4. Understanding the Implications of Each Scenario 4.1. Scenario One: “Inaction and Potential Collapse of UNRWA” - The Colonial Fantasy of Spontaneous Disappearance Framed as the worst-case, the first scenario—continued inaction—rests on the myth that collapse is accidental or organic. In reality, disorderly collapse is the direct outcome of decades of political sabotage, service reduction, and delegitimization. The idea that UNRWA might simply “fail” due to lack of donor coordination masks the settler-colonial desire for erasure: collapse without accountability. Given that the Assessment itself concedes the second scenario would neither resolve the financial crisis nor prevent service disruptions, and that the third is politically infeasible due to a lack of international political will, this scenario, while framed as undesirable, echoes the logic of austerity capitalism. It naturalizes the end of UNRWA as the result of unfortunate circumstances rather than a deliberate policy. But the implications are clear: the sudden disappearance of services would create a humanitarian catastrophe and strip 5.9 million refugees22 of their institutional identity and internationally recognized rights, leaving behind not only a service vacuum but a legal and political void. 4.2. Scenario Two: “Reduction of services” - Collapsing UNRWA by Fragmentation Scenario Two offers a slower form of collapse, cloaked in fiscal logic. It proposes transferring replaceable services to other UN agencies or 22 United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), “Palestine Refugees,” UNRWA, accessed August 1, 2025, https://www.unrwa.org/palestinerefugees. 8