show how each was well-prepared and knew their own country. 3 out of 4 resolutions passed, meaning that the delegates worked together to find solutions that benefited not only their own country but also those surrounding them.

Works Cited

allegrabaschiera's avatar Posted by allegrabaschiera
Categories
Conferences