The UNRWA Funding Anomaly

In diametric opposition to their declared goals, the continued funding of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) by the United States and the European countries serves as an obstacle to achieving a negotiated solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This unequivocal recognition ignores the mounting evidence of UNRWA’s infiltration by Palestinian terrorist organizations and its contribution to the radicalization of the “Palestine refugees.”

Since its creation, UNRWA has been providing aid, in different forms, to “Palestine refugees.” In 1950, the United Nations noted¹ that the original “Palestine refugees” numbered “approximately 711,000” people. As of the end of the second quarter of 2024, according to UNRWA,² there are now 5,975,959 “registered refugees” and an additional 805,867 “other registered persons,” to whom the agency provides services.

While UNRWA claims it “is funded almost entirely by voluntary contributions from UN Member States,”³ this statement only partially represents the truth. The reality is that for decades, UNRWA has been predominantly funded by European countries and the United States.

Based on UNRWA’s annual financial reports, published from 2000 through 2023, 64 percent of UNRWA’s funding came from European countries, 26 percent came from the United States, and only 10 percent was sourced in Arab countries, as illustrated in the graph below.

The absence of Arab support for UNRWA is not new. Rather, it is part of a longstanding policy. Already in 1952, Lt. Gen. Alexander Galloway, the head of UNRWA in Jordan noted:⁴

It is perfectly clear that Arab nations do not want to solve the Arab refugee problem. They want to keep it as an open sore, as an affront against the United Nations, and as a weapon against Israel. Arab leaders don’t give a damn whether the refugees live or die.

Contradictory Goals

For the Palestinian leadership, the subject of the “Palestine refugees” is cardinal, “a sacred and firm right that is irrevocable.”⁵ According to Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas:

The right of return is a deposit entrusted to him and a red line from the perspective of the Palestinian leadership, which cannot be compromised on or neglected, regardless of how great the sacrifices may be.⁶

This approach caused Abbas to reject Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert’s 2008 peace offer. According to Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat,⁷ in that round of negotiations, Olmert offered that Abbas create a Palestinian state in an area larger than Gaza, Judea and Samaria prior to 1967, and that Israel would permit the entry of 150,000 “Palestine refugees” into Israel. Nonetheless, Abbas rejected the offer.

Abbas’s refusal to compromise on the refugee issue even led him to reject Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s offer in 2013, to allow the “Palestine refugees” in Syria to flee the civil war there, and settle in Judea and Samaria. Netanyahu’s only condition for the resettlement of the Syrian refugees was that those being resettled would waive what the Palestinians refer to as the “right to return” to settle in Israel. Abbas rejected the offer, preferring to leave the embattled refugees to their deadly fate in Syria.⁸

Having touted the “right of return” for so long and presenting it as a non-negotiable subject, the Palestinian leadership has created an untenable situation, ostensibly founded on support by the United States and the European funders of UNRWA, in which no Palestinian leader will ever be able to compromise on the subject.

The publicly stated position of both the United States and the European countries, even in the aftermath of the October 7 massacre, is to promote a “two-state solution.” This approach raises many difficulties regarding the Palestine refugees since the Palestinian leadership sees the continued financial support for UNRWA as an expression of U.S. and European acceptance of their political stance.⁹

If the actions of U.S. President-elect Trump in his first term are any indication, it would be reasonable to assume that his incoming administration would express the same reservations regarding UNRWA and potentially again halt all U.S. funding to the agency. This is especially true since during the interim period between the Trump administrations, the number of UNRWA refugees grew by a staggering 346,130 people.¹⁰

While some of the Arab countries have been willing to provide additional emergency funding to the agency recently, it would be less likely that they would assume responsibility for all the potential deficits.

If the United States and the European countries are genuinely committed to a political solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, and since it is unreasonable that Israel will ever agree to commit “national suicide” (or “politicide”) and acquiesce to the Palestinian demands, the Western countries must reconsider their approach to endlessly funding UNRWA, thereby fundamentally undermining any real potential of achieving their political goals.

* * *

Notes