UNRWA’s February 2025 Claims Versus Facts document is its latest attempt to justify its existence and plead with donors to resume funding, but it only further reinforces why UNRWA has to go. UNRWA says the document is its response to “misinformation and disinformation” about the agency “based on objective, ascertainable facts, data, and firsthand information.” As shown below, many of UNRWA’s supposed “facts” are themselves misinformation and disinformation. More than anything else, this new UNRWA paper shows how truly adept UNRWA has become at evading and deflecting responsibility for its serious failures as a humanitarian agency.
UNRWA’s arguments can be summed up as follows: We didn’t know. No one gave us any evidence, so we don’t have to investigate. It’s Israel’s fault too. Anyway, it’s just a few bad apples. We know Palestinian Authority textbooks contain hatred and antisemitism, but we use them anyway. Don’t worry, we train our teachers. UNRWA’s been around since 1949, it’s always been this way, so why change anything now?
What is UNRWA really trying to say? Read our analysis below and see The Case Against UNRWA for more information.
UNRWA’s Claim 1 and Response: UNRWA has not received any evidence that 1200 Gaza employees are affiliated with Hamas and PIJ
Analysis: UNRWA belittles Israeli “intelligence estimates” that 1200 UNRWA Gaza employees (10% of UNRWA’s Gaza workforce) have ties to Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad as just a claim, not backed by evidence, despite having been reported by reputable media outlets like the Wall Street Journal and New York Times. UNRWA contends that since it conducts “detailed reference checks” on its staff, checks the names against the UN Security Council Sanctions List, which notably does not include Hamas, and shares its employee names with host authorities, including Israel, it fully satisfied its obligations to vet these people and shouldn’t be held accountable if it turned out that some of them were Hamas terrorists. UNRWA points out that the names of the 12 UNRWA employees whom Israel specifically identified as having participated in October 7th had been shared with Israel multiple times before. Essentially, UNRWA is shifting blame and responsibility to Israel for the fact that UNRWA hired Hamas terrorists. UNRWA is also absolving itself of any independent obligation to investigate its employees for ties to terrorist groups in Gaza because it “has not received any information, let alone evidence” about this from Israel.
Despite UNRWA deflecting the charge that at least 10% of its staff are members of Hamas and PIJ, UNRWA leadership has previously said that it is aware that Hamas members are on its payroll, and that it “does not see that as a crime.”
UNRWA’s Claim 2 and Response: Just a few “bad apples,”—there is no proof that UNRWA is “a haven for Hamas’ radical ideology”
Analysis: UNRWA states that it takes seriously “any allegation” of neutrality breaches and makes sure its staff undergo neutrality training and receive reminders about UN standards. UNRWA points to the small percentage of investigations it has conducted since 2022 (66 of 30,000 staff, or 0.22%) as proof that neutrality breaches are not systemic, but just a few “bad apples.” UN Watch has already debunked this claim thoroughly here.
More than anything else, the small number of investigations proves that UNRWA doesn’t take the matter seriously. Indeed, UNRWA admits that it investigates neutrality breaches only when it receives an “allegation” about a breach. It has never independently undertaken a comprehensive review of its staff. Therefore, UNRWA cannot really know the extent of the problem. Furthermore, UNRWA’s mandatory training proves nothing because its employees don’t take the courses seriously and they share questions and answers with each other in advance. In the past, UN Watch also found that the training focused on advising staff how to keep their social media profiles private, so that they don’t get caught breaching neutrality.
UNRWA’s Claim 3 and Response: It’s no surprise that UNRWA ties to Hamas have deepened since 2007 since Hamas rules Gaza
Analysis: The upshot of UNRWA’s response here is that it has to engage with Hamas at the “operational level” in order to get things done in Gaza, like delivering humanitarian aid and ensuring staff safety. However, this “what do you expect?” response is extremely superficial. It focuses only on the present conflict, ignoring the agency’s deep ties to Hamas through the years and not just during war time, including Hamas control of the UNRWA Gaza staff union since at least 2009. UNRWA’s response also disregards the extent of these ties, which go well beyond the “operational level.” The fact that a sophisticated intelligence data center was found under UNRWA’s Gaza headquarters with cables connecting to UNRWA’s electricity network proves that UNRWA actively aided Hamas’s terror operations for years. According to IDF Col. Elad Shushan, commenting on the present conflict, there was not a single UNRWA site in which weapons were not found. Visual evidence published by the IDF shows Hamas attacking from in or near UNRWA schools, weapons found in UNRWA schools, and terror tunnels running underneath UNRWA facilities. All of this is in the public record.
While UNRWA’s international staff may clash with Hamas from time to time, often these clashes end with UNRWA senior management caving into Hamas demands, e.g., by reinstating teachers suspended for neutrality violations, allowing Hamas to influence employee-hiring decisions, and refraining from implementing curriculum reforms related to Holocaust education and gender equality. UN Watch’s report titled The Unholy Alliance: UNRWA, Hamas, Islamic Jihad documents the close relationship between UNRWA and various terrorist groups and demonstrates how this goes beyond the “operational level” to impact substantive matters like education, employee-hiring, and financial assistance.
UNRWA’s Claim 4 and Response: UNRWA doesn’t know if Hamas is “systematically” diverting Gaza aid, but if it knew, UNRWA would certainly condemn it
Analysis: UNRWA claims it has a “robust system of oversight and checks” for aid delivery and that it doesn’t have any information about “systematic diversion of aid” by Hamas. To support this statement, UNRWA explains that it checks its vendors and subcontractors against the UN Security Council Sanctions List, which as noted does not include Hamas. However, for aid recipients, UNRWA only confirms that they are on its “pre-established list” of registered beneficiaries.
UNRWA already denied any knowledge about, or obligation to investigate, the Hamas and PIJ affiliation of 10% of its Gaza workforce on grounds that the government of Israel did not provide it with “evidence.” In other statements, the UN has made clear that it does not actually consider Hamas a terrorist organization. These blanket denials and refusal to proactively undertake investigations are an easy way out for UNRWA. However, if one were to accept that the Israeli intelligence reports are well-founded—that 1200 UNRWA Gaza employees are directly affiliated with Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad and another 6,000 have close family member who are—then it is not a stretch to conclude that UNRWA aid is being used by Hamas.
Moreover, it is now known that a Hamas intelligence center located right under UNRWA’s Gaza headquarters was connected to UNRWA’s electricity grid. UNRWA cannot deny this fact, so instead it chooses to omit it. In addition, early in the conflict, an UNRWA worker tweeted that Hamas had stolen UNRWA fuel. UNRWA immediately deleted and vehemently denied the tweet, but the information had already been confirmed by other sources. There is also ample evidence that UNRWA aid has gotten into the hands of Hamas, including UNRWA aid bags in Yahya Sinwar’s hideout and UNRWA aid bags used to conceal weapons in multiple locations throughout Gaza.
UNRWA’s Claim 5 and Response: Whenever UNRWA discovers a neutrality violation in one of its facilities it immediately protests to Hamas and alerts the Palestinian Authority, Israel, and its main donors
Analysis: UNRWA claims that it “dedicates significant resources to regularly assess its facilities, including to ensure neutrality” and that it completed these checks in all of its Gaza facilities by September 2023, just one month before October 7th. What UNRWA means by “significant resources” is explained in the next sentence—it makes sure there is no “misuse” but doesn’t specify how, clearly marks its facilities as UN, posts signs declaring the facilities to be “weapons-free,” and ensures there is no political messaging on its walls. When UNRWA discovers a violation, it immediately notifies the relevant authorities. Even though Hamas is the party in Gaza that stores its weapons in, shoots from, and builds tunnels underneath UNRWA facilities, UNWRA makes sure to say that “both sides” have committed neutrality violations, meaning Israel too.
UNRWA is essentially saying that it does the necessary and can’t be blamed for what it doesn’t know. However, the one thing that would actually ensure UNRWA learns of neutrality violations as they occur—conducting regular onsite physical inspections of its facilities and their surroundings—UNRWA never claimed to do. If it had done so then it surely would have exposed the many Hamas tunnels and tunnel shafts under and next to UNRWA facilities.
Moreover, UNRWA has 13,000 staff in Gaza. Even if none of them were affiliated with Hamas or had close family who are Hamas members, they knew and heard what was happening around them. The massive tunneling of over 350 miles of terror tunnels under all of Gaza with 5,700 tunnel openings required many workers and loud, heavy machines. Given the extent of the neutrality violations found in UN facilities in Gaza, including the sophisticated Hamas intelligence center right underneath UNRWA’s Gaza headquarters, connected to UNRWA’s electricity, it’s just not plausible that UNRWA had no idea. Indeed, in November 2021, UNRWA’s former Gaza Director Matthias Schmale said “Many people told me through my four years, there’s tunnels everywhere and it’s a safe assumption.”
UNRWA’s Claim 6 and 7 and Response: Although UNRWA uses PA textbooks which have been proven to contain antisemitism and terrorist incitement, it reviews the textbooks for problematic content and trains teachers to address problematic content
Analysis: UNRWA stands by its policy of using host country textbooks and insists it has “zero tolerance for hate speech and incitement to discrimination or violence.” According to UNRWA, teachers are trained on how to address problematic content in textbooks and UNRWA teaches UN positions on the conflict. UNRWA also touts its educational units on human rights, conflict resolution, and tolerance and the fact that UNRWA graduates test well proving the success of its education.
This response doesn’t address the core of the problem. Whether UNRWA students ultimately receive high test scores is completely irrelevant to the hateful content of their education. Since 2019, the European Parliament has adopted a resolution every year condemning the PA for including hateful content in its textbooks. The Georg Eckhart Study cited by UNRWA, which concluded that the PA textbooks complied with UNESCO standards, also found that these textbooks contain antisemitism, legitimize violence, and deny Israel’s existence, among other problems. Criticism of the study for failing to logically support its conclusion is not mentioned by UNRWA. These are the textbooks that are distributed to UNRWA students in the West Bank and Gaza, exposing impressionable Palestinian children to all of the hateful content contained therein.
Although UNRWA claims that it trains teachers how to address hateful content, apparently it does not instruct them to refrain from teaching the content. In this regard, UNRWA also cites to the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) report, declassified in 2019, as affirming its approach to the PA curriculum and teacher training, but neglects to mention that the GAO report also found that UNRWA teachers were refusing to attend trainings. In a February 2019 statement, UNRWA responded to criticism of its “teacher-centered approach” from the GAO report. However, this response is on the policy level only and fails to tackle the practical implementation, i.e., what is actually happening in UNRWA classrooms. UNRWA has never addressed GAO’s criticism that its teachers were refusing to attend trainings.
Furthermore, our Joint report with IMPACT-se from March 2023 provided examples of actual classroom lessons in which UNRWA students were taught to glorify as “heroes” terrorists like Dalal Mughrabi. Our report also contained many examples of UNRWA lessons encouraging students to engage in violence to liberate Palestine, demonizing Israel and Israelis, teaching students that sovereign Israeli territory actually belongs to the Palestinians, and promoting antisemitism. This completely contradicts UNRWA’s claim that it only teaches UN positions on the conflict. If UNRWA students received general education on human rights and conflict resolution, clearly this does not cover the Israel-Palestinian conflict.
UNRWA Claim 8 and Response: UN Watch Report about the UNRWA Telegram channel proves nothing because the channel was not authorized or managed by UNRWA
Analysis: UNRWA continues to ignore the core problem which is that it hires antisemitic and terror-supporting teachers in the first place.
Instead of addressing that problem, UNRWA attacks the credibility of UN Watch’s research, claiming it is true only about half of the time. At the same time, UNRWA has refused to engage with us or to specify which of the people we identified are UNRWA employees. Even if UNRWA’s claim is true, we stand by our research and methodology. We are clear that we review only public Facebook profiles of individuals who self-identify as UNRWA employees. Since UNRWA does not publish its staff rosters and teaches staff to keep their social media profiles private, we are unable to investigate the vast majority of UNRWA employees’ online activity. However, UNRWA could if it wanted to. We are certain that if UNRWA were to undertake such a review, it would find thousands of neutrality violations among its staff.
Moreover, the fact that no UNRWA staff member—whether on Facebook or Telegram—has ever condemned their colleagues’ hateful posts, shows that the problem is not limited to the teachers we specifically identified. The opposite is true, UNRWA teachers have liked and shared these hateful posts. When a teacher in Lebanon was suspended last year for endorsing terrorism on Facebook, the entire UNRWA system in Lebanon rallied behind him, including the teachers’ union, which cancelled classes so that the whole camp could join the strike. This sent a message to students that supporting terrorism is acceptable. The teacher was ultimately reinstated.
Specifically, regarding the Telegram group, UNRWA repeats its past unsupported claims that this Telegram channel “seems to be formed around job seeking,” so not all of the members are UNRWA staff. Yet, UNRWA provides no evidence to contradict the overwhelming documentary proof from the Telegram group itself that it is as it claims to be—a group for UNRWA teachers on daily or monthly contracts. The fact that many of the chat members cannot be cross-referenced against their real names on UNRWA’s employee records is not proof of any deficiency in UN Watch’s research. It is simply indicative of the nature of Telegram that allows users to participate with nicknames rather than their real names. UNRWA should take it upon itself to employ the necessary forensic and technical experts to determine the identity of the users in that Telegram Group.
UNRWA Claim 9 and Response: UNRWA shouldn’t be attacked for perpetuating the refugee problem by teaching Palestinians that their home is in Israel because UNRWA is not mandated to solve the conflict and the UN itself recognized the right of return in Resolution 194
Analysis: The gist of UNRWA’s claims here are:
- UNRWA’s mandate is to provide essential public services like education and health care, not to resolve the conflict or the refugee issue.
- All refugees in protracted refugee situations get to pass on their refugee status to their descendants, not just the Palestinians
- The UN itself recognizes the right of return in resolution 194
- UNRWA teaches UN positions about the conflict
It’s amazing what UNRWA leaves out of its answer here. While refugees in protracted refugee situations may end up passing refugee status to their children, this is not automatic and is assessed on a case-by-case basis. Moreover, in all other refugee situations, once the refugee obtains a new citizenship, like the 2 million so-called Palestinian refugees in Jordan with Jordanian citizenship, they are no longer considered refugees. Those who are settled in their own territory—like the over 2 million so-called Palestinian refugees in the West Bank and Gaza, even if not in homes lost due to the conflict, are also not considered refugees.
UNRWA misrepresents UNGA Resolution 194, which is a political declaration that has no legally binding authority. That resolution does not establish a “right of return,” but merely states that those who wish to return “and live in peace” should be permitted to do so, while those who do not should receive compensation. There is no evidence that, broadly speaking, Palestinian refugees demanding a right of return wish to “live in peace” with Jewish neighbors in Israel. In fact, October 7th showed the opposite—that the Palestinians wishing to “return” have no interest in peace, but only in violently ending the State of Israel. UNRWA’s education on the right of return is anti-peace because it encourages this dream of violent return. Thus, UNRWA is not teaching UN positions about the conflict. If it were, it would be teaching UNSC Resolution 242’s land for peace framework instead.
UNRWA’s Claim 10 and Response: Other UN agencies can’t take over UNRWA’s job because UNRWA has been doing this work for years and only it has the staff and infrastructure on the ground to get the job done
Analysis: UNRWA argues that it has 13,000 staff on the ground in Gaza, “community acceptance and knowledge,” and “longstanding experience gained over several conflicts and crises,” so only it can do the job of humanitarian relief.
In fact, the work of UN agencies such as the World Food Programme, UNHCR, WHO and UNICEF on the ground in all other conflicts around the world gives them better and broader expertise in dealing with humanitarian crises than UNRWA. While UNRWA does have more staff in Gaza than these agencies, the majority of UNRWA staff are teachers uninvolved in the agency’s humanitarian operations.
When recently asked whether the WHO and other UN agencies could scale up to replace UNRWA’s services, WHO spokesman Christian Lindmeier said he has “no doubt” that they would be able to scale up, “whatever needs to be done.”
For more information on ways that UNRWA’s humanitarian services could be replaced by other UN agencies, see the analysis from experts on UNRWA and humanitarian aid at our International Summit for a Future Beyond UNRWA.
UNRWA’s Claim 11 and Response: UNHCR can’t take over UNRWA’s job because it has no mandate over Palestine refugees
Analysis: The 1951 Convention on Refugees, which established UNHCR’s mandate, states that it “does not apply to those refugees who benefit from the protection or assistance of a United Nations agency other than UNHCR, such as refugees from Palestine who fall under the auspices of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA).”
If Palestinians were to stop benefiting from UNRWA’s services, then UNHCR’s mandate would automatically apply to them. It is the existence of UNRWA that has blocked Palestinians from eligibility for UNHCR’s important services for over 70 years, leading to the anomaly that Palestinians fleeing from abuses by their own governments – Hamas or the Palestinian Authority – are not eligible for UNHCR status.
UNRWA’s mandate does also include government-like services, which UNHCR does not provide. These services should be provided to Palestinians by their respective host governments, not by UNRWA or UNHCR.
UNRWA’s Claim 12 and Response: It’s better for donors to help Palestinians through UNRWA then through other governments in the region
Analysis: UNRWA simply restates the fact that UNRWA was created in 1949 to help Palestinian refugees, it runs essential public services, Palestinians depend on UNRWA, and UNRWA’s mandate has been repeatedly renewed.
This is not an answer, it’s just a statement of what is. It does not explain why it is better for donors to support Palestinians through UNRWA than through other actors.
UNRWA’s Claim 13 and Response: It’s not true that UNRWA doesn’t take reports against it seriously
Analysis: UNRWA repeats that it has “zero tolerance for hate speech, discrimination, or incitement to violence, as well as any action that could be viewed as taking sides in conflict.” It also claims that it “systematically reviews all allegations of misconduct” and takes disciplinary measures.
If UNRWA was serious about “zero tolerance” and neutrality breaches, it would be proactive in investigating its employees and would not wait until it receives “allegations of misconduct.” If it took our reports seriously, it would engage with us instead of attacking and disparaging us. UNRWA’s record speaks for itself, particularly its history of employing Hamas leaders like Suhail al-Hindi and Fateh Sharif as senior educators.
UNRWA’s Claim 14 and Response: UNRWA claims that it fired Suhail al-Hindi in 2017 because it found out independently that he had been elected to the Hamas politburo and not because Israel informed UNRWA about that.
Analysis: UNRWA never actually fired Suhail al-Hindi. It was reported that Suhail al-Hindi resigned voluntarily as part of a compromise between UNRWA and Hamas, allowing al-Hindi to retain his UNRWA benefits, including his pension. The real question is why did UNRWA not fire al-Hindi earlier when it knew of al-Hindi’s involvement in Hamas.
UNRWA’s claim here that “UNRWA prohibits any type of involvement of staff in a militant or militarized group” is directly contradicted by the fact that UNRWA continued to employ al-Hindi for years knowing he was a senior Hamas leader and that it still has hundreds of other terrorists on its payroll.
Either UNRWA doesn’t view Hamas as a “militant or militarized group” which in itself would be highly problematic or it doesn’t enforce its own policies. Either way, UNRWA has allowed itself to be infiltrated by Hamas. Suhail al-Hindi is not a one-off case. According to Israeli government intelligence, over 10% of UNRWA’s senior educational staff in Gaza are members of either Hamas or Palestinian Islamic Jihad.
UNRWA’s Claim 15 and Response: UNRWA claims that a video posted by UN Watch of 14 year-old boy making hateful remarks based on his UNRWA education misrepresented the boy as an UNRWA student.
Analysis: Since August, UN Watch has released six videos of current and former UNRWA students describing the hate and violence they are taught in UNRWA schools regarding the so-called “right of return.” With the exception of this one video of Mohammad Mahmoud Ali Khalil, UNRWA has not contested any of the content in the videos, which show that Palestinian children studying in UNRWA schools are taught to hate Israelis and Jews, that they will one day kill the Jews and “return” to sovereign Israel, and that they should aspire to be martyrs.
Additionally, the Khalil video at issue here does not claim that Khalil is a current UNRWA student. It merely shows Khalil responding to questions, one being “Which UNRWA school did you go to?” (past tense). Khalil responds that he attended “Ein Arik Basic School… it’s a co-ed basic school,” i.e., an elementary school. Since Khalil is now 14, past elementary school age, he likely graduated to a Palestinian Authority secondary school. UNRWA’s claim that the boy “is not an UNRWA student” is not contradicted by UN Watch’s video and does not negate the fact that Khalil was taught hateful material while he attended an UNRWA school in the past. Moreover, UNRWA’s claim intentionally misleads by implying that the boy never attended an UNRWA school.
Furthermore, the fact that Khalil likely attends a Palestinian Authority high school confirms that the PA is capable of supplying education to all Palestinians and that UNRWA is not “irreplaceable” as an education provider.
UNRWA’s Claim 16 and Response: UNRWA took responsibility for involvement of employees in the October 7 attacks through the OIOS investigation and has no further obligations in the matter
UNRWA absolves itself of any further obligation with respect to its employees’ involvement in the October 7 atrocities by citing to the results of the OIOS investigation. That investigation found sufficiently credible evidence to fire nine of the employees for their involvement in the October 7 attacks. The crimes committed by these employees are extremely grave, likely crimes against humanity. Moreover, the OIOS did not find the other employees — all of whom were Hamas and PIJ members — were innocent, just that the evidence it had was inconclusive. The confirmed involvement of nine employees and likely involvement of others should be enough of a wake-up call for UNRWA to initiate its own investigations into all of its employees’ Hamas/PIJ activities.
Additionally, in July 2024, Israel sent UNRWA a list of 100 UNRWA employees who had been identified as Hamas or PIJ “terror operatives,” which Israel said was just a “small fraction” of the terrorists employed by UNRWA. One of these was Mohammad Abu Itiwi, killed by the IDF on October 23, 2024, an UNRWA employee since 2022 and the Hamas Nukhba commander who had led the attack on the Re’im shelter from which U.S. citizen Hersh Goldberg-Polin and others were taken hostage, killing 16 Nova-festival partygoers. UNRWA refused to undertake any investigation into the list of 100 names, claiming it needed more information, thus ensuring these individuals remained UN employees, receiving a UN paycheck, while engaging in terrorism with zero repercussions.
Whether or not UNRWA Commissioner-General Lazzarini condemned the October 7 atrocities does not absolve UNRWA of responsibility for ensuring it does not employ terrorists.
UNRWA’s Claim 17 and Response: UNRWA has been the backbone of the humanitarian response in Gaza throughout the war
UNRWA cites several misleading facts and data in its response. For example, UNRWA refers to the Israeli siege of Gaza declared on October 7 when, in reality, this siege lasted no more than two weeks, at a time when there were sufficient stores of food and humanitarian goods to support the population of Gaza. As of mid-January 2025, Israel had facilitated the supply of over 1.3 million tons of humanitarian aid to Gaza. Similarly, while it is true that the total trucks entering Gaza daily is less post-October 7, 2023 than it was before, UNRWA fails to mention that the pre-October 7 numbers included “commercial supplies,” i.e., constructions supplies used by Hamas for its underground tunnel network. The number of trucks carrying food and humanitarian assistance is actually higher now than it was pre-October 7, and this is the number that counts in terms of the humanitarian response.
To prove that it is the “backbone of the humanitarian response,” UNRWA lists examples of humanitarian activities it has undertaken since October 7, 2023. However, none of this establishes that UNRWA is the only agency or the main agency operating in Gaza. In fact, according to COGAT, the IDF division responsible for coordinating humanitarian aid, UNRWA is responsible only for 13.5% of the aid into Gaza since the start of the war and it is not even in the top six aid agencies operating in Gaza.
UNRWA’s Claim 18 and Response: Only UNRWA has the capacity to ensure education for Gazans
UNRWA argues that it alone has the capacity to get Gazan children back in school since it ran education for half of Gazan schoolchildren prior to the war. Ironically, UNRWA insists that its education is the solution that will prevent Palestinian children from being recruited by armed groups. In fact, it is the UNRWA education led by Hamas leaders like Suhail al-Hindi and Fateh Sharif that glorifies jihadi terrorism and incites children to join Hamas/PIJ to pursue a path of jihad and martyrdom. It is critical for Gazan children to return to school in a framework that will deradicalize them and actively prevent them from being recruited by armed groups. UNRWA has proven time and again that it is incapable of doing that. Other solutions can and will be found.
UNRWA’s Claim 19 and Response: Accusations that hostages were held in UNRWA shelters are “extremely serious” but UNRWA has no knowledge about this
UNRWA has repeatedly boasted that it runs all the shelters in Gaza. Yet, in response to charges by returning Israeli hostages that they were held in UNRWA shelters, UNRWA states that it “has no way to find out” if this is true. UNRWA shirks all knowledge and responsibility by insisting it cannot rely on “open-source reports” and must be given the information “formally.” UNRWA itself has a duty to investigate these serious accusations. UNRWA should begin by questioning each of its 13,000 employees in Gaza.
UNRWA’s Claim 20 and Response: UNRWA denies its facilities in the West Bank are “terror hubs”
UNRWA admits that its health facility in the Jenin Camp was taken over by “Palestinian armed actors” and that did not have “full control of this facility since at least 17 December.” Instead of thanking the IDF for removing the terrorists and undertaking to ensure this will never happen again, UNRWA criticizes the IDF for its “unauthorized entries” into UN “humanitarian installations.” Furthermore, although the terror takeover of the UNRWA health facility took place in December 2024, UNRWA implies that the Israeli legislation banning UNRWA, which took effect only on January 30, 2025, is to blame.
