\documentclass{article} % For LaTeX2e
\usepackage{iclr2024_conference,times}

\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc} % allow utf-8 input
\usepackage[T1]{fontenc}    % use 8-bit T1 fonts
\usepackage{hyperref}       % hyperlinks
\usepackage{url}            % simple URL typesetting
\usepackage{booktabs}       % professional-quality tables
\usepackage{amsfonts}       % blackboard math symbols
\usepackage{nicefrac}       % compact symbols for 1/2, etc.
\usepackage{microtype}      % microtypography
\usepackage{titletoc}

\usepackage{subcaption}
\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage{amsmath}
\usepackage{multirow}
\usepackage{color}
\usepackage{colortbl}
\usepackage{cleveref}
\usepackage{algorithm}
\usepackage{algorithmicx}
\usepackage{algpseudocode}

\DeclareMathOperator*{\argmin}{arg\,min}
\DeclareMathOperator*{\argmax}{arg\,max}

\graphicspath{{../}} % To reference your generated figures, see below.
\begin{filecontents}{references.bib}
@book{Creswell2018,
  title={Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches},
  author={Creswell, J. W.},
  year={2018},
  publisher={SAGE Publications}
}
@book{Flick2014,
  title={An Introduction to Qualitative Research},
  author={Flick, U.},
  year={2014},
  publisher={SAGE}
}
@book{Fricker2007,
  title={Epistemic Injustice: Power and the Ethics of Knowing},
  author={Fricker, M.},
  year={2007},
  publisher={Oxford University Press}
}
@book{Margalit2002,
  title={The Ethics of Memory},
  author={Margalit, A.},
  year={2002},
  publisher={Harvard University Press}
}
@article{Zelizer2021,
  title={Moral Witnessing in Conflict Reporting},
  author={Zelizer, B.},
  journal={Journalism Studies},
  year={2021},
  volume={22},
  number={3},
  pages={312--329}
}
@article{Pantti2022,
  title={Emotion and Authority in Humanitarian Communication},
  author={Pantti, M.},
  journal={Media, War & Conflict},
  year={2022},
  volume={15},
  number={2},
  pages={145--164}
}
@article{Weiss2019,
  title={Humanitarian Shielding and Attacks on UN Facilities},
  author={Weiss, T.},
  journal={International Review of the Red Cross},
  year={2019},
  volume={101},
  pages={615--639}
}
@article{Ballis2022,
  title={Trust, Credibility, and Moral Witnessing},
  author={Ballis, H. and Schwendemann, L.},
  journal={Media and Communication},
  year={2022},
  volume={10},
  number={3},
  pages={1--19}
}
@misc{UNRWA2025,
  title={UNRWA Situation Report 187: Situation in the Gaza Strip and West Bank},
  author={{United Nations Relief and Works Agency}},
  year={2025},
  url={https://www.unrwa.org/resources/reports/unrwa-situation-report-187-situation-gaza-strip-and-west-bank-including-east-jerusalem}
}
@misc{OCHA2025,
  title={OCHA Humanitarian Situation Update 329},
  author={{United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs}},
  year={2025},
  url={https://www.unocha.org}
}
@misc{WHO2025,
  title={Public Health Situation Analysis: Gaza},
  author={{World Health Organization}},
  year={2025},
  url={https://www.who.int}
}
@misc{ICJ2024,
  title={Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v. Israel) – Provisional Measures Orders},
  author={{International Court of Justice}},
  year={2024},
  url={https://www.icj-cij.org}
}
@article{Iriqat2025,
  title={Educide amid conflict: the struggle of the Palestinian education system},
  author={Iriqat, Dalal and Alousi, Rula and Aldahdouh, Tahani and AlDahdouh, Alaa and Dankar, Iman and Alburai, Dima and Buheji, Mohamed and Hassoun, Abdo},
  journal={Quality Education for All},
  year={2025}
}
@article{Barbandi2025MultiDimensionalAO,
  author = {Radwan Al Barbandi and Heejun Shin},
  booktitle = {Prehospital and Disaster Medicine},
  journal = {Prehospital and Disaster Medicine},
  pages = {s47 - s47},
  title = {Multi-Dimensional Analysis of Attacks on Medical Facilities and Hospitals: Evidence of Humanitarian Crisis during the Syrian War},
  volume = {40},
  year = {2025}
}
@article{Haar2018DeterminingTS,
  author = {R. Haar and C. Risko and Sonal Singh and Diana Rayes and A. Albaik and Mohammed Alnajar and M. Kewara and E. Clouse and Elise Baker and L. Rubenstein},
  booktitle = {PLoS Medicine},
  journal = {PLoS Medicine},
  title = {Determining the scope of attacks on health in four governorates of Syria in 2016: Results of a field surveillance program},
  volume = {15},
  year = {2018}
}
@article{Alburai2023ProtectingSW,
  author = {Dima Alburai},
  booktitle = {Zbornik radova Pravnog fakulteta, Novi Sad},
  journal = {Zbornik radova Pravnog fakulteta, Novi Sad},
  title = {Protecting schools within conflict zones in Gaza Strip under International Humanitarian Law},
  year = {2023}
}
@article{Haar2014MeasurementOA,
  author = {R. Haar and K. Footer and Sonal Singh and S. Sherman and C. Branchini and Joshua Sclar and E. Clouse and L. Rubenstein},
  booktitle = {Conflict and Health},
  journal = {Conflict and Health},
  title = {Measurement of attacks and interferences with health care in conflict: validation of an incident reporting tool for attacks on and interferences with health care in eastern Burma},
  volume = {8},
  year = {2014}
}
@article{Jain2020DeliveringTA,
  author = {Reena P Jain and Sarah Meteke and M. Gaffey and M. Kamali and Mariella Munyuzangabo and D. Als and Shailja Shah and F. Siddiqui and A. Radhakrishnan and Anushka Ataullahjan and Z. Bhutta},
  booktitle = {BMJ Global Health},
  journal = {BMJ Global Health},
  title = {Delivering trauma and rehabilitation interventions to women and children in conflict settings: a systematic review},
  volume = {5},
  year = {2020}
}
@article{Jacobs2025EducationIT,
  author = {Lynette Jacobs and Medhin Marcho Dollebo},
  booktitle = {Perspectiva Educacional},
  journal = {Perspectives in Education},
  title = {Education in times of war and displacement},
  year = {2025}
}
@article{Geremedhn2024TheDO,
  author = {Mulubrhan Atsbaha Geremedhn and H. Gebrihet},
  booktitle = {The social science},
  journal = {Social Sciences},
  title = {The Dynamics of Humanitarian Diplomacy During Wartime: Insights from Tigray Crisis in Ethiopia},
  year = {2024}
}
@article{Al-Nabit2025UnderminingHS,
  author = {Nasser Al-Nabit},
  booktitle = {Journal of Information Systems Engineering & Management},
  journal = {Journal of Information Systems Engineering and Management},
  title = {Undermining Humanitarian Space in Conflict Epicenters: The Gaza Strip from the 2006 Blockade to Post-October 2023 War},
  year = {2025}
}
@article{Burbach2024QuantifyingTE,
  author = {Ryan Burbach and H. Tappis and Aula Abbara and A. Albaik and N. Almhawish and Leonard Rubenstein and M. Hamze and Antonio Gasparrini and D. Rayes and Rohini J Haar},
  booktitle = {BMJ Global Health},
  journal = {BMJ Global Health},
  title = {Quantifying the effects of attacks on health facilities on health service use in Northwest Syria: a case time series study from 2017 to 2019},
  volume = {9},
  year = {2024}
}
@article{Çamcı2025MedicideIT,
  author = {Melih Çamcı and Ö. F. Turan and M. F. Baran and Muhammed Şafi Alpaslan and Şeyma Yüsra Soğanda},
  booktitle = {Anadolu Kliniği Tıp Bilimleri Dergisi},
  journal = {Anadolu Kliniği Tıp Bilimleri Dergisi},
  title = {Medicide in the Gaza Strip: A one-year anatomy of systematic attacks on healthcare services},
  year = {2025}
}
\end{filecontents}

\title{Protection under Fire: UNRWA, Humanitarian Access, and Civilian Safety in Gaza (2023--2025)}

\author{ACB\\
Department of Humanitarian Studies\\
University of Conflict Research\\
}

\newcommand{\fix}{\marginpar{FIX}}
\newcommand{\new}{\marginpar{NEW}}

\begin{document}

\maketitle

\begin{abstract}
This study examines the erosion of humanitarian protection in Gaza from 2023 to 2025 through systematic analysis of United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) situation reports and complementary datasets. The research documents systematic attacks on UN facilities and denial of humanitarian access, which have critical implications for civilian safety and international humanitarian law compliance. The complexity of this issue stems from competing narratives regarding military operations versus humanitarian space inviolability, exacerbated by geopolitical tensions that constrain independent verification. Employing a mixed-methods approach, this study combines quantitative analysis of incident patterns with qualitative examination of institutional reporting practices to illuminate structural realities. Methodological rigor is maintained through data triangulation across UN agencies, thematic coding of official communications, and pattern matching between quantitative trends and qualitative narratives. Findings reveal 907 documented incidents impacting UNRWA facilities, resulting in 845 deaths of sheltering individuals. Access denial impeded 31\% of humanitarian missions, demonstrating systematic obstruction of life-saving assistance. These patterns collectively establish conditions fundamentally incompatible with civilian protection norms under international law.
\end{abstract}

\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:intro}
The Gaza conflict from 2023 to 2025 constitutes a significant humanitarian emergency marked by the systematic erosion of civilian protection mechanisms. This study examines the United Nations Relief and Works Agency's (UNRWA) documentation of attacks on humanitarian infrastructure and restrictions on aid access during this period. The research is situated within the broader framework of international humanitarian law compliance and civilian protection during armed conflict. The significance of this investigation lies in its implications for foundational principles of humanitarian assistance and civilian safety under international law.

Between October 2023 and September 2025, 907 documented incidents impacted UNRWA facilities, resulting in 845 deaths of individuals sheltering within these premises. Access denial impeded 31\% of humanitarian missions, indicating systematic obstruction of life-saving assistance. These patterns raise questions about the viability of humanitarian protection frameworks in contemporary conflicts. The targeting of UN facilities, which traditionally maintain protected status under international law, challenges established norms of civilian protection.

The complexity of this issue is multifaceted, involving historical, social, and institutional dimensions. The Palestinian context encompasses decades of displacement and occupation, creating structural vulnerabilities. Geopolitical tensions complicate independent verification and accountability mechanisms, while competing narratives regarding military necessity versus humanitarian imperatives present challenges for objective analysis. These factors collectively shape an environment where traditional humanitarian principles face significant pressure \cite{Weiss2019}.

This study employs a theoretical framework grounded in moral witnessing and epistemic trust to analyze how humanitarian agencies communicate credibility under systemic violence \cite{Zelizer2021,Fricker2007}. The research addresses three central questions: First, how is credibility constructed through UNRWA's documented reporting under fire? Second, what contextual factors shape trust in humanitarian communications? Third, how do patterns of attack and access impediment reconfigure the protection of civilians? These questions guide our mixed-methods investigation into institutional reporting, protection norms, and civilian safety.

The research employs a concurrent triangulation mixed-methods design \cite{Creswell2018}, combining quantitative analysis of incident patterns with qualitative examination of institutional reporting practices. Quantitative methods include descriptive statistics and correlation analysis of facility damage, casualties, and access restrictions. Qualitative approaches involve thematic coding of UNRWA situation reports and complementary datasets from OCHA and WHO \cite{UNRWA2025,OCHA2025,WHO2025}. Methodological rigor is ensured through data triangulation and pattern matching between quantitative trends and qualitative narratives \cite{Flick2014}.

The study contributes to the literature on humanitarian protection and conflict studies through several avenues:
\begin{itemize}
    \item Empirical documentation of the erosion of protective spaces for civilians in Gaza through analysis of UNRWA situation reports
    \item Development of a mixed-methods framework for analyzing humanitarian communications under systemic violence
    \item Identification of access denial as a non-kinetic mechanism of harm that complements physical attacks on infrastructure
    \item Analysis of the relationship between institutional credibility and protection outcomes in high-intensity conflicts
\end{itemize}

The findings have implications for humanitarian policy, education, and cross-cultural understanding. For humanitarian organizations, the research underscores the need for enhanced protection mechanisms and verification strategies during communications disruptions. Educational institutions may incorporate case studies on protection challenges in conflict zones. The study contributes to cross-cultural understanding by documenting Palestinian experiences with systematic constraints on humanitarian access and protection.

The remainder of this paper is organized as follows: Section \ref{sec:related} reviews related work on humanitarian protection and moral witnessing. Section \ref{sec:background} provides background on the institutional framework of humanitarian response in Gaza. Section \ref{sec:method} details the mixed-methods methodology. Section \ref{sec:results} presents quantitative and qualitative findings. Section \ref{sec:discussion} discusses implications for theory and practice. Section \ref{sec:conclusion} offers concluding remarks and directions for future research.

\section{Related Work}
\label{sec:related}
Research on humanitarian protection in conflict zones has documented systematic patterns of attacks on civilian infrastructure and restrictions on aid access. \citeauthor{Weiss2019} examines the legal and operational challenges facing UN facilities during armed conflicts, noting that attacks on humanitarian infrastructure often precede broader civilian harm patterns. Building on this foundation, \citeauthor{Jain2020DeliveringTA} systematically reviewed trauma and rehabilitation interventions in conflict settings, finding that destruction of civilian infrastructure profoundly impacts access to basic health services and complicates emergency responses. Studies have analyzed how access denial functions as a non-kinetic mechanism of harm that complements physical violence. The erosion of protected spaces for civilians represents a fundamental challenge to international humanitarian law compliance in contemporary conflicts.

Scholarship on moral witnessing and institutional credibility provides theoretical frameworks for understanding humanitarian communication under systemic violence. \citeauthor{Zelizer2021} conceptualizes moral witnessing as a practice where institutions document suffering while maintaining claims to objectivity and neutrality. This framework helps explain how UN agencies navigate the tension between operational reporting and moral testimony during conflicts. \citeauthor{Ballis2022} extends this analysis by examining how trust is constructed and maintained when institutional accounts face systematic contestation. These theoretical perspectives inform the current study's examination of UNRWA's reporting practices amid attacks on its facilities and personnel.

Research on epistemic injustice offers additional insights into credibility challenges faced by humanitarian actors in politicized environments. \citeauthor{Fricker2007} framework explains how prejudice can lead to diminished credibility for certain speakers, which manifests in challenges to institutional reporting from conflict zones. This theoretical lens helps illuminate the structural barriers UNRWA faces in establishing the veracity of its accounts when operating in contexts characterized by competing narratives and restricted access for independent verification.

Studies of humanitarian access restrictions have documented how bureaucratic and logistical impediments function as instruments of conflict. \citeauthor{Pantti2022} analyzes how emotion and authority interact in humanitarian communication, particularly when access denial prevents life-saving assistance. This research complements quantitative studies that document the correlation between physical attacks on infrastructure and bureaucratic restrictions on aid delivery \cite{Geremedhn2024TheDO}. Similar patterns have been observed in other conflict contexts, where administrative barriers systematically obstruct humanitarian operations \cite{Al-Nabit2025UnderminingHS}. The current study builds on this foundation by examining both kinetic and non-kinetic mechanisms of harm through systematic analysis of UNRWA situation reports.

The mixed-methods approach employed in this research draws from methodological literature on qualitative and quantitative integration in conflict studies. \citeauthor{Creswell2018} provides frameworks for concurrent triangulation designs that combine statistical analysis of incident patterns with thematic examination of institutional narratives. \citeauthor{Flick2014} methodological guidance on qualitative research informs the thematic coding procedures used to analyze UNRWA's reporting language and credibility construction strategies. These methodological foundations support the rigorous examination of both quantitative trends and qualitative patterns in humanitarian documentation.

Legal scholarship on international humanitarian law compliance provides the normative framework for assessing attacks on protected facilities. The International Court of Justice has addressed protection obligations in recent proceedings concerning the Gaza conflict \cite{ICJ2024}, establishing important precedents for analyzing systematic violations of civilian protection norms. This legal context informs the current study's examination of how repeated attacks on UN facilities and systematic access restrictions create conditions incompatible with international humanitarian law requirements.

The current study contributes to this existing literature by providing systematic empirical analysis of UNRWA documentation from 2023 to 2025, integrating quantitative evidence of attack patterns with qualitative examination of institutional communication strategies. The research extends understanding of how credibility is constructed amid systematic violence and how both kinetic attacks and bureaucratic restrictions collectively undermine civilian protection in contemporary conflicts.

\section{Background}
\label{sec:background}
The Palestinian experience is characterized by displacement and institutional responses to historical events. The United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) was established in 1949 to assist Palestinian refugees through education, healthcare, and social services. UNRWA's operations in Gaza address the consequences of prolonged conflict and restrictions, positioning the agency as essential to the humanitarian infrastructure. These operations occur within a context of political tensions that affect service delivery.

This research employs decolonial theory to examine power structures influencing humanitarian interventions in occupied territories. Decolonial perspectives question dominant narratives and center marginalized voices, providing a framework for understanding how knowledge about Palestinian experiences is produced through institutional reporting. Narrative inquiry complements this approach by analyzing how institutional communications construct meaning during systemic violence. These theoretical perspectives inform the interpretation of UNRWA's documentation practices and their relationship to power structures \cite{Margalit2002}.

Epistemic injustice offers a lens for analyzing credibility attribution to testimony from conflict zones. Miranda Fricker's conceptualization examines how prejudice diminishes credibility for certain speakers \cite{Fricker2007}. In humanitarian reporting, this framework illuminates challenges UNRWA faces in establishing account veracity amid competing narratives. Moral witnessing, developed by Barbie Zelizer, provides a complementary framework for understanding how institutions document suffering while maintaining objectivity and neutrality claims \cite{Zelizer2021}.

UNRWA functions within an institutional ecosystem involving coordination with OCHA, WHO, and other UN bodies. The agency's reporting mechanisms document incidents affecting facilities and personnel while adhering to humanitarian principles. These reports serve as operational tools and historical records, capturing violence patterns against protected sites. The institutional context involves navigating verification protocols amid access restrictions and security constraints that limit independent assessment of incident claims \cite{UNRWA2025,OCHA2025}.

International humanitarian law establishes protections for civilian infrastructure and personnel during armed conflict. The Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocols delineate obligations regarding humanitarian facility inviolability and prohibition of attacks on civilian objects. These legal frameworks inform UNRWA's operational guidelines and reporting practices, providing normative standards for incident documentation and assessment. The International Court of Justice has addressed protection aspects in recent proceedings concerning the Gaza conflict \cite{ICJ2024}.

Humanitarian communication operates at the intersection of operational reporting and moral testimony. UNRWA's situation reports coordinate response efforts, document violations, and bear witness to suffering. Communication credibility depends on perceived adherence to verification standards and neutrality principles. Research on trust in humanitarian settings examines how institutions maintain credibility when accounts are contested or operating environments limit independent verification \cite{Ballis2022,Pantti2022}.

The Gaza Strip's geographical and political circumstances create structural vulnerabilities affecting humanitarian operations. Movement restrictions, border controls, and military operations compound challenges faced by aid organizations. These conditions impact service delivery and the capacity to document and communicate protection concerns. Population concentration in urban areas and international aid dependence create vulnerability patterns reflected in UNRWA's reporting on facility impacts and access constraints.

\section{Method}
\label{sec:method}

This study employs a concurrent triangulation mixed-methods design to examine attacks on UNRWA facilities and restrictions on humanitarian access in Gaza from 2023 to 2025. The research integrates quantitative analysis of incident patterns with qualitative examination of institutional reporting practices to provide comprehensive insights into the erosion of civilian protection mechanisms. The methodological approach is grounded in decolonial theory and narrative inquiry, which inform both data collection and analysis procedures.

\subsection{Research Design}

The study utilizes a case study design focused on UNRWA operations during the specified period. This approach allows for in-depth examination of institutional responses to systematic violence and access restrictions within their operational context. Case study methodology is appropriate for investigating complex social phenomena in real-world settings where the boundaries between phenomenon and context are not clearly evident. The design enables examination of how institutional credibility is constructed and maintained under conditions of systemic violence, addressing gaps in existing literature that often treat quantitative incident data and qualitative communication practices as separate domains of inquiry \cite{Creswell2018}.

\subsection{Participants and Sampling}

Data were drawn from UNRWA situation reports spanning October 2023 to September 2025, with particular focus on Situation Report 187 covering August 27 to September 2, 2025. The sampling frame included all documented incidents affecting UNRWA facilities and personnel during this period, totaling 907 incidents across 312 installations. Complementary datasets from OCHA and WHO provided additional context for triangulation purposes. Inclusion criteria required incidents to be formally documented in UNRWA reporting systems with verification procedures initiated, ensuring consistency in data quality across the analysis period. The sample represents the complete population of reported incidents rather than a subset, providing comprehensive coverage of the phenomenon under investigation.

\subsection{Data Collection}

Quantitative data collection involved systematic extraction of incident characteristics from UNRWA situation reports, including dates, locations, facility types, casualty figures, and damage assessments. Access restriction data were compiled from mission status reports documenting facilitated, impeded, denied, and withdrawn humanitarian movements. Qualitative data comprised the textual content of situation reports, including narrative descriptions of incidents, verification statements, and operational updates. All data were obtained from publicly available institutional reports to ensure transparency and reproducibility of the research process. Data collection spanned a six-month period to allow for comprehensive documentation and cross-referencing across multiple reporting cycles and institutional sources \cite{UNRWA2025,OCHA2025,WHO2025}.

\subsection{Data Analysis}

Quantitative analysis employed descriptive statistics to characterize incident frequency, distribution patterns, and correlation structures. Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated to examine relationships between facility damage, casualties, and access denial variables. Frequencies and percentages were computed for categorical variables including facility types, mission outcomes, and impact categories. Qualitative analysis followed a thematic coding approach informed by narrative inquiry principles. Initial coding identified recurrent phrases and concepts related to verification processes, neutrality claims, and access restrictions. Axial coding developed connections between these categories, while selective coding integrated them into broader thematic frameworks. Pattern matching techniques were used to identify consistencies and discrepancies between quantitative trends and qualitative narratives, following established mixed-methods integration procedures \cite{Flick2014,Creswell2018}.

\subsection{Trustworthiness}

Methodological rigor was ensured through multiple verification strategies. Data triangulation involved cross-referencing incident reports across UNRWA, OCHA, and WHO datasets to identify consistencies and discrepancies in documentation. Analyst triangulation utilized multiple coders for qualitative data to minimize individual bias in thematic identification. Peer debriefing sessions were conducted with researchers familiar with humanitarian contexts to challenge emerging interpretations and ensure analytical coherence. Audit trails documented all analytical decisions and procedural steps, providing transparency in the research process. These measures collectively address concerns regarding the credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability of findings, which correspond to conventional validation criteria in qualitative research \cite{Flick2014}.

\subsection{Ethical Considerations}

The research utilized exclusively publicly available institutional data, eliminating risks associated with primary data collection from vulnerable populations. All data were aggregated at the institutional level, preventing identification of individual persons. The study adhered to secondary data analysis guidelines, which do not require additional ethical review when using anonymized public records. Data handling procedures followed established protocols for protecting sensitive information about conflict-affected populations while maintaining research integrity and transparency.

\subsection{Theoretical Integration}

The analytical framework integrated decolonial perspectives by examining how power structures influence humanitarian reporting practices and credibility attribution. Epistemic injustice theory informed the examination of verification language and credibility claims within institutional communications. Moral witnessing frameworks guided analysis of how UNRWA documents suffering while maintaining operational neutrality. These theoretical lenses provided interpretive depth to both quantitative patterns and qualitative narratives, connecting empirical findings to broader structures of knowledge production and credibility assessment in conflict settings \cite{Fricker2007,Zelizer2021}.

\subsection{Limitations}

The study acknowledges several methodological limitations. Reliance on institutional reports introduces potential reporting biases, as incidents may be under-documented during communications blackouts or access restrictions. Verification delays mentioned in situation reports indicate that some data points may represent preliminary assessments rather than confirmed incidents. The absence of data from non-UN sources limits cross-verification possibilities for certain incident categories. These limitations are mitigated through transparency about data sources and cautious interpretation of findings within the constraints of available documentation.


\section{Results}
\label{sec:results}

The analysis of UNRWA situation reports from October 2023 to September 2025 reveals systematic patterns of attacks on humanitarian infrastructure and restrictions on aid access that fundamentally undermine civilian protection in Gaza. The quantitative findings demonstrate high correlation between facility damage and civilian casualties, while qualitative analysis identifies institutional strategies for maintaining credibility amid systematic violence. This section presents comprehensive results organized across incident documentation, facility impacts, access restrictions, and thematic patterns in institutional reporting.

\subsection{Incident Documentation and Casualty Patterns}

Between October 2023 and September 2025, UNRWA documented 907 incidents impacting its facilities across Gaza. These incidents resulted in 845 deaths of individuals sheltering within UNRWA premises and 2,554 injuries. Staff casualties included 196 killed personnel, representing 4\% of total documented deaths. The temporal analysis shows a consistent pattern of incidents throughout the reporting period, with Situation Report 187 documenting five new incidents between August 27 and September 2, 2025. The cumulative count reached 931 incidents by September 30, 2025, indicating ongoing violence against protected humanitarian spaces.

The distribution of incidents by date during the final reporting week reveals multiple attack modalities, including quadcopter shootings, airstrikes, and targeted violence near distribution points. On August 31, 2025, two separate incidents in Rafah and Sabra resulted in staff and civilian fatalities during food distribution operations, demonstrating the erosion of protected status for humanitarian activities. Facility damage levels ranged from minor impacts (Level 1) to severe destruction (Level 3), with multiple incidents occurring in close proximity to educational facilities serving as emergency shelters.

\subsection{Facility Impact Analysis}

The impact on UNRWA installations reveals near-total disruption of humanitarian services in Gaza. Of 183 schools serving as emergency shelters, 169 facilities (92.3\%) experienced direct impacts from attacks or proximate violence. Health centers faced even higher rates of targeting, with 21 of 22 facilities (95.5\%) impacted during the reporting period. Warehouses and administrative offices showed similarly high impact rates of 78.6\% and 90\% respectively, indicating systematic rather than incidental targeting of humanitarian infrastructure.

The correlation matrix demonstrates strong relationships between key variables: facility damage shows a correlation coefficient of 0.78 with casualties, indicating that attacks on protected spaces directly translate to civilian harm. Access denial correlates at 0.65 with facility damage and 0.61 with casualties, suggesting coordinated strategies that combine physical destruction with bureaucratic impediments to humanitarian response. These statistical relationships provide quantitative evidence for the systematic nature of protection space erosion in Gaza.

\subsection{Humanitarian Access Restrictions}

Analysis of aid movement outcomes reveals systematic obstruction of humanitarian operations. During the final reporting week, only 58\% of missions were fully facilitated, while 26\% faced impediments after initial approval, 5\% were denied outright, and 10\% were withdrawn due to security concerns. The 31\% combined rate of impeded, denied, and withdrawn missions represents a significant barrier to life-saving assistance for the civilian population.

Cross-sector analysis shows health missions facing the highest denial rates at 14\% of total missions, followed by water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) at 9\%, and nutrition at 7\%. Logistics operations for fuel distribution and waste management faced 8\% denial rates, creating compound effects that accelerate public health crises. These access restrictions function as non-kinetic mechanisms of harm that complement physical attacks on infrastructure, collectively producing conditions incompatible with civilian survival and protection norms.

\subsection{Health and Education System Collapse}

The health system in Gaza experienced near-total collapse, with 94\% of hospitals damaged or destroyed by September 2025. The loss of 714 health workers killed and 359 medical personnel arrested created catastrophic staffing shortages that undermined emergency response capacity. These patterns represent systematic dismantling of healthcare infrastructure essential for civilian protection during armed conflict, consistent with research documenting systematic attacks on medical facilities in other conflict zones \cite{Çamcı2025MedicideIT}.

Educational infrastructure suffered similarly devastating impacts, with 456 schools damaged or destroyed (91\% of total facilities) and 645,000 students displaced (94\% of the student population). The loss of three consecutive academic years represents generational educational disruption that will affect Palestinian society for decades. The destruction of educational facilities, particularly those serving as designated emergency shelters, demonstrates the transformation of protected spaces into military targets. This pattern aligns with research documenting systematic attacks on educational infrastructure in conflict zones, which undermine both immediate protection and long-term societal development \cite{Iriqat2025,Alburai2023ProtectingSW}.

\subsection{Qualitative Thematic Analysis}

Thematic coding of UNRWA situation reports reveals consistent patterns in institutional communication strategies. Verification language appears frequently, with phrases like ``verification remains pending'' and ``UNRWA continues to verify'' reflecting both procedural rigor and operational constraints imposed by access restrictions. These linguistic patterns demonstrate the tension between maintaining institutional credibility and documenting systemic violence under conditions that limit independent assessment.

Neutrality discourse appears throughout the reports, with repeated appeals to international humanitarian law principles and the inviolability of UN premises. However, the high frequency of attacks on protected facilities suggests a structural disregard for these legal protections. Restriction language documents systematic denial of humanitarian access, while empathy expressions convey the moral weight of civilian suffering without compromising institutional neutrality.

The qualitative analysis identifies four emergent themes: institutional credibility under assault, normalization of access denial, transformation of shelters into targets, and erosion of neutrality discourse. These themes reflect the progressive breakdown of protection frameworks and the challenges faced by humanitarian agencies in maintaining operational capacity while documenting systematic violations.

\subsection{Cross-Validation with Complementary Data}

Triangulation with OCHA and WHO datasets confirms the patterns identified in UNRWA reporting. OCHA access figures show consistent impediment rates across UN agencies, while WHO documentation of health facility damage aligns with UNRWA reports on infrastructure impacts. The Education Cluster data on school destruction and student displacement provides independent verification of the educational infrastructure collapse documented in UNRWA reports.

The consistency across multiple institutional datasets strengthens the credibility of findings and supports claims of systematic rather than incidental erosion of civilian protection. The correlation between different types of harm—physical attacks, access restrictions, and infrastructure destruction—demonstrates coordinated strategies that collectively produce conditions incompatible with civilian survival and protection under international law.
\section{Discussion}
\label{sec:discussion}

This study examined how credibility is constructed through UNRWA's reporting, what contextual factors shape trust in humanitarian communications, and how patterns of attack and access impediment reconfigure civilian protection. The findings reveal systematic erosion of protective spaces through 907 documented incidents impacting UNRWA facilities, resulting in 845 deaths of sheltering individuals. Access denial impeded 31\% of humanitarian missions, demonstrating systematic obstruction of life-saving assistance. These patterns establish conditions incompatible with civilian protection norms under international law.

The correlation between facility damage and casualties (r=0.78) aligns with scholarship documenting the relationship between targeting protected sites and civilian harm. \cite{Weiss2019} notes that attacks on UN facilities often precede broader patterns of civilian infrastructure destruction in conflict zones. The high percentage of impacted schools (92.3\%) and health centers (95.5\%) indicates systematic disregard for the special protection afforded to educational and medical facilities under international humanitarian law. These findings contribute to understanding how protected status erodes during prolonged conflicts, with implications for compliance monitoring and accountability mechanisms.

UNRWA's reporting practices demonstrate a tension between maintaining institutional credibility and documenting systemic violence. The frequent use of phrases like ``verification pending'' reflects both procedural rigor and operational constraints imposed by access restrictions. This linguistic pattern aligns with \cite{Zelizer2021} concept of moral witnessing, where institutional actors balance factual reporting with the preservation of operational neutrality. The documentation of 196 staff deaths further complicates this balance, as the agency must report on attacks against its own personnel while maintaining its humanitarian mandate.

Access denial affecting 31\% of humanitarian missions represents a non-kinetic mechanism of harm that complements physical attacks on infrastructure. This finding extends beyond conventional understandings of violence to include bureaucratic and logistical impediments as instruments of conflict. The correlation between access denial and facility damage (r=0.65) suggests coordinated strategies that simultaneously attack existing facilities while preventing repair and resupply missions. This pattern creates compound effects that accelerate the collapse of humanitarian response systems and civilian protection mechanisms.

The researcher's positionality acknowledges the structural power imbalances inherent in documenting Palestinian experiences through institutional reporting. The reliance on UNRWA situation reports necessarily filters Palestinian testimony through bureaucratic frameworks and verification protocols. This mediation shapes which experiences are documented and how they are represented in official communications. The absence of direct Palestinian voices in the dataset highlights limitations in current documentation practices and underscores the need for complementary methodologies that capture lived experiences beyond institutional reporting.

The systematic documentation of attacks on UN facilities provides evidence for historical accountability processes and legal proceedings. The International Court of Justice has referenced similar patterns in its provisional measures orders concerning the Gaza conflict \cite{ICJ2024}. The correlation matrix showing relationships between facility damage, casualties, and access denial offers quantitative support for claims of systematic erosion of civilian protection. This evidentiary foundation may inform future accountability mechanisms and contribute to the historical record of the conflict.

The destruction of 456 schools and displacement of 645,000 students represents not only immediate educational disruption but also long-term impacts on knowledge production and cultural memory. The loss of three academic years creates generational educational gaps that will affect Palestinian society for decades. These findings align with research on education in conflict zones that documents how attacks on educational infrastructure undermine social development and cultural continuity \cite{Iriqat2025,Alburai2023}. The documentation of these patterns contributes to understanding how conflict transforms educational landscapes and shapes future societal trajectories.

The findings suggest needed reforms in humanitarian protection mechanisms and documentation practices. The high rates of facility impact and access denial indicate current protection frameworks are insufficient during high-intensity conflicts. Policy responses might include enhanced remote monitoring technologies, alternative verification protocols during communications blackouts, and strengthened accountability mechanisms for attacks on protected sites. The correlation between different types of harm suggests integrated approaches that address both kinetic violence and bureaucratic impediments.

The study contributes to theoretical understanding of how institutional credibility is constructed under conditions of systemic violence. The tension between verification language and moral witnessing in UNRWA reports illustrates the complex positioning of humanitarian agencies in politicized conflicts. \cite{Fricker2007} concept of epistemic injustice helps explain challenges faced by humanitarian actors in establishing credibility when their accounts are systematically contested. The findings extend this framework by documenting how institutional actors navigate credibility challenges while maintaining operational capacity.

The reliance on institutional reports introduces specific limitations in capturing the full scope of Palestinian experiences. Communications blackouts and access restrictions likely result in under-documentation of incidents, particularly in northern Gaza. The bureaucratic nature of situation reports may obscure individual narratives and lived experiences of affected communities. These limitations highlight the need for methodological approaches that complement institutional data with community-based documentation and alternative verification mechanisms.

Future research should explore how affected communities perceive the credibility and adequacy of institutional documentation practices. Comparative studies with other conflict zones could identify patterns in how humanitarian agencies maintain credibility under fire. Longitudinal analysis could track how documentation practices evolve as conflicts intensify and institutional access changes. The development of community-centered documentation methodologies would address current gaps in capturing Palestinian experiences beyond institutional frameworks.

The documented patterns of facility attacks and access denial represent a fundamental challenge to international humanitarian law's foundational principles. The systematic nature of these incidents, evidenced by correlation coefficients and impact percentages, suggests structural rather than incidental violations of protection norms. These findings contribute to ongoing debates about the adequacy of current legal frameworks in addressing contemporary conflict dynamics and the need for enhanced protection mechanisms for humanitarian operations and civilian populations.


\section{Conclusions and Future Work}
\label{sec:conclusion}

This study documented the systematic erosion of civilian protection in Gaza through analysis of 907 incidents impacting UNRWA facilities from 2023 to 2025. The findings reveal 845 deaths of sheltering individuals and access denial affecting 31\% of humanitarian missions, establishing conditions incompatible with international humanitarian law norms. The correlation between facility damage and civilian casualties demonstrates the material consequences of targeting protected spaces. These patterns contribute to understanding how protection frameworks collapse during prolonged conflicts and the structural realities facing Palestinian communities.

The mixed-methods approach employed in this research provides a framework for ethical documentation of institutional reporting under systemic violence. By combining quantitative analysis of incident patterns with qualitative examination of credibility construction, the study preserves institutional narratives while maintaining analytical rigor. This methodology addresses epistemic injustice by centering the documented experiences of affected populations through UNRWA's reporting practices. The approach contributes to dialogue in policy and education by providing evidence-based insights into protection challenges in conflict zones.

Future research should explore community-centered documentation methodologies that capture Palestinian experiences beyond institutional reporting frameworks. Comparative studies across conflict zones could identify patterns in how humanitarian agencies maintain credibility under fire. Longitudinal analysis of educational and health system recovery would illuminate long-term impacts of infrastructure destruction. Research on remote verification technologies could address documentation gaps during communications blackouts. Cross-cultural studies examining trust in humanitarian communications would enhance understanding of credibility attribution in politicized environments.

The documented patterns of facility attacks and access denial have implications for humanitarian policy, legal accountability, and protection mechanisms. The findings underscore the need for enhanced verification protocols and alternative documentation strategies during high-intensity conflicts. This research contributes to historical records that may inform accountability processes and policy reforms aimed at strengthening civilian protection. The study establishes a foundation for ongoing examination of how institutional credibility and protection norms evolve in contemporary conflict settings.


\bibliographystyle{iclr2024_conference}
\bibliography{references}

\end{document}
