The Christian Science Monitor, WSJ and others are emphasizing how any loss of UNRWA services may destabilize Jordan.
Let's think about this.
If there is a legitimate fear of Jordan being destabilized from UNRWA cuts, that means that Palestinians in Jordan would revolt over the loss of their free benefits and being forced to be treated like all other citizens of the kingdom. They would have to pay for their own houses, and compete with other Jordanians for spots in classrooms.
The fear is that Palestinians, who according to many make up a majority of Jordanian citizens, would topple the regime and take over.
Which would make Jordan into a Palestinian state.
So in short, the fear is that the majority citizenship of Jordan would take over Jordan and make it Palestinian. Which would be disastrous, because Jordan is a reliable ally and a Palestinian Jordan would not be.
The supporters of UNRWA in Jordan - a place that they should not have been since the early 1950s when Jordan offered them citizenship - are tacitly admitting both that Palestinians have a claim on controlling Jordan and that a Palestinian state that replaces it would be a terrible, terrible idea.
Now, I am very skeptical that US cuts to UNRWA will close the agency in Jordan and if it did, that the kingdom would fall. But the people that are making that argument are saying that without the artificial UN agency's presence in Jordan, it would become a Palestinian state - and one that would likely be a state that could fall to terrorist supporters like Hamas.
Doesn't this tell you something about what these supporters of UNRWA think an independent Palestinian state would be like?