The United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA) has found itself embroiled in a legal battle after firing at least nine employees suspected of involvement in the Hamas terrorist attacks in Israel on October 7. Victims of the attacks and their families have filed a lawsuit in a New York federal court, accusing UNRWA and the individuals implicated of aiding and abetting Hamas in committing international torts.
The United Nations (U.N.) has asserted that the lawsuit should be dismissed, citing diplomatic immunity granted to the U.N. and its subsidiaries under the U.S.-U.N. charter. The U.S. Justice Department has supported this argument, emphasizing the U.N.'s immunity from prosecution as per the Charter of the United Nations.
The lawsuit alleges that UNRWA knowingly provided support to Hamas, including facilitating the construction of Hamas command centers, storing weapons in UNRWA facilities, and using Hamas-approved textbooks in schools. The DOJ's brief also mentions that UNRWA staff were affiliated with Hamas and were paid in a manner that benefited the terrorist organization.
However, critics, including Mark Goldfeder and Anne Bayefsky, have raised concerns about the DOJ's stance, questioning the assumption of immunity for UNRWA and its employees. Goldfeder argues that UNRWA may not be entitled to immunity under the International Organizations Immunities Act of 1945, while Bayefsky highlights the potential lack of accountability for UNRWA despite its connections to Hamas.
The debate over UNRWA's immunity and its alleged ties to Hamas continues to spark controversy, with differing opinions on whether immunity should extend to actions that aid a designated terrorist organization. The outcome of this legal battle will likely have significant implications for the accountability of international organizations and their employees.
