By The American Contemporary
Israel has claimed intelligence, which has been reviewed by news outlets including the Wall Street Journal, that at least 12 staffers affiliated with the United Nations Relief and Work Agency (UNRWA) partook in and aided in the Hamas attack on October 7th. Further, Israeli intelligence has stated that upwards of 10% of employees operating in Gaza had connections to the Hamas terror network.
Of the 12,000 employees, Israel claims roughly 1,200 employees have some degree of connection. Further, the report alleges that 49 percent of UNRWA staffers had close relatives with established connections to Hamas, while 23 percent of male employees had affiliation or connection to Hamas, significantly higher than the reported 15 percent for the average Gaza male. This has opened international questions regarding the utilization of funds and resources given to Gaza for the purposes of humanitarian aid. The US has suspended its support, while many European peers followed suit shortly thereafter.
These accusations, while serious, are also not new. Israel has long accused several humanitarian and charitable operations in Gaza as being fronts for Hamas operations. The UN teaching effort (also part of the UNRWA) was accused in November of 2023 of celebrating the Hamas attacks and encouraging students to support the Hamas conflict. If these reports are true, not only does it raise considerable concerns regarding international financing, but also UN management and oversight. Further, this produces several new challenges and issues for both parties involved in the Hamas-Israel conflict. Additionally, we must consider the financial impact that reduced support from donor states could have on both the people of Gaza, as well as the Hamas network.
The UN has rebuked and fired the employees who Israel has directly found to have participated in the initial Hamas attack, however has continued to campaign for the UNRWA as an organization, and has urged donors to reconsider their withdraw from support. With government donations from members comprising around 92% of the UNRWA operating budget, a pause in funding from its primary donors threatens to substantially reduce the overall capability of the operation.
Yet these new revelations bring up the repeated and apparent shortcomings of the UN as an organization. To those who support Israel, this is yet another example of systemic bias against the Israeli state and perpetuates violence through ignorance at best or malice at worst. To Hamas supporters, this not only undermines the native that normal citizens of Gaza are not supporters of violence, but also creates circumstances which discredit humanitarian support, threaten to harm citizens through lack of funding, and could authorize more aggressive action in “safe zones”. In many ways, this echoes the failures of the UN during the Rwandan Genocide in the 1990s.
In 1993, the UN had launched a similar relief organization to UNRWA in Rwanda called The United Nations Assistance Mission for Rwanda (UNAMIR) (it should be noted for clarity of history, UNRWA was first established in 1949). The central mandate of the UN effort was the enforcement of the Arusha Accords, the ceasefire agreement which paused the ranging civil war which tore the country apart. However, the UN was also tasked with providing humanitarian support, including establishment of safe zones, provide security and protection for displaced persons and refugees, and to manage the distribution and allocation of supplies to in-need persons.
However, limited continued support from the UN and international community, coupled with weak execution of mandate, poor peacekeeper education, and many other shortcomings dramatically reduced the efficacy of the operation. Further, when the Hutu ethnic group’s leader was killed by Tutsi extremists, they did very little to mitigate the rapid rise in tensions. When the Hutu government moved forward with their planed genocide against the Tutsi peoples, the UN initially attempted to mitigate tensions diplomatically, but when this was discovered to be a lost cause, the UN peacekeepers began to assist in the evacuation of some citizens as well as foreigners, but for the most part abandoned the Tutsi people they were tasked with protecting. Additionally, many were left congregated in UN safe zones, easy targets for the militant killers.
While the situation is not a perfect parallel, the fundamental shortcomings appear to be similar. Much like Rwanda, the UN’s chartered mission for the relief organization appears to be poorly established. Further, lack of support and oversight has resulted in the co-opting of international funding and resources for non-dedicated and actively hostile purposes. While it is possible that a vast majority of these workers are truly benevolent and only seek to help, the presence of multiple bad actors undermines the organization as a whole and raises the question of who is truly in control of the finances, resources, and power within this group.
Further, increased destabilization in the region brought about by conflict has allowed consolidation of injured, displaced, or ill peoples in singular local areas, which has not gone unnoticed by the Hamas organization. Hamas has frequently made use of these locations (such as schools and hospitals) to organize and run their operation, as it provides effective leverage against retaliation via the humanitarian-centrism focus of the international community. Additionally, by accessing relief resources, food, medicine, and moneys which are meant for citizens are actively being used against their own interests, further escalating tensions and endangering them further.
Thus, we must stop to ask ourselves, is the UN actually performing a net benefit service to the people of Gaza (and the world at large)? Certainly, few if any would argue for the persecution and suffering of innocents. However, much like their failures in Rwanda, it appears as though the UN is actively escalating tensions while neglecting any form of official peacekeeping or accountability. Whether driven by malice, indifference, or the need to put on a façade of humanitarian concern before the international stage, this new intelligence showcases the continued laps in leadership and benefit from the UN’s operations. Perhaps it is truly time to reconsider how the organization is run, and if it actually is making the world a better place.