How Long Will the EU Be Writing Checks to UNRWA?

This story is bigger than Israel. This story is not about Palestinians versus Israelis. This story is not about what drives people to the streets, even when many of them could not find Gaza on a map.

This story is about the fading trust in UN institutions and, even more troubling, in humanitarian work itself.

After October 7, HonestReporting, an Israeli media watchdog, alerted the public to a series of uncomfortable facts. What they discovered was that several Gaza-based ‘freelance photojournalists’ appeared to be operating in close proximity to prominent Hamas leaders and attackers during the assault, or possessed material that raised serious questions about how it had been obtained. The photographers in question were working for or associated with media outlets such as AP, Reuters, NYT, and CNN. 

This went beyond a simple ethical concern about someone just “doing their jobs” versus allegedly knowing about the planned massacre ahead of time and/or actively participating in it on the day of the pogrom. The outlets, as expected, denied responsibility and characterized the photographers as independent contributors. At this stage, only Israelis and those closely following the aftermath of the largest massacre of Jews since the Holocaust seemed troubled by these findings. 

However, the story did not end with media workers revealed to be implicated in the October 7 pogrom. 

In January 2024, even more uncomfortable claims started to surface. Based on hostage testimonies and Israeli intelligence work, it was reported that at least 12 UNRWA employees actively participated in the October 7 attack. That means active participation in the killings, raping, kidnapping, or the assault’s logistics.  

For those unfamiliar with UNRWA, it is a UN agency founded to address the Palestinian refugee crisis. Nothing else but the Palestinian one. While there is a UNHRC whose mission is to help and assist in refugee-related matters, the Palestinians received their own agency. Critics have long argued that this unique arrangement contributes to the perpetuation of the conflict rather than its resolution. But this story is not about UNRWA per se. 

The first report was published by Israeli journalist Almog Boker, who was told by a hostage he had been held for nearly 50 days in the attic of a teacher employed by UNRWA. Later on, Emily Damar, a former hostage, reportedly told British Prime Minister Keir Starmer that she had been held in UNRWA facilities. While this was not a claim against a UNRWA employee, it was serious enough for the UN itself to file an investigation.  

The UN’s own internal investigation led to the dismissal of nine UNRWA employees for possible involvement in the October 7 attack. It was an unequivocal revelation: a taxpayer-funded humanitarian body had at least seven employees directly implicated in a massacre. 

Given this evidence, one might assume these findings would have marked the end of UNRWA under normal circumstances. Close the agency, run an even deeper investigation, and just place Palestinian refugee matters under the same umbrella as every other refugee crisis handled within the UN. 

There are several reasons why this would never happen: the most important being that of the world’s refugees, only the Palestinians’ status is inheritable— all others cease to be refugees the moment they are registered in a safe hosting country. 

As a result of these revelations, 17 countries, including major donors such as the U.S.,  Germany, and France, suspended funding to UNRWA in 2023; eventually, all of them but the United States unfroze their funding, and business continues as usual. Somehow, trust was not shattered towards an organization whose paid employees killed people. 

Among the largest donors is the European Union—more specifically, the European Commission. On average, the EU funnels €80–90 million a year to UNRWA.  Most European taxpayers likely have little idea that their governments help finance the agency.  

By contrast, the USA, under President Trump, refused to resume the annual financing that often reached a staggering $344 million. In fact, following the latest findings, the American administration is considering imposing terrorism-related sanctions on this UN agency and removing its diplomatic immunity. 

Would that be too harsh a step, or simply necessary? Let’s test the proposition. 

For years, questioning UNRWA was treated like a moral crime. Criticizing governments, armies, or corporations is allowed, but raising concerns or asking questions about the organization handing out aid in Gaza is immediately labeled as propaganda. And yet, the brutal truth is that the more important an organization claims to be, the more it deserves ruthless scrutiny. And UNRWA has failed that test spectacularly.

According to the most recent reports from Washington, federal investigators are now probing at least 1,500 UNRWA-linked individuals for suspected terrorist ties. This is around 12% of the agency’s personnel in Gaza. The number is so significant that this is nothing short of systemic infiltration. 

While the fantasy about UNRWA had begun to shatter following the first rounds of allegations, these recent reports from the USAID Office of the Inspector General have, hopefully, made the agency’s legitimacy irreparably damaged. As said, this is not about Gaza or Hamas, or Israel. This is about institutional legitimacy, transparency, and the money being used for terrorist-linked activities. 

UNRWA’s leadership has stonewalled the investigations. If there’s nothing to hide, why not cooperate fully?

The scandal exposes the UN’s deeper rot: an institution that shields its failures, protects its insiders, and demands money and deference while delivering neither accountability nor results. The blind trust towards UNRWA is gone. 

As Adam Kredo, foreign policy and national security writer, says about the U.S. federal report, while these 1,500 people were not directly participating in the October 7 attack, they are implicated for their links, contacts, membership in terrorist-related activities, and Hamas itself.

The United States designated Hamas as a Foreign Terrorist Organization in 1997. The European Union added Hamas to its terrorist list in 2003. Yet despite decades of international debate, the United Nations has never adopted a universally accepted definition of terrorism.

UNRWA maintains that there is no systemic infiltration within the agency and that only a small number of employees were implicated.

That response raises a simple question:

How many is too many for a humanitarian organization funded by taxpayers around the world?

For European citizens whose taxes help fund UNRWA, even one is too many. Couple that with UNRWA’s reluctance to fully cooperate with investigations, and the trust deficit only grows.

Perhaps Europe should emulate the United States and demand the same level of accountability before writing the next cheque.