News media consumers may have a highly distorted view of recent events regarding UNRWA (United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees). This position is not as strong as many journals suggest.
On January 26, UNRWA Director-General Philippe Lazzarini said, “Israeli authorities have provided UNRWA with information regarding the alleged involvement of several UNRWA personnel in the horrific attack on Israel on October 7.” Shortly after, UN Secretary-General António Guterres revealed that 12 UNRWA employees had been identified, nine of whom had been fired, one had died, and the identities of the remaining two were still being confirmed. .
More than a dozen countries, including the United States, immediately suspended funding to the agency, leaving a funding shortfall of about $450 million.
UNRWA denies claims of involvement in terrorism
A few days later, Mr. Guterres launched two separate investigations. The investigation team, led by former French Foreign Minister Catherine Colonna, is tasked with assessing the extent to which UNRWA adheres to the principle of neutrality in its operations, and is responsible for assessing the extent to which UNRWA adheres to the principle of neutrality in its operations, and is responsible for the Internal Oversight Bureau, the UN’s highest oversight body. (OIOS) will investigate the truth of Israel’s statements. Allegations against 12 UNRWA employees. Israel subsequently provided the United Nations with detailed allegations regarding seven additional UNRWA personnel.
On 22 April, the Colonna-led review released a report on UNRWA’s “neutrality” in the performance of its functions. The report identified more than 50 deficiencies in the agency’s operations and recommended changes in each case. President Guterres immediately accepted all 50 recommendations and announced that UNRWA would “develop an action plan to implement the recommendations contained in the final report.”
Although it was not part of the Colonna team’s brief to comment on the OIOS investigation into Israeli accusations against UNRWA personnel, they considered it appropriate to include the following in their 54-page report: . A member of a terrorist organization. However, Israel has not yet provided any evidence to support this. ”
Inevitably, the world’s media pounced on this important piece of information, effectively eliminating everything else in the report. The headline was typical of Schadenfreude: “Israel could not support claims about UNRWA personnel.” “Israel has not yet submitted evidence of its claims against UNRWA.” “The report found “no evidence” on important documents.” “Israel has not presented any evidence linking many UN employees to Hamas,” and so on. However, their assumptions were premature.
On April 26, UN Spokesperson Stephane Dujarric provided the media with the first real information about the investigation ordered by President Guterres into Israeli accusations against UNRWA officials. He explained that a total of 12 UNRWA staff members were initially appointed by Israel, which was later expanded to seven more (five in March and two in April). Of the 19 claims, one was closed due to lack of evidence, and the remaining four were put on hold due to insufficient evidence. United Nations investigators are currently investigating charges against 14 UNRWA employees.
Dujarric told reporters that OIOS investigators have already met with Israeli authorities and are planning to visit again in May. However, they gave no indication when the investigation would be completed. “These discussions continue,” he said.
The Colonna investigation’s suggestion that Israel cannot substantiate the allegations against the UNRWA officials’ nominations is belied by the fact that the OIOS investigation is currently underway. But what the Colonna report makes clear is that UNRWA is a flawed organization in its management, with 50 examples of his bias, and it is difficult to determine who that bias is directed at. It wouldn’t require much guessing.
William Shakespeare was skilled at making up insults. Elsewhere in his play King Lear, a character lashes out at another character with the words: “You who sold Z. Thou unnecessary letter…” The label “unnecessary” could very well be applied to UNRWA.
Around the time the state of Israel was established, approximately 750,000 people, more than half of the non-Jewish population of what was then called Palestine, left their homes. Some were advised, while others left their homes in fear of the coming conflict. , during some heated exchanges.
After the armistice, the United Nations established an agency to assist them, UNRWA. It started its activities in May 1950. Seven months later, the United Nations established the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and excluded Palestinian refugees from its mandate. Since then, to their disadvantage, Palestinians have been treated differently than other refugees around the world. One reason for this is that UNRWA completely ignored key aspects of its responsibilities from the beginning.
The 1949 United Nations General Assembly resolution that established UNRWA called for alleviation of the suffering of Palestinian refugees and stated decisively that “constructive steps should be taken at the earliest, with a view to ending international relief assistance.” ing. In other words, the new agency’s mandate was intended to be temporary for the resettlement of refugees under its jurisdiction.
UNRWA perpetuates the refugee cycle
Resettlement never happened. On the contrary, UNRWA’s policy was to perpetuate the refugee status of Palestinians. The government has decided to permanently consider all “descendants of Palestinian refugees” – their children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren – as refugees. The effect? The number of Palestinians registered as refugees with UNRWA and living in camps scattered throughout the region has increased rapidly from year to year, from approximately 750,000 in 1948 to 5.9 million at the latest count. UNRWA uses its expanding customer base to justify an ever-growing staff and an ever-increasing budget.
By 2024, the “interim” UNRWA had transformed into a bloated international bureaucracy with more than 30,000 employees and an annual budget of about $2.2 billion.
Worse than that, nearly 6 million people have been turned into permanent customers dependent on charity, with well-paying jobs for those who can work, and citizens thriving on earned income rather than handouts. They no longer have the incentive to become productive, economically independent members of the community. .
UNHCR, the main UN agency dealing with refugees, focuses on refugee resettlement, voluntary repatriation and promoting regional integration, while UNRWA has maintained refugee status for decades and has a growing client base. continues to do so.
There are good reasons to reform the status quo. Of course, the services currently provided by UNRWA are essential, but there is no need for that flawed organization to run them.
It should be dissolved and its functions absorbed into an enlarged UNHCR as an efficiently run organization.
UNHCR is a global agency dedicated to assisting people who have fled their homelands due to conflict or persecution. It protects their rights and, importantly, unlike UNRWA, helps them rebuild their lives rather than perpetuating their refugee status. It has a positive agenda.
Unnecessary UNRWA is based on a negative philosophy.
All this, while important, was of course far beyond the scope of the Colonna report.
The author is Eurasia Review’s Middle East correspondent. His latest book is Trump and the Holy Land: 2016-2020. Follow him at a-mid-east-journal.blogspot.com.
