explored, amongst the plethora of studies on the same topic. Yet, the Assessment is absent from even exploring such options to defend UNRWA’s mandate. The third scenario is not a break from the existing order, but rather an extension of the current situation that undermines UNRWA’s mandate. 4.4. Scenario Four: “Maintaining UNRWA’s rights-based core while gradually transferring service delivery” — Collapse Rebranded as Transition The fourth scenario claims to preserve UNRWA’s core by transferring its “state-like public services”32 to host governments, with the Agency retaining minimal functions such as registration and advocacy. This approach seeks to transform the UNRWA into an ineffective agency, similar to the UNCCP, that exists in name only, without any meaningful role on the ground. The so-called “core” is politically neutralized, operationally reduced, and detached from its historical function. The logic behind this scenario mirrors colonial transitions elsewhere: retreating formal control while embedding structural subordination. Refugee registration may be maintained, but without institutional power or political mobilization, it becomes a bureaucratic residue. Meanwhile, the shift of services to overburdened or unstable host states without meaningful guarantees, burdens the very communities UNRWA was created to protect. Also, such a scenario, in light of the incapability and instability of host countries, could result in more secondary displacement of refugees and/or forcible (involuntary) integration or resettlement. 33 32 United Nations. Report to the Secretary-General: UNRWA Strategic Assessment, 2025, 20. 33 BADIL Resource Center for Palestinian Residency and Refugee Rights, Trump’s So‑Called Vision/Deal of the Century: A Move to End the Palestinian Refugee Issue Through Serious Breaches of International Law (Bethlehem: BADIL, May 2020), https://badil.org/cached_uploads/ view/2021/04/20/deal-of-the-century-refugee-issue-positionpaper-may2020-1618905452. pdf. 13