The Rhetoric of Philippe Lazzarini
An Analysis of Nuances and Contradictions in Statements on Investigations into UNRWA Staff Participation in the 7 October Attacks.
Philippe Lazzarini, the Commissioner-General of UNRWA, has made several statements regarding the investigations into allegations that some UNRWA staff members were involved in the attacks of 7 October. His rhetoric reveals subtle shifts in tone and emphasis, which vary over time and across different platforms. These shifts can be interpreted in two ways: as either a strategic balancing act designed to navigate a complex political landscape or a deliberate manipulation of the narrative to serve specific and very one-sided agendas. By examining his statements across different dates and platforms (UNRWA and UN), we can discern - and I, for one, marvel at - how his rhetoric evolves.
From my perspective, Philippe Lazzarini clearly appears to prioritize certain stakeholders - those more aligned with anti-Israel sentiments - or, at best, the agency’s survival and its unchanging narrative over confronting uncomfortable facts or issuing strong condemnations towards Hamas or any terrorist groups involved in the conflict. It is difficult to comprehend - indeed, almost surprising - why there has been no significant pressure for him to resign, as it seems evident that political considerations far outweigh the norms of accountability typically seen in other sectors. Moreover, it is morally troubling - at least to me - that Lazzarini has not yet resigned of his own accord. My analysis suggests that he is a skillful rhetorician, perhaps even an acrobatic wordsmith - a true contortionist. However, these skills are more suited to a circus environment, and he should step down immediately!
Initial Caution and Emphasis on Process (30.06.2024)
On 30 June 2024, in his Opinion Article (at least it was labeled as an opinion rather than facts) titled “UNRWA: Stop Israel’s Violent Campaign Against Us”1, Lazzarini briefly addressed the ongoing investigations overseen by the Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS):
The Office of Internal Oversight Services, the top investigative body in the U.N. system, is overseeing this inquiry. It is looking into allegations against 19 out of 13,000 UNRWA staff members in Gaza. To date, one case was closed because there was no evidence. Four cases were suspended because the information was insufficient to proceed. Another 14 cases remain under investigation.
Lazzarini begins with a clear and authoritative tone, emphasizing that the OIOS is “the top investigative body in the U.N. system.” This choice of words is intended to instill confidence in the investigation's legitimacy - after all, who would question the authority of the highest investigative instance within the UN?
His language is almost pedantic, as he focuses on the procedural aspects of the investigation. He highlights that the allegations concern only “19 out of 13,000 UNRWA staff members in Gaza”, clearly a rhetorical move that subtly downplays the scale of the issue by framing it as a small fraction of the total staff.
Lazzarini's choice of words also emphasizes the thoroughness - one might even say meticulousness - of the ongoing investigation. By stating that “one case was closed because there was no evidence” and “four cases were suspended because the information was insufficient to proceed”, he carefully distances the Agency from premature judgments. The use of “suspended” rather than “closed” or “dismissed” suggests that these cases are not necessarily resolved but are in a state of limbo, leaving room for future action if more evidence emerges.
An “inattentive” (or perhaps selectively attentive) reader might even jump to the conclusion that everyone will eventually be found innocent - possibly reaching this conclusion through a convenient interpretation of inductive reasoning?
Shift Toward Certainty in UN Communication (05.08.2024)
By 5 August 2024, the tone in the official UN communication had clearly shifted. The UN statement2 presents the findings of the OIOS with a degree of finality, particularly regarding the remaining nine cases:
With respect to the remaining nine cases, the evidence obtained by OIOS indicated that the UNRWA staff members may have been involved in the 7 October attacks.
This choice of words - particularly “indicated” - suggests a level of certainty or at least strong suspicion, implying that the evidence is compelling enough to justify serious concern. The phrase “indicated” carries with it a sense of authority, as if the findings are now beyond the realm of speculation and have entered the domain of likely fact.
The language here contrasts starkly with Lazzarini's earlier, more cautious framing, which emphasized the need for further corroboration and authentication. The absence of such qualifiers in the UN statement could be interpreted as the organization taking a firmer stance, possibly reflecting increased pressure to take decisive action or signaling a shift in how the investigation's findings are being communicated to the public. Is this the UN’s subtle way of applying pressure on Lazzarini, pushing him toward a more decisive response? Or is this merely my interpretation, perhaps a reflection of wishful thinking?
Lazzarini’s Continued Caution and Conditionality (05.08.2024)
On the same day, Lazzarini issued his own statement3, which, while aligning with the UN's overall message, introduces a layer of conditionality that the UN’s communication lacks:
For the remaining nine cases, the evidence- if authenticated and corroborated -could indicate that the UNRWA staff members may have been involved in the attacks of 7 October. I have decided that in the case of these remaining nine staff members, they cannot work for UNRWA. All contracts of these staff members will be terminated in the interest of the Agency.
Lazzarini’s inclusion of the phrase “if authenticated and corroborated” is no accident; it’s a deliberate strategy designed to project two different narratives simultaneously. On one hand, he justifies the termination of the nine staff members’ contracts based on the results of the investigation, signaling that the process has been taken seriously and that UNRWA is responding to the serious allegations uncovered by the OIOS.
However, by adding the conditional phrase “if authenticated and corroborated,” Lazzarini casts a shadow of doubt over the conclusiveness of the investigation - almost as if we’re back at the starting point. This phrasing suggests that the evidence may not be fully solidified, allowing Lazzarini to imply that the staff members could still be innocent and that no involvement has occurred. This ambiguity serves a dual purpose: it sustains a narrative where there are no bad Palestinian actors and, by extension, there never were. At the same time, this stance mollifies Palestinians, neighboring Arab countries, and other parties that are reluctant to alter their narratives or confront the reality of the situation.
This Janus-faced approach allows Lazzarini to manage multiple audiences simultaneously. On one hand, he appears to take decisive action in line with the investigation’s findings. On the other, he subtly introduces doubt - a tactic that aligns with an “oppressed narrative” and helps to maintain support or mitigate backlash from key stakeholders.
Conclusion: A Rhetorical Balancing Act or a Lack of Courage in Taking Responsibility?
In analyzing Lazzarini’s rhetoric, it becomes evident that his approach can be interpreted in two distinct ways, depending on one’s perspective. Interestingly, while conducting this analysis, I sought to find the OIOS report that underpins his and the UN's statements. However, this report has not been made publicly available; it is accessible only to member states, as the following statement indicates:
OIOS is the highest investigative body in the UN system and its reports are confidential but can be made available to Member States upon request.4
This lack of transparency leaves the public with little background information on how the investigation was conducted, making it difficult to fully assess the situation.
A Charitable Interpretation: A Rhetorical Balancing Act
A charitable interpretation of Lazzarini’s rhetoric might see it as a careful balancing act. On one hand, he acknowledges the gravity of the allegations and the evidence uncovered by the OIOS. On the other, he strives to maintain caution and procedural integrity by avoiding premature conclusions. The subtle shift from the focus on procedural rigor in his 30 June Opinion Article to the more conditional acknowledgment of potential involvement in his 5 August statement illustrates his attempt to navigate the complexities of the situation. The contradiction - or rather the nuanced difference (a difficult one to discern!) - lies in the contrast between Lazzarini’s emphasis on the need for further corroboration and the UN's more assertive communication. This divergence highlights the challenges of managing both internal processes and external perceptions in a highly sensitive and politically charged environment.
My Perspective: A Lack of Courage, Integrity, and the Much-Praised Morality
However, from another perspective - one that I personally hold - Lazzarini’s rhetoric can be seen as manipulative and deliberately aligned with an anti-Israel narrative that portrays Israel as the primary aggressor. To support this claim, consider the nuances in his 30 June 2024 Opinion Article on the UNRWA website, where Lazzarini notably avoids condemning Hamas for the atrocities of 7 October. Instead, his focus is almost entirely on the actions of Israel, with little to no mention of Hamas's role in the conflict (and the title of the article, “UNRWA: Stop Israel’s Violent Campaign Against Us” already speaks volumes about the intended narrative).
In contrast, in his separate statement on 5 August 2024 on the UN website, he concludes with:
Finally, I reiterate UNRWA’s condemnation of the 7 October attack in the strongest possible terms. I call - once again - for the immediate and unconditional release of all hostages and their safe return to their families.
This is particularly notable when one searches Lazzarini’s public X-feed for a clear condemnation of Hamas and finds none. In his 30 June 2024 Opinion Article, Lazzarini neither includes nor concludes by condemning Hamas for the October 7 attacks; instead, he ends with the following:
We must meaningfully defend U.N. institutions and the values they represent before the symbolic shredding of the charter establishing the United Nations. This can only be achieved through principled action by the nations of the world and a commitment by all to peace and justice.
This raises the question: Where is the genuine and “principled” commitment to justice? It certainly isn’t in twisting words, distorting facts, or engaging in rhetorical contortions. If Lazzarini truly believed in justice, one would expect a more straightforward approach, rather than selectively framing the narrative to suit a particular agenda, appease stakeholders, and, of course, satisfy donors. As I stated in my introduction, in no other sector would Lazzarini be allowed to continue heading such an institution - it’s time to step down, Philippe!