RSS
UNRWA Forces Refugee Status on Palestinians in Perpetuity — Even Against Their Wishes

Security personnel work at the UNRWA headquarters, in Jerusalem, May 10, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Ammar Awad
A Palestinian walks into a UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) office and asks to be removed from its refugee registry. UNRWA says no.
It sounds like the start of a bad joke. But the joke has been going on for nearly a century, and it has been at the expense of Palestinians, Israelis, and international donors.
When Israel declared independence in 1948, neighboring Arab countries failed to smother the nascent Jewish state in the cradle. A refugee crisis emerged, with around 750,000 Arabs fleeing their homes in Mandatory Palestine. The United Nations created UNRWA to address the refugee issue. But instead of resolving the problem, UNRWA has prolonged it.
UNRWA has developed a massive infrastructure over the years. By expanding the definition of refugees under its care to automatically include the patrilineal descendants of refugees — unlike how the United Nations treats all other refugees — UNRWA has ballooned its registry to nearly 6 million, and its budget has swelled to more than $1 billion annually.
Mo Ghaoui is a naturalized US citizen and an UNRWA-recognized refugee. His citizenship would preclude him from refugee status under the 1951 Refugee Convention — but not so with UNRWA. Ghaoui entered an UNRWA office in Lebanon to pose the question: What if someone wanted to be removed from UNRWA’s list?
“Why?” the employee asked him, in Ghaoui’s account. “There’s nothing to lose. No one does it. No one. We don’t have this procedure.” The UNRWA staffer told Ghaoui that he cannot move past his victimhood identity in the agency’s books.
The enforced permanence of the Palestinian refugee issue is absurd. Thousands of Jews were displaced in the same war that led to UNRWA’s creation, but they neither received their own UN agency nor are they still counted as refugees. The same goes for the 850,000 Jews who were forced from Arab lands in the decades following Israel’s War of Independence.
Moreover, UNRWA was founded just years after the end of World War II, which saw more than 50 million people uprooted from their homes in Europe, including my grandparents. If UNRWA standards were applied universally, I would be a refugee thanks to my father’s birth in a displaced persons camp.
That would be preposterous — just like handing refugee status eternally to the descendants of those displaced in 1948.
For example, real estate developer Mohamed Anwar Hadid, whose father left Nazareth in 1948, is reported to be an UNRWA-recognized refugee even though he now lives in California. This would make his American-born, millionaire model daughters, Bella and Gigi, refugees as well.
The same applies for Zahwa Arafat, the daughter of Yasser Arafat, the late Palestinian president who reportedly stole billions of dollars from his own people, allowing Zahwa to live in Paris and own prime real estate in London.
But UNRWA isn’t just a slap in the face to common sense — its support for terrorism is an obstacle to peace as well.
Of UNRWA’s 13,000 employees in Gaza, Israeli security documents revealed that 440 are active in Hamas’s military operations and 2,000 are registered Hamas operatives. At least nine UNRWA employees took part directly in the October 7 massacre, including at least one who stole the body of a dead Israeli and brought it back to Gaza as a bargaining chip.
In February 2024, Israel discovered a large Hamas data center underneath UNRWA headquarters that ran cables through the UN facility above. Hamas stored weapons in other UNRWA facilities. And a senior Hamas leader eliminated in an Israeli strike in September 2024 was the head of the UNRWA teachers’ union in Lebanon.
IMPACT-se, an international research organization that monitors and analyzes education around the world, has catalogued many cases of UNRWA radicalizing future generations of Palestinians. For example, a textbook used in UNRWA schools praises jihadists, including the perpetrators of October 7, instructing students to count using martyrs as a unit of measurement and teaching pupils the physics behind attacking Israeli soldiers.
Moreover, several UNRWA staffers lauded the Hamas Oct. 7 atrocities on social media.
Meanwhile, UNRWA has campaigned alongside Hamas against the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF), a US-funded initiative to provide aid directly to Palestinians, which prevents Hamas from siphoning the supplies. Rather than engage with GHF, UNRWA has campaigned to shutter this threat to Hamas.
And as Mo Ghaoui’s story demonstrated, UNRWA is in the business of protracting the refugee crisis, not solving it. While the UN Refugee Agency, which oversees all non-Palestinian refugees, offers a variety of solutions to help refugees improve their lives, including resettlement in a third country, UNRWA indulges the Palestinians’ desire to move to Israel en masse and overwhelm the only Jewish-majority country in the world.
The inflated rosters and expanding budgets have taken their toll on UNRWA. Several donor countries pulled funds over UNRWA’s collaboration with Hamas. The agency currently faces a $200 million deficit and is considering cutting services.
UNRWA’s critical services should be transferred to neutral bodies, with the ultimate goal of weaning Palestinians off UNRWA’s unrealistic and ahistorical promises.
Reform is not enough — UNRWA is an obstacle to Israeli-Palestinian peace and must be dismantled.
David May is a research manager and senior research analyst at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD). Follow David on X @DavidSamuelMay.
The post UNRWA Forces Refugee Status on Palestinians in Perpetuity — Even Against Their Wishes first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Hamas Steals Aid — But The New York Times and Wall Street Journal Blame Israel
The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal have recently reported on starvation in Gaza, blaming Israel and all but absolving the terrorist group Hamas. But this ignores the reality on the ground, and only helps Hamas spin its narrative.
In the Times report, “No Proof Hamas Routinely Stole U.N. Aid, Israeli Military Officials Say,” reporter Natan Odenheimer claims:
… the Israeli military never found proof that the Palestinian militant group had systematically stolen aid from the United Nations, the biggest supplier of emergency assistance to Gaza for most of the war, according to two senior Israeli military officials and two other Israelis involved in the matter. (NYT, July 26, 2025)
For starters, the Times headline would have been less deceptive if it had read “Some Israeli Officials Say,” because there is no doubt that other senior Israeli military officials would have strongly disagreed.
In fact, at the behest of senior IDF officials, the IDF website has a special section titled The UNRWA-Hamas Connection, which includes numerous reports filled with conclusive evidence proving that UNRWA (the main UN body in Gaza that distributes aid) is essentially an arm of Hamas.
Hamas freely uses UNRWA facilities for its terrorist purposes (with only sporadic and perfunctory objections from the UN), and many UNRWA officials and workers are either closely associated with Hamas or are actual members of Hamas. UNRWA workers even took part in the October 7, 2023, mass terrorist attack on Israel.
In other words, Odenheimer’s core claim that Israel has presented no proof that Hamas stole aid from the United Nations is both inaccurate and nonsensical, since Hamas can’t, in effect, steal from itself. Taking control of UNRWA aid, appropriating some for its own use, controlling its distribution to civilians, and selling the rest to shopkeepers are basics in Hamas funding of its operations and control of the Gaza population.
In support of his claims Odenheimer cited a Reuters report based on a USAID study, noting:
An internal U.S. government analysis came to [a] similar conclusion, Reuters reported on Friday. It found no evidence of systematic Hamas theft of U.S.-funded humanitarian supplies, the report said.
This is more deception. Odenheimer omitted key points from the Reuters report, including 1) that the State Department disputed USAID’s conclusions and “accused traditional humanitarian groups of covering up ‘aid corruption,’’’ 2) that “because Palestinians who receive aid cannot be vetted, it was possible that U.S.-funded supplies went to administrative officials of Hamas,” and 3) that “The majority of incidents [of theft or diversion] could not be definitively attributed to a specific actor … Partners often largely discovered the commodities had been stolen in transit without identifying the perpetrator.”
Thus, contrary to Odenheimer’s claims, the details of the Reuters report did not exonerate Hamas at all.
Whatever the facts, it seems that Odenheimer and his Times colleagues will do journalistic backflips to deflect blame from Hamas and onto Israel.
Unfortunately, the news pages of The Wall Street Journal are no better, as exemplified in its July 24 story “More Children Starve in Gaza Food Crisis.”
Accompanied by a large photo of Palestinians carrying bags of flour, it all but concealed the reality that Hamas disrupts and exploits humanitarian aid for its own purposes and bears major responsibility for the hunger in Gaza, burying a dismissive reference to any such notion in the 13th paragraph. Thus, the emotive story about a reported increase in child starvation avers, only in passing, “Israel and Arab intelligence officials say the group [Hamas] steals aid and uses it to fund its war effort, which it denies.”
That was all — a nothing line surrounded by personal accounts of Palestinian suffering. The reference to both Israel and “Arab intelligence” could have cued the story’s reporters, Feliz Solomon, Abeer Ayyoub, and Summer Said, to investigate and report seriously on the issue.
Both Arabs and Israelis agree Hamas is stealing aid to fuel the war. Why bury that critical statement?
In an account largely blaming Israel for starving children — in fact, more children than ever — where are Journal news editors to demand full coverage by their reporters on this story? The publication trumpets its professional commitment to its readers this way: “Trust is a precious thing and …we are responsible for earning the trust of our readers every day. We are committed to providing the tools needed to help differentiate high-quality, fact-based news and analysis from misinformation.”
Omission and obfuscation of key information such as the Journal story focused on hungry children is “misinformation” that can radically mislead readers.
The opinion pages of the Journal are, as is well known, different from the news side that tilts against Israel almost daily, often presenting key factual information. Thus on July 25, an op-ed by Yasser Abu Shabab entitled “Gazans Are Finished With Hamas” described conditions in eastern Rafah where he and his Bedouin tribe have gained ascendance over Hamas, leading to greatly improved conditions in which people “all live without fear of Hamas stealing aid…”
This matter-of-fact observation underscored the common understanding about the role of Hamas in manipulating aid that The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal strain to conceal.
Until recently, Andrea Levin was Executive Director and President of CAMERA, and Alex Safian PhD, was Associate Director and Research Director.
RSS
The UNIFIL Peacekeeping Force in Lebanon Is a Failure; the UN Should Disband It

Soldier stands guard next to poster with images of late Hezbollah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah and late senior Hezbollah official Hashem Safieddine, at the entrance of Beirut’s southern suburbs in Lebanon, after a ceasefire between Israel and Iran-backed group Hezbollah took effect on Nov. 27, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Thaier Al-Sudani
The United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) stretches the meaning of the word “interim.” Deployed in 1978 as a peacekeeping force, its “temporary” mandate has persisted for 47 years.
During this period, three major wars have erupted between Israel and militias in Lebanon, and UNIFIL has failed to pre-empt, prevent, or resolve any of them. Costing $500 million annually, UNIFIL is an ineffective expenditure. When the UN convenes to renew its mandate in August, it should disband the force permanently.
Without UNIFIL, Lebanon’s government would be compelled to take responsibility for its sovereignty. In 2006, UNIFIL’s mandate was expanded from 2,000 to 15,000 troops, with the expectation that the increased personnel and firepower would support the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) in deploying south of the Litani River and keeping the area free of Hezbollah and its weapons.
However, UNIFIL peaked at 10,000 troops and remained as ineffective as before. Since its inception, UNIFIL has not engaged outlaw forces in any firefights or law enforcement actions. Instead, it focused on searching for Hezbollah’s arms caches and reporting them to the LAF — an effort in which it consistently failed.
Hezbollah, Iran’s proxy militia, thwarted UNIFIL’s efforts by sending military-age men in civilian clothing to burn tires, block roads, and throw stones whenever UN peacekeepers approached arms depots. When confronted, UNIFIL personnel did not use force to proceed; they simply retreated to their bases. As a result, Hezbollah built tunnels with entrances near UNIFIL bases, exploiting the proximity to deter Israeli strikes due to the risk of harming UN personnel.
Disbanding UNIFIL would also force Lebanon’s government to engage directly with Israel. Lebanon absurdly refuses any direct talks — military or otherwise — with Israel. UNIFIL serves as a conduit, hosting officers from both sides at its coastal base in Naqoura, across the border from Israel’s Rosh Hanikra.
Even in these UN-mediated meetings, Lebanese officers childishly address the UN mediator rather than their Israeli counterparts, despite knowing the Israelis are present. The world should not spend $500 million a year to facilitate such immature behavior. Adversaries worldwide maintain hotlines for communication without implying normalization or recognition. Lebanon should do the same.
Dissolving UNIFIL would also increase pressure on Hezbollah. With UNIFIL doing little military work in south Lebanon, it has shifted to funding civilian projects, such as digging wells, purchasing generators, and building roads. These initiatives, funded by UNIFIL’s $500 million budget, indirectly support Hezbollah’s position. Without this funding, Hezbollah would face greater pressure to act responsibly, prioritize economic development for its supporters, and avoid conflict with Israel in favor of peace.
Critics, including some within the US government and foreign policy circles, oppose disbanding UNIFIL. They argue for a gradual drawdown, with a phase-out over three years. However, there is no logistical justification for such a prolonged timeline. The US withdrew 50,000 troops from Iraq in six months; withdrawing 10,000 lightly armed UNIFIL personnel is a simpler task. All that is needed is the political will to end this outdated mission.
In 1978, Israel invaded south Lebanon to protect its northern border. Twenty-two years later, in 2000, Israel withdrew unilaterally, without an agreement with the Lebanese government, which was dominated by the Assad regime in Damascus. The United Nations established the Blue Line to demarcate the border between the two states, and then-Secretary-General Kofi Annan informed the Security Council that Israel had fully complied with UN Security Council Resolution 425, which mandated the withdrawal.
Even at the pivotal moment of de-escalation in 2000, UNIFIL neither disarmed Hezbollah nor dissolved itself. Instead, then as now, it functions as an entrenched component of Lebanon’s dysfunctional and corrupt state apparatus.
The Lebanese government has already urged world capitals to renew UNIFIL’s mandate at the UN’s August meeting. Local media reports suggest that the US Envoy to Syria informed Beirut officials that UNIFIL would remain, though this stance appears inconsistent with Washington’s current policy deliberations.
France, which contributes thousands of troops to UNIFIL, also opposes disbanding the force, offering no clear rationale for maintaining the status quo. Historically, Paris has maintained a conciliatory approach toward Hezbollah and played a key role in repeatedly renewing UNIFIL’s mandate.
This August, Washington must take a firm stand. Dismantling UNIFIL would foster accountability and progress in Lebanon, Israel, and the broader region.
Hussain Abdul-Hussain is a research fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies (FDD).
RSS
See No Evil: The New York Times Claims There’s No Proof Hamas Stole Aid

Trucks carrying aid move, amid a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas, in Rafah in the southern Gaza Strip, Feb. 13, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Hussam Al-Masri
No Proof Hamas Stole Aid? The New York Times Says So.
That should have been the headline of The New York Times’ most absurd claim to date: that there is “no proof” Hamas routinely stole humanitarian aid.
The real headline, published July 26, reads like satire: “No Proof Hamas Routinely Stole U.N. Aid, Israeli Military Officials Say.”
Let’s be clear: this isn’t a buried quote. It’s the article’s central claim — based, of course, on anonymous “military sources.” Unnamed. Unverifiable.
Meanwhile, Israeli military officials who are willing to go on record — like IDF spokesperson Nadav Shoshani — say the opposite. In fact, Shoshani stated quite clearly that the NYT headline is “not true.”
But once again, the Times asks us to take their word for it. Just like it did with other anonymously sourced claims later flatly denied by Israeli officials. No evidence. No names. Just trust us — we’re The New York Times.
Hamas steals aid
IDF officials say so on record
@nytimes cites anonymous “Israeli sources” denying
Then includes visual proof of Hamas operatives looting or “securing” trucks
You couldn’t make this up. pic.twitter.com/OpE6ubJEti
— HonestReporting (@HonestReporting) July 27, 2025
Except there is evidence. A lot of it.
Here is video of Hamas operatives hijacking UN aid trucks:
Here are Palestinian civilians in Gaza telling reporters Hamas is stealing aid:
Here is footage of Hamas beating Palestinians who dared reach the aid before they could:
It’s all public. Verifiable. On record. Not anonymous. Not hearsay.
So why would The New York Times ignore it?
It’s hard not to conclude this is yet another attempt to reframe Hamas — not as the armed, authoritarian, and internationally proscribed terror group it is, but as a tragically misunderstood local authority. A victim of circumstance, rather than the driving force behind Gaza’s suffering.
But facts matter. So does accountability.
When journalists obscure both, they’re not reporting the news. They’re laundering the reputation of a terror group.
The author is a contributor to HonestReporting, a Jerusalem-based media watchdog with a focus on antisemitism and anti-Israel bias — where a version of this article first appeared.