Why do Palestinian refugees have a separate refugee agency?

Again.

You have to read the link. Have you been giggling too much to read?

”Established principles and practice – as well as realities on the ground - clearly refute the argument that the right of return of Palestine refugees would disappear or be abandoned if UNHCR were responsible for these refugees.”

If that’s your take away from it, then I’m afraid you are even less convincing.

Show me something that gives the Palestinians a ‘right to return’ to Israel.

He’s not defending its existence, he is stating accurately that UNHCR taking over the Palestinian refugee population would not result in them losing refugee status or their right of return.

There is no sleight of hand going on. The issue is that Israel refuses to recognise the UN authority in regards to the Palestinians refugee status and right of return.

I am afraid I trust the UN website and UN official on their definitions and regulations more than I do you.

I did giggle that UNRWA was being justified by quoting from the UNRWA website. 😂

The UNHCR did not exist when the UNRWA was established.

The UNRWA has a specific mandate, established under a specific UN resolution ….. but has been ongoing ever since

The UNHCR has a wider mandate regarding refugees from anywhere rather than establishing other single mandates

Perhaps you should read the entirety of this thread.
To be clear, Palestinians do NOT have a ‘right of return’ into the sovereign state of Israel under any kind of International law. There is no precedent of a country being forced to accept a group of people against its will, and Palestinians, despite impressive efforts, cannot make up laws that gives them something that does not exist.

Here is where the sleight of hand comes in, UNRWA omits crucial details from its site.
Of course it is possible for there to be multiple generations of refugees by UNHCR, IF the multiple generations all fit the primary 1951 definition of a refugee. For example, if the granddaughter of a refugee is also outside the country of her nationality due to a well founded fear of being persecuted, she too is a primary refugee. But she is NOT a refugee due to descent, because there is no provision for refugee status based on descent in the 1951 refugee convention or in internationally accepted practices for refugees who are not Palestinian refugees.

Almost all of Jordan’s 2.2 million UNRWA-designated refugees would lose their status under UNHCR criteria, as would most of Syria’s 560,000 and just under half of Lebanon’s 521,000. All 2.17 million UNRWA-designated refugees in Gaza, the West Bank would lose that status were those areas to become parts of a sovereign Palestinian state.

According to the UN, and this includes the UNHCR, they do. Pls read the explainer I linked which references the applicable legal documents.

Plus the Palestinians don’t possess a ‘right to return’.

Yes they would still be considered refugees under UNHCR. Please read the entirety of my post and the link.

@SummerFeverVenice
If UNRWA were absorbed into UNHCR, it would make no difference to the refugee status of Palestinians or result in settled status in host foreign countries.
Incorrect. Most would not be considered refugees under the UNHCR definition.

If it were, then Israel would lose all of its powers to vet UN employees and process/monitor/audit the UN aid funds being spent in the Occupied Palestinian Territories.

If UNRWA were absorbed into UNHCR, it would make no difference to the refugee status of Palestinians or result in settled status in host foreign countries. The UNHCR has also had refugees with intergenerational protracted refugee status in various countries. The UN regulations are clear that voluntary repatriation back to the country of origin is the preference in all refugee cases and it is up to the states involved to create safe conditions to and allow refugees to return. This explainer is from 2011, but the regulations it is based on have not changed so it is still relevant:
https://www.unrwa.org/newsroom/features/exploding-myths-unrwa-unhcr-and-palestine-refugees

“It is argued that if UNRWA was disbanded and responsibility for Palestinian refugees handed over to UNHCR they would be resettled out of Israel and give up the right of return. Is this the case and if not, what would UNHCR’s role be?
Gunness: This is not the case. Palestine refugees are entitled to a just and lasting solution to their plight.”

”It is often said that UNRWA perpetuates the Palestinian refugee problem by granting refugee status through the generations and that handing the refugees over to UNHCR would not allow this. Is this the case?
This is not the case. As I have already noted, Palestine refugees are entitled to a just and lasting solution to their plight. In the absence of and pending the realisation of such a solution, it stands to reason that their status as refugees will remain. Questions raised about the passing of refugee status through generations stem from a lack of understanding of the international protection regime. These questions serve only to distract from the need to address the real reasons for the protracted Palestinian refugee situation, namely the absence of negotiated solution to the underlying political issues.”

It points out that “2008 UNHCR document, Protracted Refugee Situations: A discussion paper prepared for the High Commissioner’s dialogue on Protection Challenges. Paragraph 7 of the document observes that "Protracted refugee situations are usually created and sustained by the failure to resolve … differences in a peaceful manner and in a way that respects human rights."

“Can you give real historical examples of where this is the case with UNHCR refugees?
As made clear in the criteria for derivative status above, in all cases, refugees and their descendants retain the status of refugees until that status lapses through the achievement of a just and lasting solution….

During a meeting of its Standing Committee in March 2008, UNHCR informed that "at the end of 2006, over half of the 9.9 million refugees worldwide were living in exile in protracted situations." It noted that "The 10 largest populations living in protracted situations were: 1. Over 1 million Afghan refugees in Pakistan, 2. Nearly 1 million Afghan refugees in the Islamic Republic of Iran, 3. 350,000 Burundians in the United Republic of Tanzania, 4. 215,000 Sudanese in Uganda, 5. 174,000 Somalis in Kenya, 6. 157,000 Eritreans in Sudan, 7. 132,000 Angolans in the Democratic Republic of Congo, 8. 132,000 refugees from Myanmar in Thailand, 9. 128,000 Congolese (DRC) in the United Republic of Tanzania, 10. 107,000 Bhutanese in Nepal."

In my opinion, the primary reason UNRWA is administratively separated is because Israel is highly involved in the day to day operations of UNRWA. They security check every employee, they control and audit all the aid money UNRWA receives to ensure Hamas and other terrorist groups cannot benefit. No other country demands this kind of finger in the pie with how the UN manages refugees they have created. If they did, then UNHCR would likely spin off another UNRWA type mini agency for other large refugee populations. It’s like a seperate profit centre in a business- you split it out to keep the accounting clean and transparent.

@Oodiks

As you know most of the registered Palestinian refugees are not refugees at all in any sense from the definition set out by the UNHCR. They could definitely be absorbed by UNHCR.

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 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 most of these 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 refugees 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.

Probably best to keep UNWRA up and running whilst the population of Gaza is enduring a genocide. Arguing for its dissolution might look like a prong of that genocide otherwise.

I think they may have been asking something about if you/we are willing to crept Israel’s continued part in keeping Gaza underdeveloped? They said something about how since 2005 Israel has continually destroyed Gaza. It read like “Israel left, Hamas destroyed some things that got rebuilt, Israel repeatedly invade and deliberately destroy infrastructure” ie the only point of them going in was to blow up roads etc as opposed to going in to try to destroy another terror threat. Gaza will be rebuilt and it will probably be destroyed again more than a couple of times in my life time. Israel goes in to eliminate a terror threat, Hamas retaliates by launching another intifada, Israel goes in to neutralise the threat and round we go again.

I suspect that the reason unwra is still separate is that unhcr doesn't want it - what a headache to have to work with Hamas. I agree its interesting that its hard to find something that clearly addresses your question.

I answered the question you directly asked me in the post that I quoted.

I'm not spending my evening quibbling with you. You obviously can't handle your narrative being questioned and so are getting defensive and patronising, if that's the type of poster you want to be that's fine but I'm out.