Finland’s decision to end direct funding for UNRWA has drawn growing criticism from opposition politicians and development organisations, who argue that redirecting humanitarian money to other agencies will not compensate for the UN Palestinian refugee agency’s extensive presence and infrastructure in Gaza and the occupied Palestinian territories.
Finland has been providing UNRWA with EUR 5 million annually under a funding agreement covering 2023 to 2026. On 27 August, Foreign Trade and Development Minister Ville Tavio announced that Finland would not renew the agreement when it expires. The government has said that Finland’s overall humanitarian support for the Palestinian territories will not be reduced and that funding will instead be channelled through organisations including the World Food Programme.
That explanation has done little to ease criticism from Finnish opposition parties and civil society organisations, particularly as humanitarian needs in Gaza remain severe.
Green League MP Inka Hopsu has urged the government to reconsider the decision, arguing that other humanitarian organisations do not have the personnel, facilities and logistical network that UNRWA has built across the Palestinian territories.
The dispute also revives questions about Finland’s earlier handling of concerns surrounding the agency. Israel has accused UNRWA of links to Hamas and has taken measures to restrict its activities. Finland suspended its UNRWA funding in January 2024 following allegations involving agency staff. Payments resumed in March after Finland reviewed UNRWA’s safeguards, with 10 per cent of the funding allocated to oversight.
For Finnish development organisation Fingo, the latest decision raises a basic question: what has changed since that assessment?
Fingo executive director Linda Konate said the government had not adequately explained what new evaluation had led to the decision to withdraw direct funding. She argued that the decision was made while the humanitarian crisis was still unfolding and called for the government to make public the evidence behind its position.
Fingo has also pointed to proceedings before the International Court of Justice concerning Israel’s obligations towards the United Nations and humanitarian organisations operating in the occupied Palestinian territory. The UN General Assembly asked the court to examine Israel’s obligations concerning the presence and activities of UN bodies, including UNRWA. Documents submitted to the proceedings describe the agency as a central component of humanitarian assistance for Palestinian refugees.
Fingo argues that the court’s findings in October 2025 did not support claims that undermine the distinction between UNRWA and Hamas. The organisation has therefore questioned why concerns that Finland considered sufficiently addressed when it restored funding in 2024 are now being used to justify ending direct support.
Johannes Hautaviita, Fingo’s international policy specialist, said Tavio had previously concluded that UNRWA’s safeguards provided enough assurance for Finland to continue its financial support.
The Social Democratic Party has joined the criticism. MP Kimmo Kiljunen said Finland risked weakening the wider UN humanitarian system at a time when the United States had withdrawn funding and Israel had imposed restrictions on UNRWA’s operations. He argued that Finland should continue providing stable, long-term support to humanitarian organisations working in Gaza rather than make it harder for them to operate.
The Finnish-Palestinian organisation Sumud has taken an even stronger position, accusing Finland of contributing to international efforts to dismantle UNRWA and describing the funding decision as part of what it calls Finland’s complicity in Israel’s genocide in Gaza. Sumud has also called for Finland to end military cooperation with Israel and support the suspension of preferential trade arrangements between Israel and the European Union.
The pressure on UNRWA has intensified as Israel has taken further action against the agency. Shortly before Finland announced its funding decision, Israeli forces raided and seized UNRWA’s Qalandiya vocational training centre in occupied East Jerusalem and removed staff from the premises. UNRWA said the entry breached the protections afforded to UN facilities.
The Finnish government, meanwhile, maintains that its decision does not amount to an end to humanitarian assistance for Palestinians. Its position is that aid will continue, but through other organisations rather than directly through UNRWA.
At the heart of the dispute is therefore not simply the EUR 5 million that Finland has been providing each year. The more difficult question is whether other humanitarian organisations can actually reproduce the operational capacity UNRWA has developed over decades.
UNRWA provides healthcare, education, water, shelter and other essential services to Palestinian refugees. The scale of its operations in Gaza illustrates why its role has become such a contentious issue. According to UNRWA figures, its clinics recorded 19.3 million visits between October 2023 and July 2026. In July alone, around 800,000 people depended on the agency for water assistance, while about 65,000 displaced people were staying in UNRWA emergency shelters.
For critics of Finland’s decision, those figures demonstrate that replacing UNRWA is not simply a matter of transferring money from one organisation to another. They argue that the agency’s existing workforce, facilities, local knowledge and logistics are themselves a critical humanitarian resource.
The government has chosen a different path, insisting that Finland’s humanitarian commitment to Palestinians will remain intact. Whether that approach can maintain the same level of assistance on the ground, however, is likely to remain a point of political and public debate as pressure grows for Finland to reconsider its decision.
