The Justice Department (DOJ) has taken a controversial stance, siding with the United Nations in a lawsuit concerning the UN’s relief agency for Palestinians, UNRWA. This decision comes in the wake of the October 7th Hamas terror attacks in Israel, where victims and their families are suing UNRWA, alleging that the organization and its employees aided and abetted Hamas in the massacre.
The lawsuit, filed in a New York federal court, accuses UNRWA and its employees of providing material support to Hamas, including facilitating the construction of command centers, permitting weapons storage in UNRWA facilities, and even using Hamas-approved textbooks in its schools. These allegations, coupled with the fact that UNRWA fired nine employees for their likely involvement in the attacks, raise serious questions about the organization’s complicity.
However, the UN argues that the lawsuit should be dismissed, citing the diplomatic immunity granted to the organization under its charter with the US. The DOJ echoed this sentiment, stating that the US acknowledges the victims’ losses but maintains that the UN is immune from suit. This position has drawn criticism from various quarters, including the National Jewish Advocacy Center.
Mark Goldfeder, director of the Center, argues that the DOJ’s brief exhibits a lack of appetite for pursuing those who support terrorism. He also contends that the treaty granting immunity to the UN is not self-executing, and that UNRWA, as an affiliated organization, may not be covered. Goldfeder further points out that the DOJ’s assumption that all actions taken by the individual defendants were within the scope of their official duties is egregious, as the complaint explicitly details allegations of conscious and deliberate aiding and abetting of Hamas.
The DOJ’s position, according to Anne Bayefsky, president of Human Rights Voices, effectively contributes to the unaccountability of UNRWA and its employees. She questions whether the DOJ is now arguing that aiding and abetting a designated terrorist organization is simply part of UNRWA’s job.
This case highlights a complex interplay between international law, diplomatic immunity, and the fight against terrorism. It raises critical questions about the accountability of international organizations and their potential involvement in supporting terrorism. As the case unfolds, it remains to be seen how the courts will ultimately balance these competing concerns.
