Former Swiss development worker raises questions about Gaza support

Jaser Abu Mousa was the senior local figure behind Switzerland’s Gaza operation when war shattered his family. The former Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation employee managed programmes in the enclave, prepared political analysis and handled security for the office and visiting Swiss diplomats. Correspondence reviewed by Swiss public broadcaster RTS indicates that colleagues in the SDC office in Ramallah treated him as a trusted and influential professional.

After Hamas attacked Israel on October 7, 2023, Abu Mousa’s circumstances changed completely. An Israeli air strike killed his wife and two of their children. His two surviving children, Abdullah and Sham, were evacuated with him to the United Arab Emirates on December 7, 2023, with Swiss assistance. Abdullah underwent several operations, while Sham received treatment for burns.

The case now places Switzerland’s humanitarian role under scrutiny. Abu Mousa says the evacuation did not resolve his family’s insecurity or give him a viable path to rebuild his life. He sought a humanitarian visa for Switzerland while living in Abu Dhabi, where the family stayed in a refugee camp. His allegations concern both the decision itself and the way Swiss institutions handled a former employee who had carried significant responsibility in Gaza.

Abu Mousa says he spent months asking Switzerland for a humanitarian visa after reaching Abu Dhabi. He told RTS that the family’s accommodation in a refugee camp felt like confinement. Applications for jobs in the Emirates failed when employers learned that he lacked a residence permit. He later travelled temporarily to the United States on a scholarship and submitted a second humanitarian visa application from there.

His account centres on repeated requests to the SDC office in Ramallah. He says superiors sometimes advised him to seek a visa in Germany, where his sister lives. He also recalls receiving a message from the SDC head of personnel stating: “There is no visa for you.” The report presents these claims alongside correspondence seen by RTS, but it does not establish that every exchange or recommendation violated Swiss law.

The practical stakes were considerable. Abu Mousa had lost his home and close family members, while his surviving children required medical care. He remained dependent on temporary status in a third country and was unable to secure regular employment there. His complaint therefore extends beyond the outcome of one visa application. It raises questions about what support Switzerland owes to local staff exposed to extraordinary risks while carrying out Swiss foreign policy in a conflict zone.

The Swiss foreign ministry says it acted as an employer and fulfilled its responsibilities. Spokesperson Nicolas Bideau said Switzerland removed Abu Mousa from Gaza, took him to Abu Dhabi and continued paying him an annual salary. He described the situation as tragic while stressing that Switzerland applies restrictive rules when admitting people to the country.

Bideau said the humanitarian visa decision belonged to the State Secretariat for Migration, or SEM. He argued that the relevant test is whether the applicant’s life or physical integrity faces a concrete threat at the time of the decision. Because Abu Mousa had already been evacuated from Gaza, Bideau said, the stated criteria were not met.

The SEM confirms that a humanitarian visa is generally not issued when an applicant is already in a third country and no longer faces the immediate danger that prompted the request. It says Switzerland issued 171 humanitarian visas to people of Palestinian origin since 2022. Yet the institutions’ descriptions of decision-making do not align neatly. The foreign ministry attributes the refusal to the SEM. The SEM says that, for a former foreign ministry employee, the decision lies with the Swiss representation abroad after consultation. The reported exchange leaves responsibility divided between agencies.

The dispute tests how Switzerland defines duty of care after evacuating local staff from a war zone. The foreign ministry’s position focuses on the protection it provided during the acute emergency: evacuation, relocation to Abu Dhabi and continued pay. Abu Mousa’s account focuses on what followed, including the family’s temporary legal status, medical needs and inability to establish a secure life in the Emirates.

Those positions can be assessed only through a complete record of the visa applications, the advice given by Swiss officials and the formal division of authority between the foreign ministry, its representation abroad and the SEM. The available report does not provide the full applications or a final judicial assessment. It does show that Abu Mousa was not an ordinary contractor. He was a senior local employee whose analysis and security work supported Switzerland’s presence in Gaza.

For Swiss policy, the case has implications beyond one family. Local employees often provide the continuity and access that foreign missions cannot maintain alone. Their protection may involve evacuation, salaries, medical assistance, residence status and clear explanations of decisions. The Abu Mousa case puts those responsibilities in the public record and leaves Swiss authorities facing questions about who decides, who communicates the decision and what support remains after an employee reaches safety.