The UN Relief and Works Agency — or UNRWA — in Gaza has been replaced by over a dozen other aid organizations. UNRWA’s decades-long monopoly on aid and services has finally been broken, presenting a rare opportunity for deradicalization and, eventually, peace.

What’s more, the international community now has a model for how to replace UNRWA everywhere it operates, not just in Gaza.

The UN Security Council approved President Donald Trump’s proposal to build a “Board of Peace” on November 17 that will oversee the deradicalization of Gaza and the dismantlement of Hamas’ terror state. But Trump’s vision will not succeed until UNRWA is shuttered.

UNRWA was created with a temporary mandate after Israel’s 1947-1948 War of Independence to provide aid and services to approximately 750,000 Palestinian Arabs displaced by the war.

Over the past 75 years, UNRWA’s mandate has ballooned. Not only does UNRWA continue to provide a myriad of services in the jurisdictions where Arab refugees from 1948 immigrated, but refugee status has been passed from generation to generation. As a result, what was a relatively small refugee population in 1948 (compared to other 20th century refugee populations) is today a large and growing 21st century refugee population with no end in sight. UNRWA counts 5.9 million Palestinian refugees and has an annual budget of over a billion and half dollars.

UNRWA schools teach the belief that Palestinian refugees and their millions of descendants would all return to the modern state of Israel — an outcome that would immediately erase Israel’s Jewish majority.

The focus on “return,” coupled with the well-documented glorification of terror and incitement — including arithmetic problems involving numbers of Palestinian “martyrs,” antisemitic tropes, and naming schools and soccer fields after suicide bombers — has produced generations of indoctrinated and radicalized Palestinian children.

UNRWA staff participated in the horrors of October 7, praised the violence on social media, and Israeli hostages were held captive in UNRWA facilities for months during the war.

Once Israel exposed the extent of UNRWA’s involvement in terror, Israel’s Knesset passed legislation in October 2024 to end coordination with UNRWA and to rescind the special privileges and immunities that Israel granted the organization. Israel’s actions made it difficult for UNRWA — which had used the Jewish State as its base of operations for decades — to continue delivering its services.  

UNRWA advocates warned that Israel’s new law would have catastrophic consequences. It didn’t.

Israel’s justified decision to cease cooperating with UNRWA demonstrated quickly that other organizations and state actors — without the proclivity towards terror — were willing and able to step in.

UNRWA candidly describes itself as a quasi-state actor. This is true. For decades, UNRWA in Gaza provided services — like trash collection, education, and health clinics — that should be the responsibility of the state. In Gaza, this meant that Hamas outsourced its governmental obligations to UNRWA — with the international community picking up the bill — financially freeing Hamas terrorists to hoard weapons and build a terror fortress underneath Gaza.

Before October 7, UNRWA was the second biggest employer in Gaza and provided basic services like sanitation, health, and education to over a million people. After Hamas launched the war, UNRWA — swiftly announcing that it was not the terror organization’s responsibility to care for distressed Gazan civilians — went into high gear, taking over additional aid distribution functions.

In January 2025, when Trump negotiated the first ceasefire between Israel and Gaza, the UN established a new initiative with a dedicated online tracker to monitor aid entering Gaza. The tracker reports that UNRWA has not brought any aid into Gaza since January.

According to an Israeli official familiar with aid delivery in Gaza, the basic services performed by UNRWA before and during the first year of the war are now performed by other actors in the enclave. The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) is managing most of the waste management in the enclave. Fuel distribution is managed by the United Nations Office for Project Services (UNOPS). The World Central Kitchen has been effective at delivering food alongside the World Food Program (WFP), which is also handling the broader logistics function for aid delivery in Gaza — a function WFP performs worldwide. UNICEF has taken a larger role in children-related humanitarian responses, and the World Health Organization (WHO) is providing medical aid to field clinics and hospitals.

This is how the rest of the world manages humanitarian crises caused by wars and natural disasters, and the correct way to manage the crisis in Gaza: with organizations that have a temporary mandate to deliver aid. Once the crisis has passed, those services should once again be the responsibility of the state. 

Funding UNRWA — a self-described quasi-state — for over three quarters of a century to run services that should be the responsibility of a state government has been a calamity for Gaza and the region.

US taxpayers have historically been UNRWA’s largest donor, and have contributed over seven billion dollars to the UN agency since its creation. Congress has voiced consistent but limited support for ending UNRWA funding, and both Presidents Trump and Biden previously cut taxpayer dollars to the UN agency.

UNRWA supporters — including UNRWA’s US organization that lobbies Washington for support and funding — railed against attempts to cut funding, arguing that “UNRWA is irreplaceable,” a slogan often employed by UNRWA staff and advocates.

The reality is that UNRWA in Gaza has already been replaced.

Sadly, UNRWA’s multi-generation radicalization campaign in Gaza is not unique. The same brainwashing is happening wherever UNRWA operates, breeding terrorists and terror sympathizers across the region.

The UN and the international community can use the Gaza model to replace UNRWA’s corrosive monopoly on aid to Palestinians across the region.  

The Trump administration now has an opportunity to wield its influence with other major UNRWA donors — namely the EU, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Canada, and Japan — to redirect their UNRWA funding to relief organizations that can deliver the much-needed aid and services without the radicalizing agenda. This critical reform should be implemented if the world truly wants to bring about peace.

Enia Krivine is the senior director of the Israel Program and the National Security Network at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. Follow her on X @EKrivine.

Last month, New York City’s Park East synagogue hosted a talk on matters of American Jewish interest, including immigration to Israel.

Outside, a crowd of protesters raged against the event’s Jewish participants, including cries of “we need to make them scared,” “f—king Jewish pricks,” and “globalize the intifada” (a phrase the United States Congress officially recognizes as a call for violence against the Jewish people).

Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani’s response has been described by some Jewish leaders as “ambivalent” or “hollow.”

It was not ambivalent, and it was not hollow.

Mamdani’s statement was outright terrifying:

The Mayor-elect has discouraged the language used at last night’s protest and will continue to do so … he believes every New Yorker should be free to enter a house of worship without intimidation, and that these sacred spaces should not be used to promote activities in violation of international law.”

(Spokesperson for Mayor-elect Mamdani, November 20, 2025. Emphasis added)

International law?

A lecture at a synagogue violated international law?

To be clear, in addition to being absolutely protected by America’s First Amendment, a talk about Jewish immigration at a synagogue does not even remotely violate any international law, convention, or treaty.

It is well known that the Mayor-elect promised to arrest Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu should he ever visit New York City, supposedly for reasons of “international law.” Ironically, doing so would actually violate both US Federal law as well as several of the very international laws Mamdani claims to uphold — a legal topic I’ve previously discussed in depth.

Yet in this case, the soon-to-be mayor of New York City was not accusing a foreign leader of war crimes: he was accusing Jews.

Not Israeli leaders — Jews. American Jews. New York Jews.

For attending a talk at a synagogue.

Let that sink in for a minute.

While you do, let’s recall Amsterdam, November 2024: the local Muslim population carried out an actual, modern day pogrom against visiting Israeli soccer fans, literally hunting them through the city streets. For hours, the Dutch police were nowhere to be found.

It’s important to note that Amsterdam’s city government speaks about Israel, and treats its local Jews, in a manner starkly similar to Mamdani.

Just one example: Amsterdam police have the right to refuse assignments on moral grounds. One of the assignments police frequently refuse is protecting Jewish sites, including Holland’s National Holocaust Museum. On “moral grounds.” And with the legal support of the government.

The New York City police will soon be under the command of a mayor who accuses American Jews of war crimes. In a city where violent antisemitic attacks have already reached shocking levels, the police are about to become unreliable at best, and perhaps even hostile.

Matters under the mayor’s direct authority, such as police protection, are only the beginning. Dozens of city agencies could be next.

For example, Mamdani has promised to cut New York City’s relationship with Israel’s Technion University via Cornell University. The mayor does not directly control this decision, but he does have the power to appoint members of the board of management of the Roosevelt Island Operating Corporation, which can then force Cornell into decisions against the partnership.

In the coming years, New York City will see dozens of other political appointments, some visible and others subtle, and they will impact every aspect of the City’s culture, education, and safety, for years to come.

So what can we do about it?

To answer that question, one must first understand the scope of the problem.

At a 2001 conference in Durban, South Africa, the Palestinian Authority and its various allies (including Qatar and Iran) launched what later became known as the “Diplomatic Intifada.” Their target was the generation just being born: today’s 18-24 year old cohort. Their timeframe was decades, and their budget was essentially unlimited.

I saw this tsunami of antisemitism fast approaching during the Gaza war in 2009, and I moved to Israel shortly after. But Aliyah is not a viable or attractive option for everyone. I have dedicated my career to doing everything I can to make a meaningful change on an appropriately large scale.

For your part, you can do these things: Be utterly committed to truth at any cost and speak without compromise.

Some Jewish leaders irresponsibly called Mamdani’s statement “ambivalent” or “hollow” instead of what it was: terrifying and malicious. If uncompromising honesty endangers your job, get a new one. If it endangers your place in your community, find a new community. And if it endangers your safety — move. Yes, this takes courage, maybe even sacrifice. Yes, this is blunt, hard, and perhaps even costly advice. Yet the cost of silence will ultimately be far greater. (Remember 1938?)

Raise your children (or your future children) to understand and appreciate the importance of Israel, of Judaism, and of basic respect for truth itself. Teach them to be strong, unafraid, and true to their values. Learning starts at home, values start at home, and it all starts early.

Daniel Pomerantz is the CEO of RealityCheck, an organization dedicated to deepening public conversation through robust research studies and public speaking.

David Caine is a CAMERA fellow and second-year journalism student at the University of Florida.