through urgent appeals from the Agency, but would consider sustained and regular contributions an abandonment of their initial position, or to some degree a manifestation of the transfer of responsibility from the international community to Arab host countries. The added sentiment of Arab host countries that they have already borne a disproportionate onus for the Palestinian refugee issue, in light of Israel’s unwillingness to contribute any meaningful amount to the UNRWA budget, has only heightened Arab unwillingness to contribute.36 The concept of ‘burden sharing’ has also been adopted by members of the international community to justify limitations on funding.37 UNRWA’s major donors, the top ten together providing around 88 percent of donations, have drawn upon this concept to justify their progressive abandonment of funding to the Agency.38 The desire to maintain relative stability in the region has also been utilized by some states, principally the US, to curb funding to a level sufficient to maintain the status quo of Palestinian refugees but inadequate to secure any substantial improvement to their situation.39 These policies reflect the international community’s historically ambivalent position vis-àvis Palestinian refugees, at the same time as tacitly strengthening its support for Israel. 36 Rex Brynen, “Donor Contributions to UNRWA”. 37 Ibid. 38 Annie Slemrod, “What you need to know now about cuts to the UN’s agency for Palestine refugees”. 39 Colum Lynch and Emily Tamkin, “U.S Vows to Fund a U.N. Agency For Palestinian Refugees Israeli Leader Wants Shuttered”; Maya al-Orzza, “UNRWA has been in crisis since its inception”. 14