Okay. Hello, everybody. Thank you so much for being here on a Friday afternoon. Mr. Philippe Lazzarini, as you all know, is the Commissioner General for UNRWA. He'll be making some short remarks, and then we'll be taking some questions. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you so much, Chérine, and it's a real pleasure to be with you. Yes, I will try to be short, though short is not always the case, but sorry for that. We had today the UNRWA Pledging Conference, which is the annual pledging conference organized by the President of the General Assembly, but this morning we had also, you have seen, a stakeout with a number of members of the UNRWA. And I think it's very important that we have a number of members of the UNRWA about the shared commitment that the countries have vis-à-vis UNRWA. As you know, there have been 118 countries having signed this shared commitment, among them all the members of the Security Council, and basically, among the commitments that you heard from the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Slovenia this morning, but there is a strong political support of the agency, and they are also stressing the decision. I think it's particularly important at a time the agency is under severe attack. There have been quite a number of political attacks over the last few months, but there have been also, as you know, a number of allegations. Now, today, during the conference, I have stressed the importance of this political support also to ensure the role of the agency in a possible transition once a ceasefire and hopefully this cease-fire will once for all be agreed; but I believe that the agency has an important role to play in any day in between, between a ceasefire and possibly a day after. And I have a little note to give to our Educational Department, stressing the importance of education, reminding that the one in two people in Gaza is below the age of 18, that education is the only thing the Palestinian has never ever been dispossessed of, and we have today more than 600,000 girls and boys of the age of primary and secondary school living in the rubble, deeply traumatized, and for which I believe we have a common responsibility to bring them back as a matter of urgency into an educational setting. And basically there is no one beside the state or no one beside the UNRWA which can bring back this number of children to an education setting in such a scale. We are already in a relation with a number of partners where, basically, we would have a kind of three-stage approach. The first one is psychosocial support being provided to the children, which by the way is already ongoing. Secondly, we will have to look at education. In a second stage, to have a safe space where basically we can restart the learning, the reading, the writing, the math; and thirdly, at a later stage, which will require in fact to bring back the children into a formal education setting, is also the reconstruction of the school. But to be realistic, the reconstruction of the school. The school will not take place anytime soon, or at least as long as there is no commitment from the international community that we are investing into the reconstruction. Maybe just one or two elements regarding the overall humanitarian situation in Gaza. We are already nine months into this war. Displacement basically keeps going on. We are already nine months into this war. There are ones in the transferring part of Gaza State, you have seen over the last week that there has been evacuation order in the middle region in the south, but also evacuation order in Gaza and in the north. In fact it's a perpetual movement, a perpetual exodus, and we estimate that in average, people are on the move once every month. So, you know, it's not uncommon to move at once. People who have moved since the beginning of the war six, seven, eight times, which is an indication that there is absolutely no safe space in the Gaza Strip. We are constantly on the edge of a front line, constantly on the edge or on the fence of military operation. One thing, and I know that you have stressed quite a lot for this, but we keep hearing so many different types of stories. You, as journalists, keep asking us, is it true, is it untrue? We hear narrative, there is another narrative. I know you are asking for months now to have access to Gaza, but I think it's also important to take note that we are nine months in, and there is still no international media present in Gaza. I think our national colleagues have been, have made an extraordinary, have been absolutely heroic to try to report from what they describe as being hell on earth. But I think it is also time that once for all, you, the international journalists, do have access. You have been, you know, you had access to all the possible war situations across the world. I don't believe that Gaza should be an exception. I have also, in my intervention this morning beside the Gaza, reminded the situation in the West Bank. I keep saying that the West Bank, in fact, is overshadowed by the situation in Gaza, that if we wouldn't have Gaza today, the West Bank and East Jerusalem would definitely hit the headline. More than 500 people have been killed since October 7. Among them, the West Bank, the West Bank, the West Bank, the West Bank, the West Bank, the West Bank, the West Bank, the West Bank, the West Bank, 135 children. We can see that there have been increase of attack by Israeli settlers, that whenever there are military incursion or security operation taking place, they lead also to the large-scale destruction of home and public infrastructure. And this seems to be a pattern, a new pattern, which has emerged in the West Bank. Last but not least, because we were in a funding and pledging conference today, you know that the agency has gone through a chronic financial crisis for the last 10 years. We certainly have been the only agency operating for years now with a negative cash flow. And I can tell you it's highly and deeply unsettling. We always had a mismatch between what we are expected to deliver and the resources being made available. You remember that at the beginning of the year, when we had the allegation of the 12 staff, which became 19 staff allegedly having participated in the massacre of October 7. At that time, 16 countries suspended their contribution to the agency. We are now a few months later. We have the OIOS report going on. We had the Catherine Colonna report, which has been presented to you. And today, I'm happy to say that at the exception of the United States, none can resume before March 2025 because of legislative constraint. All the other countries are back. Now, the question is, is the UK back or not? We have signed. I hope that they will be back. In the very short period, or at least these are the messages that we are receiving. As of today, I can say that we have visibility to function until the end of September. When we started the conference today, I told the member states that we do not have visibility beyond the month of August. I believe that today, we have received the strong message of solidarity, of support. The day started by this commitment, by these 118 member states. It has been recalled after that, during the pledging conference. And we will continue now our effort to make sure that we can bridge between end of September and the end of the year. My concern today is that: Why? We will find, I hope, ways to bridge with the support of the member states our core activities. We still have an emergency appeal, $1.2 million for the occupied Palestinian territories and $460 million for the Syrian crisis, which remains at this stage severely underfunded because both appeals are only $20 million. So, I think, Shireen, I will stop here, but, obviously, available for questions. Thank you very much, Mr. Lazzarini, on behalf of the United Nations Correspondents Association, Edith Lederer from the Associated Press. Can you give us any figure on how much the United Nations Correspondents Association, Edith Lederer from the Associated Press, can you give us any figure on how much money was pledged today from donors? I know you said, you just said that you got enough for one month to keep going, but that doesn't sound like a whole lot. And in your opening speech, you talked about the $1.2 billion needed for Gaza until the end of the year. And then you talked about funding for Lebanon, Syria, and Jordan, the rest of the UNRWA operations, also being 20% funded. Was that the $460 million you were just talking about, or was that another number? I'm slightly confused. Thank you. I am sorry. With numbers, we can easily be confused. So, I will. Try to be as didactic as possible. We have a core budget for our core activities, which basically covers the spending of our 30,000 workforce of the agency, where basically we provide all the education, primary health, the human development activity of the agency. That's what we call the core budget, the backbone of the organization. The appeal for that is about $850 million. Now, when I'm saying that we have visibility until the end of September, I refer to that. I refer to the backbone. In addition. Well, I'm interrupting you. That's for. That's a regular budget. But that's for Gaza, the West Bank, Jordan, Syria. And Lebanon. Exactly. This is the regular budget, the normal human development activities that the agency, this task are mandated to provide to the 5 million Palestinian refugees across the region. So, that's what, that's a regular budget. In addition, whenever there is a humanitarian crisis and we have two big crises in the region, one triggered by Syria; we have an additional humanitarian appeal for $460 million dollars. That covers the human intern, the assist humanitarian need for Syria, Lebanon, and Jordan: $460 million, and we have an additional humanitarian appeal for the war in Gaza and the crisis in the West Bank and East Jerusalem for a total amount of $1.2 billion. When I say that we are severely underfunded, it's mainly for the humanitarian appeal both for Gaza and the West Bank and the Syrian crisis. The 20% refers to that. I would love to give you a figure, but I still do not have a final figure, so I just ended the conference now. I have to see what's a repackaging or new money, but I'm confident enough after what I heard today that the agency now has enough resources to function till the end of September. I have to say over the last five years, we have been doing a lot of work, and we have been doing it for three, four years. I rarely had visibility for more than two or three months, so basically that means the coming couple of months, I will focus on making sure that we are bridging the financial gap between September and the end of December. We continue to work on a hand-to-mouth basis and on a monthly basis. And just to make absolutely certain. Yes. So until the end of September includes the appeal for the $1.2 billion appeal, the special appeal for Gaza and money for the special Syrian appeal, there's enough for that until the end of September as well? I can tell you that our agency, our staff; we continue to keep schools open. We're still running across the region, health centers running. Everybody is paid until end of September. When it comes to the emergency appeal, the less we have, the less we can do. The more we have, the more we can do. Now we have a pipeline when it comes, for example, to the food supply, to the food distribution, which will be running at least till fall. Today, already my colleagues are looking at it. But making sure that in fall, our pipeline does not break down, and that's where the emergency appeal becomes very important. I know it's a little bit complicated, but basically, we have two portals: regular budget, emergency appeal, like any other agency. Okay, let's start with Ibtisam, Bissan, and then Deji. Thank you. My name is Ibtisam Azem, Al-Arab Al-Jadeed Newspaper. I'm from Al-Arab Al-Jadeed Newspaper. Good to see you. I want to ask you about something that you touched upon during your briefing, and that's the proposal to designate UNRWA as a terrorist organization by the Israeli authorities. If you could put that in a broader context, what would that mean, not only to UNRWA and your operation there, but also to a humanitarian and UN system? And do you feel that you are getting enough support, besides lip service, from many countries? Are they putting enough pressure on the Israelis against the attacks on your facilities in Jerusalem, et cetera? Thank you. Thank you. Yeah, I – all the attack the agency is under is definitely a threat to the security of our facilities. It is certainly a source of deep concern, as far as I'm concerned. There are various types of attack. The first one is the blatant disregard of our staff facilities and operation that we have observed in Gaza, for example. Nearly 200 staff were killed. More than half of our installations have been damaged, sometimes completely destroyed. But I think it's a very important point. More than 500 people killed in our installation while they were seeking the protection of the United Nations. And we have also seen a kind of lip service over the last few months, where our installation are used for military purposes, either by Palestinian armed group Hamas or by the Israeli army, but most of the time in places where UNRWA had to vacate. Thank you. And we have also seen a worrying trend that number of schools have been targeted over the last few days. Now in addition of that, there are political pressure called to dismantle the agencies. We keep hearing. We have a number of allegations. We have a smearing campaign. We have legislative effort. We have civil lawsuit pressure. We have a demonstration. We have a demonstration in Jerusalem, the arson attack also, and all this is definitely also fueling, I would say, an atmosphere of fear, anxiety, and a lot of pressure is put on our staff. Are we doing enough? I keep asking member states. First, we have, we need investigative mechanisms and ask for accountability for all those who are responsible of blatant disregard. Of our staff and premises, because if we don't do this, this will become the new norm anywhere else. Secondly, I mean, there is absolutely; I make, I have absolutely no illusion, you know. Today there are attacks on UNRWA; tomorrow it can be an attack on any other UN organization or any other international organization. Thank you. And we have to push back to make sure that this is not becoming a new norm. And when it comes to the attempt to label the organization as a terrorist organization, would we, would this be the case or would this happen, basically, that might also become the new norm anywhere else in the world, whenever we want to get rid of an organization or humanitarian organization. Basically, in any kind of conflict situation or autocratic type of environment, you just label terrorists to get rid of the organization. So there is a real danger, and I keep, I mean, drawing the attention of the member states that we have to vehemently push back against this type of attack, because these are also assault on our, you know, on the multilateralism, on our, you know, on our, you know, on our shared value within the international community. Are we doing enough? We can always do more. There is no doubt about that. Thank you. Yeah, Bissan. Thank you very much, Bissan. I'm quick with Al Jazeera Arabic. The U.S. signed the declaration this morning, but they did not clearly participate in the conference. How do you think, or what visibility do you have that their signing of this declaration might be translated into, since they cannot actually resume funding before next year, given the, what has been passed by Congress? And I have another question, too. You mentioned that UNRWA is the agency that is better equipped, clearly, to bring back children in Gaza to schools, but, of course, there's going to be a reconstruction process. I mean, I know this is hypothetical. But how much time would it take, if there is a ceasefire, to actually get this going? And would more money be needed for that reconstruction effort, given what has happened to UNRWA schools and them being targeted? I think on the first question, you have to ask the question in Washington and the administration. But it was a very good sign to have the United States joining the U.S. administration. And certainly we will now allow the U.S. administration and the rebels who have given assistance to Israel in Gaza to connect with 다른国es, and to do this work. Which is very wounding. And certainly I think we—as I said, there is this came more Channel's the engagement is very negative, and it is not just about drones, it is about the ordinariness of the Bhutanian authorities. So I would consider that, perhaps, it is more yeah. Day in between, in fact, because I believe that there will be a long period between the day there will be a ceasefire and the day we can really talk about the day after or the reconstruction. There will be a long period during which, you know, if you start to invest into reconstruction, you need also to have the necessary trust and confidence that you can invest development money and reconstruction money in the Gaza Strip. And this will very much depend on the political solution being on the table and the level of trust the various parties will have vis-à-vis this political solution, which also needs to be time-bound. So it's extremely difficult to talk about a timeline when we talk about reconstruction. But what I am saying and warning is, we do not have the luxury of time when it comes to bring back these children into an education environment. And we have to do so before even we start to rebuild the school. We have to find ways, because the more we will be waiting, the more we will be sowing the seeds for more, you know, resentment, for more despair, and the children will be more and more in need. So, you know, we have to be more and more exposed to possible recruitment with a new criminal group or armed group in the Gaza Strip. And that would also mean the sacrifice of a generation. Dejie, and then Abdulhamid, and then Mike. Hi, Mr. Lazzarini. With China Central Television. I'm sorry. I got a couple of questions. First, I want to ask for a clarification. You just mentioned that on our school, on our facilities has been used by Hamid. Must end Israel military. You said that. Is that the case? I am saying that we keep receiving allegation reports of, you know, discovery of harms being hidden. We can see sometimes on video, in social media, that you have armed people in UNRWA premises. We see in some social media videos of presence of the Israeli army in UN premises. So basically, there are multiple allegations and reports of UN premises being used by armed elements. Oh, okay. And that's also the reason why, I mean, I cannot tell you what happened, when. These are all places which have been attacked. They are all vacated. And this is also the reason why I do believe we will need a board of inquiry once the environment permits to clearly understand what happened and who was responsible. Okay. So actually, my questions are, sorry, first, obviously, you have to deal with the Israeli officials. And they are also labeling UNRWA trying to label UNRWA as terrorist group. How would you describe the sentiment when you're talking with Israeli official officers about your cooperation? And second, you mentioned that $1.2 billion for the emergency Gaza appeal. And you said you cannot really predict that long-term. Long term. But we heard here repeatedly that it's a very optimistic operation in Gaza. So for this $1.2 billion, how are you going to spend it if you don't have a very stable or let's say frequent operation inside Gaza? Thank you. You know, right now, it's extraordinary difficult to operate in Gaza. And I'm sure that you heard many of my colleagues. We came here to describe to you the challenges due to the collapse of the law and order, of civil order, the chaotic type of environment, the lootings, the hindrances due to the military operation, the difficulties we have also in deconfliction. So the operating environment is extraordinary difficult nowadays. Now, what's the problem? When we talk about an appeal of $1.2 billion, it's also based on an environment where we can properly operate. Today, you know, we are talking about collectively from the UN agencies of 40, 50 trucks coming in, in an ideal environment. And if we would just, I mean, collectively try to cover all the human needs, we would need much more than that. So, again, the 1.2 is based on the most critical assessed humanitarian needs, but the environment today does not allow us to fully deploy the capacity we would have were the environment be conducive for that. Now, the second question is more about, you know, the – The communication between you and the Israeli – Well, I mean, you know – There is always, and I keep reminding this, two levels of communication. We have the pragmatic and operational communication which takes place on a day-to-day basis, sometimes hour-to-hour basis with the Kogat, with the army in Gaza, and then you have, I would say, the more political type of communication where, indeed, here you have more of this, I would say. You know, information, counter-information type of situation; allegation, smearing campaign, you say, we say, and that's the reason why also sometimes it would be good that in addition to the 'you say', 'we say' that the journalists be also present and can make their own opinion on what is really going in places like Gaza. Okay. Alvin? Thank you, Mr. Lazzarini, nice to see you again. I have a few questions as well. This is Abdul Hamid Sayam from Al-Quds Al-Arabi, yeah. Last Saturday, there was an attack on Al-Jahuni, at Orwa school. Sixteen people were killed, 56 wounded. You voice your concern and you ask for investigation. You have been asking for investigation again and again and again. And not one single incident was investigated. But when there was allegations against Orwa, immediately two tracks of investigation. Not one, but two. Why is that? That's one question. Second, normally if the pro-Israeli advocates, they attack the agency. If they cannot dismantle it, then they try to attack the person, the way they did with, for example, Pierre Cranbourne. They attacked him personally. Are you concerned about yourself? I think you are a saint. There is nothing they can catch you about. Otherwise, they will attack you personally. Are you concerned about that? And last but not least, how do you see the concept of the right of return, which is, in fact, it is the target of all this smearing campaign against Orwa? Thank you. I will start with the last question. I think I have been clear, for example, today again with the member state, that let's do no mistake, all the attack against the agency are ultimately politically motivated. I don't believe it's a question of neutrality, neutrality. We had a review, and I'm very happy that we had this track and this review, because it has helped, in fact, to address, I would say, a problem of perception with our donors. It was important that the review tells them that Orwa has a system of risk management which are more robust than any other UN agency or international organization, but because of the context we are operating in. Deeply political. And because of our footprint and particularity, we can still do more, and hence the 50 recommendations of Catherine Colonna's report that we have agreed and embraced. So that was important. But I also keep saying 'member state', let's do no mistake, the attack ultimately is politically motivated. They are aiming at stripping the Palestinian from the refugee status. And through this, they are aiming at undermining the aspiration to self-determination of the Palestinian, and for some, most likely also to undermine the two-state solution being on the table. I believe that part of these concerted attacks are politically motivated. Would I take the same decision today with the 12th or 19th staff? Yes, I would. At that time, I knew that if the agency, first of all, the nature of the allegation was absolutely terrible, was unprecedented as an agency; I also say that would these people be recognized responsible? Would? Hypothetically. That would be a terrible betrayal vis-à-vis the Palestinian refugees and the mandate of the agency. But I think it was very important, yeah, I think it was very important to take, at that time, to take the necessary action, and this was action the agency could take. When it comes to the investigation or board of inquiry that I'm calling for, when it comes to the attack on the premises, it's very different because we are still in a war zone, we are still military operations are going on, and if you want to do an investigation, you have to send people on the ground to, you know, to collect information, to have a forensic evidence, and for the time being, it's impossible to conduct an independent investigation of this nature. I really hope that once we have a ceasefire, once the environment becomes more conducive, that such type of investigation take place. It has taken place in 2014, following the attack on some of our premises. We are now in 2024, and the scale is just, cannot be compared to what happened in 2014, but at least we had already a precedent at that time. Thank you. MS. Mike, please go ahead. MR. Mr. Commissioner General, welcome back to New York. Mike Wagenheim. I'm with I-24 News. I had two questions for you; I want to ask them separately. Building on the 'you say, we say' theme that you talked about a few moments ago, UNRWA has been handling the count of humanitarian aid going into Gaza, which, and please correct me if I'm wrong, OCHA handled this in previous conflicts. It's now under UNRWA's auspices. UNRWA was told for many months by COGAD and by other analysts that its count was wrong, that it was off by exponentially. The IPC's Famine Review Committee came out with a report last month confirming that, that it simply has not been counting certain points of entry, hasn't been counting the correct amount of trucks coming in, hasn't been counting private food sources coming in. The difference between starvation and survival, essentially, is how far UNRWA has been off. Why did UNRWA persist and insist? MS. I think the point is that the IPC has persisted for so long on keeping what was known to be an incorrect count of humanitarian aid coming in. THE PRESIDENT. Thank you. I think you are mixing two things. One is the convoys and the counting of what comes into Gaza, and the second one is the IPC, and the IPC basically is to measure how acute the malnutrition could be in Gaza. And this is measured by experts from WFP, FAO, UNICEF, and so on, and they don't count the number of trucks coming in; they look at what's available in the market for the people and do people have access to what's available or not available because basically this is what's causing malnutrition. So that's the IPC. When it comes to the counting, I mean let's be extremely clear: UNRWA has been only present in Rafah when it was open and in Karim Shalom. We have not been present anywhere else. So we can monitor only what comes in for the broader UN community and basically that was the entry in Rafah and that was the entry in Karim Shalom that we were operating. Secondly, there have been also, and here, I'm not an expert, but if you talk to people on the ground, they are also saying, oh, there is a discrepancy on the number of trucks. You have smaller trucks going to Karim Shalom and dropping their goods and you have larger trucks inside Gaza going to pick up. So if you need two trucks to come in and one truck out, we basically count the trucks we are dealing with because basically that's what's being moved in Gaza. So here, I know that there have been different ways of counting. I was asked recently in a press conference, who is telling the truth? I say everyone is telling his own truth when it comes to the trucks and what is coming in. But the way of counting has been different, and we are also talking about different sizes of trucks. But ultimately, when we talk about how bad it is, the malnutrition, how bad is the hunger in Gaza, it has nothing to do with counting trucks in a crossing point. It has everything to do with what is really available and accessible for the people. And if it's not available and not accessible, that's where it starts to impact people. And the IPC has been very clear: Hunger has spread. It has spread all across Gaza and you had a pocket of acute malnutrition phase 4, phase 5 looming, edging close to a situation of famine and starvation in some pockets. At one point, it was north and later on, Eretz started to open, less people in the north, the situation has been stabilized and slightly reversed. And then in the south, where the situation was better, during the month of April, all of a sudden, started to deteriorate again. At that time, Rafa started to shut down, fewer could come in from Karim Shalom. People were moved again at multiple occasions in the center. And again, there have been pockets where the situation has again deteriorated. But the IPC and the calculation of what is happening in Gaza, what comes in, are two unrelated exercises. So a quick follow-up then. If UNRWA doesn't have the resources to staff all of the entry points, and doesn't have the resources to count the private food deliveries coming in, the commercial food deliveries, which the IPC also noted, what good is its numbers to begin with if they're not reflecting the reality? Listen, UNRWA has been authorized to be present only in Karim Shalom. And in Rafa, UNRWA was not authorized to be anywhere else as a starting point. Secondly, UNRWA has always contributed to the counting of trucks; we were handling for the broader UN community and the humanitarian community. That's what we are doing. We are not handling for the commercial sector. Now, people are saying the commercial sector came in. More came in. The question after that is, people were saying, well, they came in with goods that no one really could have access because they cannot afford to buy what they brought in to the market. So that's a different issue, again, but it's a discussion which is impacting the discussion on the IPC: do we have access or can we afford access to the food being made available? Now, for the humanitarian community, we have a humanitarian coordinator in OCHA, which consults all the data, all the information we are receiving, and we contribute to this. Second question. I tried to contact your office for an answer, and they didn't get back to me, but I know you guys have your hands full. There is an allegation made in a civil lawsuit here and filed in New York that UNRWA's policy in Gaza is to distribute aid in US dollars in cash, and that policy only applies in Gaza. It does not apply in the Palestinian territories, in Judea and Samaria. It does not apply in Lebanon. It does not apply in Syria. Is that factually correct? Factually, if I remember well, they talk also about salaries being paid only in dollars in Gaza. This is factually incorrect. Not just salaries, but aid as well. I'm saying salaries was the main issue in this lawsuit. We pay salaries in dollars in Lebanon, and we pay also our staff in Syria on dollar base, like we do in Gaza. Ultimately, the distribution - if you talk about the cash assistance, if I'm not mistaken it's in shekel, it's not in dollar. But our reference of what we are doing, it's always at the beginning, because our budget is in dollars, our contributions are in dollars, but the cash which would be distributed in DPR, it would be in US dollar. would be in Shekel. But I can come back to you to be 100% sure. That's my instinctive answer to you. Last thing isn't a question, just a comment. I know you tried to submit a letter to an Israeli newspaper in Hebrew to reach out to the Israeli public with your thoughts and your sentiments. And that newspaper, I guess, rejected that particular letter. You're more than welcome any time to speak to the Israeli public through my outlet and we'll be happy to have you. Thank you. This is well noted. Can I just clarify this? You might know that I issued an essay in the New York Times and basically there is 30 days of copyright. And after 30 days, this essay has been offered to other newspapers and that's what was offered. So it was not a different paper than the essay published in the New York Times. Thank you. Thank you. Are there any other questions in the room? Online. I see somebody's hand. Or are you just waving goodbye? Please speak up. Yes, I have a question for Mr. Lazzarini. Mr. Lazzarini, Stefano Vaccaro, La Voce di New York, Italpress. I know it's not your decision, but if the Security Council asks you an opinion on U.N. mission, U.N. peace mission for Gaza, what will be your answer? Do you think it's a good idea, something similar to UNIFIL, or do you think that for Gaza it's not a good idea? My honest answer right now is I don't know what I would advise because it all depends on where we are, you know, in terms of our offered political solution, what's acceptable, what has been negotiated or not negotiated, is this something that everybody wants, or is it opposed by certain parties? I think I need more elements before being able to articulate even an advice. I won't be asked because I'm just the Commissioner of UNRWA and not necessarily a political expert, but I would expect that anyone providing an advice would need a little bit more information. But I know that the issue of international presence pops up from time to time in some discussion that shows also the collective difficulties we have right now to envision what a day after might look like in the context of Gaza, right now. Okay, can we just take two more questions? Yes. Okay. Let's start with Gabriel and then we go to Abdul Hamid. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Lazzarini. I know it's been a long day. I appreciate you taking another question for me. I just want to clarify, most of my colleagues have asked all my questions, but I just want to clarify, you said of the 16 countries that paused or suspended funding to UNRWA after the Israeli allegations, 15 of those countries have come back. Is that correct? I said most came back. Fourteen officially came back. Okay. And I believe that very soon I will be able to say 15 came back. Okay. Thank you. But again, I cannot. Thank you. Thanks for that clarification. Just one last question. Just taking a step back for a second, have you thought about how this conversation and this conflict has changed UNRWA forever? How the organization might change in the future once this conflict is over? I keep asking myself this question. I was even asking myself this question before October 7. And one of the questions I tried always to envision was, this year, we are marking the 75th. UNRWA exists because there is no political solution. Let's be clear. But then the question I wanted to ask to member states was, but what if the next symbolic anniversary, which might be 100 years, there is still no political solution? Would the international community still fund, and renew the mandate of an agency like ours, providing public-like services to one of the most destitute communities in the region? And I try to bring this question on the table to try to collectively start to think about, you know, not changing the mandate, but we were in such a situation where our main existential threat was a financial crisis. The discrepancy and the tension between what we are asked to deliver and the expectation, and the resources being made available. And we all know that before this, you know, this tragedy we are all witnessing, and this systemic transformation in the region, before the conflict, was not a priority anymore of the international community. It was deprioritized. And we started to deeply suffer from this indifference. Everybody suffered. The political process was stalled. There was absolutely nothing. No one knew in which direction it was going. But we, as an agency, became the proxy of that. So, I tried to bring this conversation. Now today, yes, it is important. There is a discussion about what could be, what should be, the role of UNRWA in Gaza now, on the day in between, the day after. I do believe that our main comparative advantage is education. It's primary health. No one else is in a position to provide these services in Gaza. But when it comes to rebuilding the hardware, that's not necessarily where we have a comparative advantage. And anyway, it is destroyed to such a scale that only bigger institutions used to that can do a better job than we would do. So, yes, there is quite a number of reflections going on. Now, I don't have the answer in two words. Appreciate it. Well, Abdelhamid, if you keep it short, because I think we're done almost. Yeah, I'll be short. Yes. First, I strongly wish that you say Karem Abu Salim and not Karem Shalom. That's my own ability to. Okay. That's second. And the second question first, when was the last time you were in Gaza? And if you want to go now, will you be prevented from going to Gaza now as we speak? As I speak, I have asked to go, I think two or three weeks ago, three weeks ago, and I haven't received the authorization. As we speak today, my visa for Jerusalem is not yet renewed. Okay. Thank you so much. And last, there was a memorandum signed by UNRWA and Israel right after the occupation of 1967. Very important memorandum of understanding. Can you make it available to us? When was it signed? 1967 after the occupation. Israel was very concerned about the UNRWA services to be cut off from the refugees and they might revolt. So the military leader, military governor of Israel rushed to UNRWA office in Sheikh Jarrah and signed a memorandum of understanding. Very detailed one. Could it be available? First of all, I need to know if I can find this memorandum. So, thank you for the information. We'll ask my team to look into it. And once I'm aware of this memorandum, I will let you know if I can make it available. Thank you. Thank you so much. Thank you. I think we're done with the questions. Oh, I think everybody knows. The United Kingdom is, you know, today they have announced that they are looking at coming back. I don't, you know, the decision is not taken, but they are reviewing their position regarding the funding. Thank you so much. And I have expressed some optimism on this one. Thank you so much. Thank you, everybody. Thank you, Mr. Lazzarini. Thank you.