URNWA - Hamas investigation. Thread 2

Why is UNWRA a problem in East Jerusalem?
Let’s explore why UNWRA are in East Jerusalem.

After the six day war Israel effectively annexed East Jerusalem and its surroundings, applying law and administration to these areas. Among the annexed Palestinian villages was Shuafat refugee camp. As a result, Shuafat’s residents effectively fulfilled their demand of return.

Now as legal residents of Israel they have the right to settle anywhere they want in the country, including the town they or their ancestors came from. Furthermore, they can apply for citizenship on the grounds of proving their desire “to live at peace with their neighbours” the complete fulfilment of the Palestinians own extreme interpretation of Resolution 194.

The refugees who have become residents of Israel have acquired in practice the ability to return. Given this, UNWRA could have announced that it had no more business within the boundaries of Jerusalem and refused to register the refugees in East Jerusalem and their tens of thousands of descendants as refugees.

Yet UNWRA made no such announcement and the inhabitants of Shuafat refugee camp, who for the most part were born after 1948 and after 1967 annexation of Jerusalem, remain registered Palestinian refugees.

So…
UNRWA registers residents of Israel as refugees

UNWRA registers 2.2 million Jordanian citizens as refugees

UNWRA registers Palestinians who live in the area they call Palestine and seek recognition of, as refugees

UNWRA has recently been in the news for allegedly selling aid in Gaza. All ‘lies’ of course. Shush…🤫

UNWRA has recently advised that Palestinians in Gaza can’t afford to buy the free aid that is in Gaza. Again, shush… 🤫

UNWRA needs to be defunded/dismantled, not because UNWRA employees may have been stealing aid to sell on to their fellow Gazans, not because some UNWRA employees may have participated in the massacre on October 7th, but because UNWRA has registered millions of people as refugees, over the decades, who do not meet the basic criteria applied to EVERY other group of refugees in the world.

Had the rest of the world been recognised as refugees in the same way as UNWRA does for the Palestinians the (relative) peace that has marked much of the world since WW2 would have been replaced by constant war.

There must be a Hamas tunnel underneath it! /s Seriously, what is going on?!

UNWRA staff are literally risking their lives by staying in Rafah to try to help their communities which are without hospitals, and almost out of food, fuel, water etc whilst being attacked by tanks and bombs whilst these wasters do this. They aren't fit to lace their boots.

Oh ya, I forgot to mention that I’ve held a baby dying of starvation within hours of her death- that’s my secret agenda. But who cares about the Palestinian civilians being starved? Cearly not Israel. These children are just unfortunate by products of war that generate “heart jerking headlines” and the answer is to control the information flow.

ok .
-So Israel is a state so they get to make up their own laws because they have self determination. They make up a law that people who share their religion can come and live there regardless of when their ancestors left. Nice.

-But Palestinians were kicked out of their homes ( it’s ok because Hitler did it too and everyone was doing it) and everyone was doing it at the time so that’s ok- “nothing extraordinary to the times”. They were offered 30billion and it wasn’t enough. This doesn’t seem like a good deal to me, land is finite and it clearly wasn’t attractive enough to them. I’ve done lots of good property deals btw. This is how it works-in a deal, one part makes an offer and the other chooses to accept. If it’s not accepted, you either abandon the deal or make a better offer. I have kept a statute acre of my ancestral land- it doesn’t make financial sense but after 160 years of back and forth to England and New York, fighting the British for it and eventually getting the absentee English landlord out, no, I don’t think I’d sell it to some Israeli for 30billion .
-An inalienable right is a right that cannot be taken away from you- it doesn’t need a law. If the Palestinians had a state of course, they could make up a law. You are obviously viewing this from the pro-Israeli perspective rather than an internationalist perspective. I think you should declare your intersets here. I’m not Israeli or Palestinian , nor Muslim nor Jewish. I have one half Jewish cousin . No Muslim relatives or close associates in business.
I draw your attention to the following information about the right of return which is from Wikipedia but referenced
“The right is formulated in several modern treaties and conventions, most notably in the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the 1948 Fourth Geneva Convention. Legal scholars have argued that one or more of these international human rights instruments have attained the status of customary international lawand that the right of return is therefore binding on non-signatories to these conventions.[4][5]”

Finally the people of Northern Ireland, Rwanda and South Africa peacefully coexist with their former adversaries so a single state solution to this type of conflict is not impossible. But Israel has never made any meaningful concessions in relation to land-the opposite in fact.

@Kindatired
So you have a right of return to Israel (“democracy “) if you or your mother are/were the right religion.
But no return and no compensation if you are a Palestinian displaced in 1948 because Israel (“democracy “ makes the laws .

You are mixing up the Law of Return, an actual law, made by Israel - a sovereign country - and the so called ‘right’ of return. The Palestinians possess no such right. Regarding compensation, Palestinians were offered a $30 billion package in the 2000 peace negotiations. Arafat rejected the deal.

Israel disregards the UN even though it owes its existence to the UN.
The basis for propping up a religious state is the Holocaust which occurred prior to 1948.
The UN General Assembly Resolution 3236, passed on 22 November 1974, declared the right of return to be an "inalienable right". It’s an inalienable right that doesn’t need a specific law.

The UN General Assembly’s powers are limited, it cannot confer legal or binding rights. Therefore, the resolution is purely advisory it does not and cannot create a ‘right’ to anything including ‘return’.
The recommendations that were put forward to the Security Council in June 1976 by the committee set up from resolution 3236 including the ‘right’ to return were rejected.

Furthermore, dialogue is essential for political solutions and denying the right of return is not a good starting point because it denies the 1948 Nakba which is the reason that right of return is being pursued in the first place.

Highlighting that the Palestinians do not possess a ‘right’ of return is exactly a good starting point. It was a deal breaker in the previous negotiations of 2000. It doesn’t deny that Palestinians were expelled from the land. There is no International law that requires Israel to allow Palestinian refugees and their descendants to return to Israel. No treaties or binding UN resolutions were violated by Israel's expulsion of Palestinians during the 1948 conflict and none provide a right to return for Palestinian refugees.

Anyone who denies the validity of the state of Israel to exist as a Jewish state would get jumped on with cries of anti-semitism but it seems ok to deny the Nakba or suggest that people who were displaced forcibly within living memory should be compensated by the wealthy state that is responsible. The wealthy state that spends billions of US dollars killing those they dispossessed.

A slightly confused argument. I mentioned in a previous post that 700,000 Palestinians were expelled (some fled) in 1948. This was not extraordinary at that time. Just like the 10 million ethnic Germans expelled from Eastern Europe did not have the right to return to their birthplaces and very much wanted to return.

Parity of esteem is essential for peaceful coexistence, be it in a single state or a two state solution or a multistate solution.

Mental health is very important on both sides, I think the Israelis would reject a single state for their mental health (probably physical health as well).

And it’s completely unreasonable to try to make the Palestinians pay for the actions of other Middle Eastern and North African countries who expelled Jewish communities- let’s just pre-empt that justification because it’s a bit whataboutery we’ve just heard too often..

Thank you for bringing attention to other communities being expelled from their birthplaces too in the 1940s and 1950s. The expulsion of the Palestinians was - as mentioned before - nothing extraordinary to the times.

Undermining UNWRA is effectively denying the right of return and handing over to settlers what rightfully belongs to Palestinians and this will not lead to peace.

UNWRA is the ideological backbone of the so called right to return. Palestinians do not possess a right to return to Israel. For too long advocates for Palestine have nourished, indulged and sustained the Palestinians to keep fighting for an annihilationist cause, rather than moving on and creating a prosperous lives for themselves.

So you have a right of return to Israel (“democracy “) if you or your mother are/were the right religion.
But no return and no compensation if you are a Palestinian displaced in 1948 because Israel (“democracy “ makes the laws .
Israel disregards the UN even though it owes its existence to the UN.
The basis for propping up a religious state is the Holocaust which occurred prior to 1948.
The UN General Assembly Resolution 3236, passed on 22 November 1974, declared the right of return to be an "inalienable right". It’s an inalienable right that doesn’t need a specific law.
Furthermore, dialogue is essential for political solutions and denying the right of return is not a good starting point because it denies the 1948 Nakba which is the reason that right of return is being pursued in the first place.
Anyone who denies the validity of the state of Israel to exist as a Jewish state would get jumped on with cries of anti-semitism but it seems ok to deny the Nakba or suggest that people who were displaced forcibly within living memory should be compensated by the wealthy state that is responsible. The wealthy state that spends billions of US dollars killing those they dispossessed.
Parity of esteem is essential for peaceful coexistence, be it in a single state or a two state solution or a multistate solution.
And it’s completely unreasonable to try to make the Palestinians pay for the actions of other Middle Eastern and North African countries who expelled Jewish communities- let’s just pre-empt that justification because it’s a bit whataboutery we’ve just heard too often..
Undermining UNWRA is effectively denying the right of return and handing over to settlers what rightfully belongs to Palestinians and this will not lead to peace.

The obvious place to begin with dismantling UNWRA is the Palestinian Authority. UNWRA’s operations should be merged with those of the Palestinian Authority. Donor states could divert all financial support earmarked for running UNWRA schools and hospitals toward the Palestinian Authority. From a practical perspective nothing would change but the sign on the door.

In Jordan, there are 2.2 million refugees registered all of whom are citizens of Jordan - so not actually refugees under the definition used by UNHCR for all other refugees in the world. Most do not use UNWRA services and UNWRA’s budget for Jordan is relatively low, compared to the number of refugees it registers there. There is no reason for UNWRA to operate in Jordan at all. Donor states could directly transfer their aid budgets for UNWRA in Jordan and chart a path for the Jordanian Government to take over to provide the health and school services as it does for all of it’s other citizens.

Syria didn’t grant Palestinian refugees citizenship but allowed them entry into the economy and civil rights on par with Syrian citizens.
After the Syrian war it is highly likely there is only a fraction of the half a million refugees registered by UNWRA are actually residing in Syria. Many fled from the war to other countries and have become citizens of other countries (even though they are still counted on the refugee list in Syria). All those residing in Syria, should be transferred to the care and protection of UNHCR. In doing so, they would become official refugees subject to the protection UNHCR. The funding for UNWRA in Syria would be transferred to UNHCR which would operate in the same manner that it operates with other refugee populations around the world. It would seek and implement individual solutions that would end their refugee status either by becoming full citizens of Syria or resettling elsewhere.

In Lebanon the Palestinian refugees have been treated the worst. Lebanon did not make the Palestinians citizens, they were not integrated into the economy. The Palestinian refugees and their descendants in Lebanon have been prohibited from employment in over twenty professions and their ability to enter and exit the country is highly limited. Around half live in refugee camps and many live in dire poverty. The policy with respect to refugees in Lebanon should be, as with the refugees from Syria to transfer responsibility for Palestinian registered refugees from UNWRA to UNHCR. In 2017 an official census in Lebanon found that the number of registered refugees living there was only one-third of the number in UNWRA’s records. Since the refugee population is much smaller than previously thought it should be easier to find individual solutions for them. UNHCR would advocate to end the discriminatory regime against them in Lebanon, while it would also seek solutions of resettlement in third countries and even attempt to naturalisation in Lebanon.

I will deal with Gaza in another post when I have time.

UNWRA is the ideological backbone of the idea of return. The idea of the ‘right’ to return which the Palestinians do not possess is the crux of the conflict. This has always impeded the 2 state solution idea. Until the Palestinians (and the rest of the Arab states) can agree that the Palestinians should live side by side with Israel not instead of the state of Israel there can be no peace.

Fantastic analysis if you want the point of view of those who carried out the ethnic cleansing. It's so annoying when you ethnically cleanse a place and they keep moaning about wanting to come back to live on the land they were forcibly removed from.

@Alwayslookonthe I can see your argument to some extent, but how would it work in practice in the current situation? Gaza is more than half destroyed. The West Bank is occupied and being aggressively settled. Are the surrounding countries that host many of the Palestinian refugees just supposed to absorb them without support, even though a huge proportion of their population are already refugees from various conflicts with dwindling international support, and they are experiencing huge unemployment and structural collapse? Any realistic settlement requires the establishment of a safe and autonomous Palestinian state (and I'm aware both sides have been responsible for derailing past attempts) as well as support and a realistic plan for surrounding host countries.

Hmm . The Palestinians should just suck it up and move on . I see. I wonder how that will work
I have an idea- how about the illegal settlers move out of the West Bank and give their houses to the Gazan whose homes were blown up.
Would that work?

@Alwayslookonthe fantastic analysis.

Interesting analysis.

@BabaBarrio
I fundamentally disagree with you. There is every reason for the definition of “refugee” to be updated to reflect a conflict that endures far longer, decades longer, than originally anticipated and far longer than every other ongoing conflict since the creation of the UN.

The UN definition while it seems unique and just for Palestinians, is written to apply to any other refugees in the world with the same circumstances. The fact that no other ones currently exist that have been refugees for as long as the Palestinians shows how much better all other refugees are supported, it doesn’t show Palestinians being treated better.

There are no valid reasons why UNWRA should change the definition of a refugee as defined by the permanent refugee agency UNHCR (United Nations High Commission of Refugees) that deals with all the other refugees in the world and ratified by the 1951 UN Convention and Protocol.
Relating to the status of refugees. Under Article 1(c)(3) a person is no longer a refugee if, for example, he or she has “acquired a new nationality.” UNWRA’s definition of a Palestinian refugee, which is not anchored in treaty includes no such provision.

UNHCR has settled millions of refugees, UNWRA hasn’t settled one refugee and registers 2.2 million citizens of a Jordan as refugees who have been born in Jordan, never having fled from anywhere.

Even a former UNWRA employee James Lindsay, who was employed with UNWRA from 2000 to 2007, advocated for reform. One of those reforms were to ‘End the oxymoronic policy of providing refugee aid to “citizens refugees”. A great number of UNWRA aid recipients are not refugees in any conventional meaning of the term, including the definition used by the office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, the body that coordinates worldwide action to protect all other refugees around the world. These “refugees” are citizens of a country and thereby have a claim on that country’s protection and services.’

Throughout the world in the 1940s and 1950s (when the Palestinians became refugees) millions and millions of refugees were rehabilitated in the countries that had given them shelter.

600,000 Chinese fled to Hong Kong in 1949
It was tough, it was tragic, but they moved on.

14 million Hindu and Muslim refugees found shelter in India and Pakistan, respectively, following partition of the Indian subcontinent in 1947.
It was tough, it was tragic, but they moved on.

3.1 million fled North Korea to South Korea in the 1950-1953 conflict.
It was tough, it was tragic, but they moved on.

800,000 Jews had to flee or were expelled from the Arab countries of Iraq, Egypt, Syria, Yemen, Algeria, Morocco and Tunisia.
It was tough, it was tragic, but they moved on.

10 million ethnic Germans were brutally expelled from Eastern Europe when the borders were redrawn, not because they were Nazis, just because they belonged to the ethnic group that had lost the war. They had lived there for centuries.
These ethnic German refugees also wanted to return to their birthplaces much like the Palestinians. They did not want to return under foreign rule meaning they wanted Germany to recapture these territories forcefully.
All of Germany’s political leaders paid lip service to the refugee’s demands and publically supported them but, in reality, did nothing to advance them. Germany focussed on the refugee’s full integration into Germany and pursued wealth redistribution to achieve this. By the early 1960s, the voices demanding a return had all but disappeared.
The German Government realised that to pursue the refugee’s desire to return to their birthplace would have resulted in FURTHER CONFLICT AND WAR.
It was tough, it was tragic, but they moved on.

700,000 Palestinians were expelled or fled from the Mandate in 1948.
It was tough, it was tragic but it is time to MOVE ON.

UNRWA is the ideological backbone that gives birth (decade after decade, generation after generation) to the idea of return. They possess no ‘right’ to return.

Had the rest of the world been recognised as refugees in the same way as UNWRA does for the Palestinians the (relative) peace that has marked much of the world since WW2 would have been replaced by constant war.

This is the reason why UNWRA should be defunded/dismantled.

UNWRA doesn’t operate under any International standards when registering refugees.

I think this is a bit silly. UNWRA is an arm of the United Nations- the top international standard setting entity- so there is no higher international standard in existence.

@Alwayslookonthe
I fundamentally disagree with you. There is every reason for the definition of “refugee” to be updated to reflect a conflict that endures far longer, decades longer, than originally anticipated and far longer than every other ongoing conflict since the creation of the UN.

The UN definition while it seems unique and just for Palestinians, is written to apply to any other refugees in the world with the same circumstances. The fact that no other ones currently exist that have been refugees for as long as the Palestinians shows how much better all other refugees are supported, it doesn’t show Palestinians being treated better.

You ask about the refugees in Gaza and West Bank and ask what are they refugees from if they are in territory that is generally regarded as originally Palestinian (1947 Partition)? Look at the time sequenced maps and read the reports that show constant displacement of thousands of Palestinians from their homes every year since the foundation of Israel. The Palestinians are fleeing repeatedly into smaller and smaller bits of land while Israel then occupies, settles and in some cases annexes it.

In fact it states “since the outbreak of hostilities” so it can be read as inclusive.
No it can’t be read as inclusive but nice try.

The UN 1951 Refugee Convention that Israel signed and agreed to also defines the Palestinians as refugees and gives refugees a right of return, which Israel has also chosen to ignore.

Refugee status in itself does not entail a right to return to ones original country.

The major treaty on refugees, the Refugee Convention (1951) and its 1967 UN protocol relating to the status of refugees does not even address the issue of repatriation.
It is primarily concerned with preventing the forced return of refugees to their state of origin and guaranteeing their rights in the state to which they fled.
The convention promised its signatories the right to decide which refugees, if any, would be allowed to settle in their territories.

The UN has Palestinian families registered as refugees from the nakba of 1947-49, so the United Nations says they are refugees with right of return.

UNRWA refuses to divulge how many registered refugees meets its own original definition ' of having lived in Mandatory Palestine between June 1946 and May 1948'.
A calculation based on life expectancy produces an estimate that a few tens of thousands at the most 100,000.

The vast majority of those registered with UNWRA have never fled their homes.
“Because this is the longest running conflict ever in UN history and Israel has repeatedly refused to implement resolutions to allow the refugees to return since 1951.”

Refugee status in itself does not entail a right to return to ones original country.

The major treaty on refugees, the Refugee Convention (1951) and its 1967 UN protocol relating to the status of refugees does not even address the issue of repatriation.
It is primarily concerned with preventing the forced return of refugees to their state of origin and guaranteeing their rights in the state to which they fled.
The convention promised its signatories the right to decide which refugees, if any, would be allowed to settle in their territories.

UNWRA has registered millions of people as refugees, over the decades, who do not meet the basic criteria applied to EVERY other group of refugees in the world.
“They do meet the criteria. The displacement of Palestinians to West Bank and Gaza has been a continuous trickle.”

They may meet UNWRA’s unique registration criteria. Eligibility requirements to be recognised as a Palestinian refugee changed in 1965 to include third generation descendants. In 1982 eligibility changed again to include ALL descendants of Palestinian males. The Result?
The creation of a permanent and perpetually growing population of Palestinian refugees.
They do not meet UNHCR’s criteria of a refugee which applies to every other group of refugees in the world.

This is because 2.2 million refugees are citizens of Jordan.

The Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank consider themselves to be living in Palestine. They engage in efforts to have Palestine recognised as an existing state on International forums. So 1 million Palestinians in Gaza and 870,000 in the West Bank registered as refugees are actually living in what they themselves claim (and seek recognition of) as Palestine.
So what Palestine are these refugees from?
The Palestine that will one day replace Israel?

The rest are in Lebanon and Syria 2/3 have left and have become citizens of other countries.

Civil war in Syria highlighted even further the paradoxes inherent in the UNIQUE manner in which Palestinian refugees are classified and treated differently from every other refugee.
Millions of Syrians have been forced to flee including Palestinian refugees living in Syria. Palestinian refugees who have managed to flee to Europe and become citizens of Germany remain on UNWRA’s books in Syria as registered refugees, whilst Syrian refugees that have become citizens of Germany are (quite rightly) no longer considered refugees.

UNWRA doesn’t operate under any International standards when registering refugees.

With regards to the 2.2 million registered refugees in Jordan; nowhere in the world are there citizens of a country, born in that country, never been displaced by war, are refugees from another country in which they have NEVER LIVED.

“UNWRA currently registers 5.9 million refugees. No one comes off the list.”
They do when they die and their descendents have the right to be registered.

“The vast majority of those registered with UNWRA have never fled their homes.”
Because this is the longest running conflict ever in UN history and Israel has repeatedly refused to implement resolutions to allow the refugees to return since 1951.

“UNWRA has registered millions of people as refugees, over the decades, who do not meet the basic criteria applied to EVERY other group of refugees in the world.”
They do meet the criteria. The displacement of Palestinians to West Bank and Gaza has been a continuous trickle.

“UNWRA ensures that the conflict with Israel will continue and remain intractable. This is why UNWRA should be dismantled/defunded.”
Why it almost sounds like you think the UN is a front for Hamas. You could not reveal your conspiracy theory and propaganda informed viewpoint any better.

“The Security Council resolution 237 was issued in 1967 after the Six-Day War. It deals with the conflict in 1967, nowhere does it mention the refugees from the 1947-49 conflict. Furthermore, Security Council resolutions cannot be used retroactively.”

Nowhere does it limit itself to the refugees in the 1967 six day war. In fact it doesn’t even mention the six day war or the war of 1967 or any date at all.

In fact it states “since the outbreak of hostilities” so it can be read as inclusive. The UN 1951 Refugee Convention that Israel signed and agreed to also defines the Palestinians as refugees and gives refugees a right of return, which Israel has also chosen to ignore. The UN has Palestinian families registered as refugees from the nakba of 1947-49, so the United Nations says they are refugees with right of return. This isn’t a fringe opinion.

Secondly, it’s not being used retroactively, the point made was the UNSC issued a binding resolution in 1967 reminding Israel specifically of their obligations towards the refugees in the areas they had seized, which Israel ignored in 1967 and every year after so here we are.

Just like they are currently ignoring the UNSC 2728 calling for an immediate ceasefire.
https://news.un.org/en/story/2024/03/1147951

If in 2050, someone were to list past and future ignoring of the UNSC, UN Charter and any UN conventions lip service agreed to but never implemented by Israel, it won’t be asking for “retroactive implementation” of a resolution either, it is asking for an overdue implementation.

The view that resolution 194 created a Palestinian right of return mischaracterises the resolution’s legal status. The UN General Assembly’s powers are limited, it cannot confer legal or binding rights. Therefore, the resolution is purely advisory it does not and cannot create a ‘right’ to anything including ‘return’.

The Security Council resolution 237 was issued in 1967 after the Six-Day War. It deals with the conflict in 1967, nowhere does it mention the refugees from the 1947-49 conflict. Furthermore, Security Council resolutions cannot be used retroactively.

It is a bit odd to find advocates for the Palestinians citing after-the-fact Security Council resolutions from different conflicts which contain directives about return that the Security Council specifically chose not to issue regarding Israel and the Palestinians.

In short the Palestinians do NOT possess a ‘right’ to return.

UNWRA currently registers 5.9 million refugees. No one comes off the list.

The vast majority of those registered with UNWRA have never fled their homes.
UNWRA has registered millions of people as refugees, over the decades, who do not meet the basic criteria applied to EVERY other group of refugees in the world.

UNWRA ensures that the conflict with Israel will continue and remain intractable.
This is why UNWRA should be dismantled/defunded.