Former Swiss development worker raises concerns over Gaza treatment

Jaser Abu Mousa held Switzerland’s most senior local post in Gaza. He managed development programmes, prepared political analysis and handled security arrangements for the Swiss office and visiting diplomats. Correspondence reviewed by Swiss public broadcaster RTS shows that colleagues in the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation office in Ramallah regarded him as a trusted and important member of the mission.

His account now places Switzerland’s humanitarian operations and employer obligations under scrutiny. Abu Mousa says the Hamas attack of October 7, 2023, and the war that followed destroyed his family. His wife and two children died in an Israeli air strike, according to the RTS report. He and his two surviving children were evacuated with Swiss assistance to the United Arab Emirates on December 7, 2023.

The case has become a test of how Switzerland treats local staff caught in a conflict zone after serving the country’s foreign policy and aid programmes. Abu Mousa says the evacuation brought his children to medical care, but left the family in prolonged uncertainty. Switzerland says it protected an employee facing immediate danger and continued to support him after the evacuation. The dispute centres on what responsibility remained once the family reached a third country.

Two children survived the air strike, but both required extensive medical treatment. In Abu Dhabi, his son Abdullah underwent several operations. His daughter Sham received treatment for burns. The family lived in a refugee camp while Abu Mousa sought a way to secure longer-term stability and legal status.

He told RTS that he repeatedly asked the SDC office in Ramallah to help him obtain a Swiss humanitarian visa. He said the camp offered shelter, yet restricted his ability to work or build a future for his children. Applications for jobs in the United Arab Emirates failed after employers learned that he lacked a residence permit.

Abu Mousa also travelled temporarily to the United States on a scholarship and submitted a second humanitarian visa application from there. He says his efforts to leave the UAE exhausted every available route. In his account, the most damaging response came from SDC personnel management in Ramallah, which he says sent him a message stating: “There is no visa for you.”

RTS has not presented the case as a finding that Swiss officials caused the family’s hardship. The reporting documents Abu Mousa’s allegations and correspondence, while the foreign ministry and migration authorities offer a different interpretation of their responsibilities.

The Swiss foreign ministry says it met its obligations as an employer. Spokesperson Nicolas Bideau said Switzerland removed Abu Mousa from Gaza, arranged his transfer to Abu Dhabi and provided him with an annual salary. He described the situation as tragic, while insisting that the ministry had protected its staff member.

The ministry separates that employer responsibility from the decision on a humanitarian visa. Bideau said the State Secretariat for Migration, known as SEM, rejected the application because Abu Mousa was already in a third country and no longer faced a concrete threat to his physical integrity or life. “These criteria are therefore very clear,” he said.

The position reflects Switzerland’s restrictive approach to humanitarian admission. The SEM told RTS that such visas are generally not granted when an applicant is already outside the country of danger. Its figures show that Switzerland issued 171 humanitarian visas to people of Palestinian origin since 2022.

The government’s argument rests on the distinction between immediate evacuation and longer-term admission. Abu Mousa’s case raises whether that distinction adequately reflects the position of a former Swiss employee whose family had suffered catastrophic losses, whose children needed ongoing care and whose legal status in the host country remained uncertain.

The public record leaves responsibility divided between two Swiss institutions. The foreign ministry says SEM decided not to grant the humanitarian visa. SEM, however, told RTS that it has only an advisory role in this type of case and that the decision rests with the Swiss representation abroad under the foreign ministry’s authority.

That exchange has created uncertainty over who made the decisive judgment and who should answer for it. The foreign ministry maintains that the visa question falls within SEM’s remit. SEM’s written response points back toward the foreign ministry’s overseas representation. Abu Mousa, meanwhile, says his appeals moved through the SDC and its Ramallah office, where his former colleagues knew his professional role and family circumstances.

The administrative dispute matters beyond one application. Switzerland relies on locally hired staff to interpret political developments, manage programmes and assess security risks in places where its diplomats cannot operate alone. Abu Mousa performed each of those functions in Gaza. His case may therefore influence how Swiss agencies define post-evacuation support, especially when local employees face medical, legal and family pressures after leaving a conflict zone.

The available account does not establish whether Swiss procedures were unlawful. It does show a gap between the family’s expectations of protection and the authorities’ narrower interpretation of an employer’s duty.

Switzerland’s Gaza policy will be judged partly through the treatment of the people who made its work possible. The SDC has used local expertise to run aid and development programmes, analyse conditions and protect visiting Swiss personnel. Abu Mousa’s seniority makes his experience especially relevant to future evacuation and duty of care policies.

For Swiss decision-makers, the case involves several overlapping responsibilities: employment protection, emergency evacuation, medical continuity, immigration decisions and support for dependants. The government says evacuation to Abu Dhabi and continued salary payments fulfilled its obligations. Abu Mousa’s account points to the practical limits of that support, including camp accommodation, restricted work opportunities and the absence of a Swiss residence permit.

The next scrutiny is likely to focus on the written chain of decisions. That includes the messages exchanged with the Ramallah office, the handling of applications made from the UAE and the United States, and the reasons given by the relevant Swiss authorities. Clear responsibility would help Parliament, aid professionals and local staff assess whether existing procedures match the risks of working in Gaza.

The case also carries a human cost that official categories can obscure. A family evacuated from immediate danger can still face medical, legal and financial insecurity. Switzerland’s response will shape confidence among Palestinian employees and other local partners who continue to support its humanitarian presence.