The Board of Peace, the US-created body overseeing post-conflict Gaza governance, has formally excluded UNRWA from its operations, declaring the 75-year-old agency fails its "litmus tests" for trusted partnership. Hamas condemned the move as full alignment with Israeli policy, and former UNRWA chief Philippe Lazzarini accused the Board of producing "grandiose plans" while Israeli authorities continue blocking basic aid. The exclusion is structurally significant. UNRWA is not merely a logistics operator — it is the institutional vessel for Palestinian refugee status and the right of return. Dismantling it has been an Israeli strategic objective for years, and the Board of Peace's decision effectively advances that objective under a humanitarian governance banner. The framing as "deradicalization" provides diplomatic cover for what is functionally an erasure of institutional memory and legal standing. The AP's reporting reveals the gap between public posture and private reality. Board members have met UNRWA officials multiple times, and a Board official confirmed the agency's programmes could continue if they "served Gaza's residents well" — while simultaneously declaring "UNRWA's days are over." This dual-track behavior suggests the public exclusion serves political signaling to Washington and Jerusalem rather than operational logic on the ground. Meanwhile, the humanitarian situation the Board was created to address continues to deteriorate. Seven Palestinians were killed across Gaza in 48 hours, including by drone strikes in Nuseirat and Khan Younis. Israeli forces stormed Birzeit University during final exams in the West Bank, closed military gates around Bethlehem villages, and conducted raids across multiple refugee camps. The ceasefire the Board was supposed to help enforce is being violated daily. Lazzarini's critique lands precisely because it names the structural failure: the Board claims authority over Gaza's future while lacking the capacity or willingness to force open the crossings that would make governance meaningful. The technocratic committee the Board appointed to govern Gaza reportedly wants to work with UNRWA — the very agency the Board publicly rejects. This creates an absurd governance loop where the implementers want the tool and the overseers refuse to provide it. The extraction pattern here is layered. The US and Israel extract legitimacy from a peace process framework while denying the agency most capable of delivering services. Gaza's population bears the cost twice — losing both the institutional infrastructure of UNRWA and the aid the Board has failed to replace it with. The Board extracts diplomatic credibility from the appearance of governance while producing no material improvement on the ground. If this architecture persists, UNRWA's operational erasure becomes permanent, Palestinian refugee status loses its institutional anchor, and the Board of Peace becomes a governance shell — authoritative in name, absent in function. The 20-year trajectory is a Gaza permanently dependent on ad hoc arrangements with no institutional memory, no legal standing for refugee claims, and no entity capable of delivering services at scale.
