UNRWA's Moment of Truth
First Step to ReformForbes’ Fundraising Appeal on Behalf of UNRWA
Perhaps the most important step UNRWA can take is to adopt the same standards as the UNHCR. Specifically, UNRWA must take real measures toward the ultimate resettlement of refugees in the host states as envisaged by its original mandate, so as to transform them from passive welfare recipients into productive and enterprising citizens of their respective societies. This is not something that can occur overnight, or even in a few years, but unless a realistic 10-year resettlement plan is crafted, the ever-increasing numbers of perpetual "refugees" kept in squalid camps will never decrease.
UNRWA must take real measures toward the ultimate resettlement of refugees in host states.
While there have been numerous studies, audits, and assessments of UNRWA's operational deficiencies—from resistance to reform, to cover-up of gender issues and sexual abuse by UNRWA workers, to overall human resource and commercial transaction mismanagement—no independent, external financial audit has ever been demanded by the donor states to account for the use, or possible abuse, of their decades-long massive donations to UNRWA: How much of this money is spent on anti-Israel and anti-Semitic incitement through funding of PLO-dictated textbooks and teachers' guides? How much money is spent on wages for Hamas-affiliated employees who are not legally permitted to be on UNRWA's payroll, and how much on providing facilities for summer training of schoolchildren in terrorism? And above all, how much donor money is spent on perpetuating the Palestinians' "refugeedom" rather than to "start [the refugees] on the road to rehabilitation and bring an end to their enforced idleness and the demoralizing effect of a dole," to use the words of the 1949 Economic Survey Mission, whose recommendations informed UNRWA's original mandate.[29]
Donor states are not only entitled to know how their taxpayers' monies are being spent but have an obligation and responsibility to assure that they are spent on the purposes for which they were donated, and not on those that violate U.N. directives or international law. To date, this has not been done. Only an audit by the donor states will empower reform.
Conclusion The time has come for the geopolitical realities of the 2020s to be confronted head-on. The PLO, while clinging to its eternal rejectionism as evidenced among other things by its "destroy the Zionist entity" school curriculum, is nevertheless not the PLO of Yasser Arafat. Hamas, though still committed to its ultimate goal of destroying Israel, is amenable to suspension of hostilities in return for humanitarian aid, either directly (e.g., regular flow of Qatari money to Gaza) or indirectly (e.g., training Gaza medical students in Israeli hospitals, hospitalizing serious COVID-19 patients in Israeli hospitals).[30] And the Arab states seem less inclined than ever to make their national interests captive to the whims of the Palestinian leadership as evidenced by the recent normalization accords between Israel, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, and Sudan and the strengthening relations between the Jewish state and the other Arab states.
In addition, UNRWA faces its greatest challenge in decades as Washington, its largest donor, slashed its financial support while the U.N.'s own oversight watchdogs investigated the agency's financial irregularities as it pleads impoverishment over a deficit figure variously ranging between $332 million and over $1 billion.[31] But UNRWA's plea seems to strike a weaker chord even in the European Union where the narrative of the perpetually impoverished Palestinian refugees seems to have worn thin and where the unquestioned propping up of UNRWA's failed mission is coming under growing scrutiny by those who used to be its most vocal champions.
As the Arab and Western states face their long-overdue obligations to help proactively to resolve the Palestinian "refugee problem," the agency's 70-year-long "works" must either profoundly reform or become irrelevant.
Given that well over 90 percent of the Palestinian population lives within Area A, which is fully under Palestinian civilian and security control, the assertion that every time a Palestinian steps outside s/he is “confront with occupation” is absurd. Indeed, a map published by the United Nations’ own Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs plainly shows that, checkpoints — where Israeli soldiers are found in the West Bank — are scattered, and Palestinians can travel freely within their communities and also to other locations without encountering soldiers or settlers.
Abramiam’s article was full of praise for UNRWA schools and their teachers, ignoring that the same institutions have come under heavy criticism for their indoctrination of youth with anti-Israel and antisemitic incitement. UNRWA staff have called for the murder of Jews, revered Hitler and celebrated the deaths of Israelis.
In an article about UNRWA’s funding shortfall, ForbesWomens’ Abramiam neglected to mention that Switzerland and the Netherlands suspended their donations to UNRWA for several months in 2019 due to an internal ethics report alleging mismanagement, including sexual misconduct. Deutsche Welle reported in July 2019:
The Swiss foreign ministry announced on Tuesday that it would suspend funding of the UN’s Palestinian refugee agency UNRWA (United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees), after the agency’s own ethics department reported allegations of sexual misconduct, nepotism and discrimination.
Such revelations, however, would belie Lewis’ parting message that “UNRWA is extraordinary–with an amazing cadre of educators and staff that need support. The potential and the possibilities have been stolen and need to be restored.”
David Collier: The Guardian – lost between antisemites and oblivion
The Guardian newspaper is on a mission. Over the last few days, it has published several ‘Jew-hostile’ news and opinion pieces. For example, two that attempted to discredit the EHRC (the statutory body that conducted the investigation into Labour’s antisemitism), and two more that set out to undermine the IHRA definition of antisemitism.Anti-Semitism and Israel's Right to Exist
The David Feldman piece The criticism of the IHRA definition of antisemitism came first in the form of a letter signed by over 100 Arab ‘intellectual’ voices. Most are names that are instantly recognisable as political anti-Israel activists. The other attack on the IHRA was an article written by David Feldman. Feldman is director of the Pears Institute for the Study of Antisemitism at Birkbeck, University of London.
David Feldman was rolled out because he is Jewish. Just as the Guardian loves to print anti-Israel letters from the Jewish modern Yevsektsiya groups. The haters learned long ago, that if you want to effectively attack Jews, make sure you pick up a Jew to do it with.
Feldman’s main positions are that the IHRA definition curtails free speech and that he believes in an ‘all lives matter’ approach to racism. As David Hirsh expertly points out, ‘the All Lives Matter‘ approach is far from helpful. Hirsh’s article is well worth a read and therefore I have no intention of covering all that ground here.
Another major problem with the ‘all racism matters’ approach is that whole strands of anti-Jewish racism today are coming from parts of the Muslim community and Black Lives matter activists. Jews are explicitly ‘othered’ by members of these groups and often cannot enter their spaces to discuss racism with them.
The right to free speech Much of the Jewish community, along with the Government have been campaigning to pressure universities to adopt the IHRA definition.
The argument over the right to free speech is an important one. Frivolous accusations of antisemitism should be shouted down loudly. Calling someone an antisemite because they do not like the Likud or Israeli building in parts of Jerusalem is not antisemitism. But then the IHRA doesn’t say that it is. People who raise these sorts of arguments are deflecting.
Jewish people need defending – especially on campus. The main thrust of the opponents of the IHRA definition is coming from antisemites who want to continue to be antisemitic. They must be pushed back.
The 122 Palestinian and Arab intellectuals (Letters, 29 November) have taken it upon themselves to define antisemitism and the struggle for Jewish rights. This is a mistaken approach which also fails to understand the IHRA definition of antisemitism. Antisemitism manifests itself, in part, by denying to Jews their collective right to self-determination under international law. That is why the view of Israel as a “racist endeavour” is an example within the IHRA definition. A Jewish majority state is no more racist than a Muslim or Christian one.
The current plight of Palestinians, far from being an intrinsic feature of Zionism, is the outcome of a tragic conflict between two peoples. In recent decades, Israel has made at least four offers to partition the land and create a Palestinian state, with every offer rebuffed, often violently. Palestinian rejectionism is thus the main cause of their statelessness.
The IHRA definition does insist that legitimate criticism of Israel, similar to that levelled against other countries, cannot be antisemitic. Denying Israel its right to exist as a sovereign state is a different matter.





















