Commentary Magazine


Contentions

UN Chutzpah and the Refugee Racket

Between the national security cuts in the sequester and the new scrutiny to which foreign aid is being subjected in a time of budget belt-tightening, those abroad looking for American taxpayer cash have something of a hill to climb. And just like with any foreign affairs issue, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict commands its fair share of attention. With regard to foreign aid to Middle East governments, it can be argued that while such aid should come with strings, those checks should still be signed lest rogue regimes fill the vacuum with their own cash and influence.

This is certainly the argument that usually prevails when it comes to the Palestinian Authority. Though some in Congress considered punishing the PA for its unilateral declaration of statehood at the UN, even Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has argued against cutting their funding, which could risk the collapse of Mahmoud Abbas’s government and speed up the rise of Hamas in the West Bank. But there’s another Palestinian interest group in Washington this week to lobby for taxpayer cash, and it will likely not find nearly so sympathetic an audience: the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), which has worked for decades to keep Palestinians in squalid refugee camps and radicalizing schools while helping to prop up Hamas, provide terrorists with jobs, and fleece American taxpayers–all while utilizing a definition of “refugee” at odds with American law and practice. Josh Rogin reports on his interview with UNRWA commissioner general Filippo Grandi:

Grandi said that U.S. contributions to UNRWA, which are voluntary, are needed more than ever due to the dire situation of Palestinian refugees caught up in the Syria crisis. Right now, the automatic budget cuts known as sequestration require that all accounts be cut evenly, but Congress is expected to provide the State Department flexibility in deciding what to cut. Grandi said he feels confident State won’t choose to disproportionately cut money for UNRWA.

UNRWA and the refugee issue have been in the news over the past year, as Illinois Senator Mark Kirk has sought to clarify the actual number of refugees from the standpoint of American policy and how they are counted. It’s controversial because UNRWA counts refugees differently than the U.S. does, and in fact differently than other UN agencies do for other refugee populations. Neither UNRWA nor its supporters at the State Department want to conduct such a count, because it would reveal that UNRWA is overcounting refugees by several hundred percent in order to gain funding for them. American taxpayers might wonder why UNRWA is allowed to make up its own rules in order to gain access to more of their money. They might also object to the fact that UNRWA has thrust itself into the conflict as a partisan actor and not as an “independent” or “nonpolitical” aid organization, and ask why they should have to fund its efforts to delegitimize Israel and prolong the conflict on which it depends for its money.

In May 2012, Rogin reported on the initial controversy. The State Department criticized Kirk’s legislation, saying Foggy Bottom “cannot support legislation which would force the United States to make a public judgment on the number and status of Palestinian refugees.” The State Department then expressly contradicted itself by telling Rogin that there were 5 million Palestinian refugees and that the State Department agrees with UNRWA in how to count them, despite being inconsistent with American law. In other words, the State Department absolutely believes the U.S. can and should “make a public judgment on the number and status of Palestinian refugees,” as long as that judgment accords with what these individual officials believe, and that the outcome of certain final-status issues should be pre-judged, as long as those issues are pre-judged in the Palestinians’ favor.

Of course, there’s a reason those considered by UNRWA to be refugees need aid–and it’s not the behavior of Israel or the U.S. Leila Hilal of the New America Foundation told Rogin that (emphasis mine) “to honestly determine which Palestinians remain refugees, one would have to wade into a long, complicated legal and factual analysis about which Palestinians in the region have adequate national protection that would end their refugee status.” And a State Department official told Rogin that Palestinian refugees remain under refugee status “until they return home or are resettled in a third country.”

That is, as long as the Arab states in the region mistreat them, the Palestinians will remain eligible for American “refugee” cash, which will be distributed by agencies who work with the regimes responsible for this racket. As you can see, it isn’t easy to justify making exceptions to American budget cuts to preserve cash that incentivizes and rewards Arab states’ abuse of Palestinian migrants and is distributed to and by Hamas and its allies. But I suppose you can’t blame UNRWA for trying.

Introducing Commentary Complete

5 Responses to “UN Chutzpah and the Refugee Racket”

  1. cali says:

    As always, american taxpayers suppose to fund these cons?When will it ever end or, some couregous congressman/woman cuts off the spigot for good?

  2. watsa46 says:

    Didn't the West colluded with the Muslims to antagonize the Jews and try to prevent the birth and growth of Israel? n80% to 90% of the funding of UNRWA came and still comes from the West. Norway suddenly is wondering what is being done with the megabox ($50Mi) they gave year after year. Every country in the West should ask the same question and question who is a real (legal definition) of a refugee Palestinian or not. It is time for the West to face the issue honestly and deal with the problem IT created when it created UNRWA.

  3. Cynic says:

    The West went along with UNWRA and co., from the beginning as this piece discloses:
    http://www.romirowsky.com/7948/a-tale-of-two-galloways

    ” [56] Committee on Foreign Relations, Palestine Refugee Program, Hearings before the Subcommittee on the Near East and Africa of the Committee on Foreign Relations, United States Senate, Eighty-Third Congress, First Session on the Palestine Refugee Program, May 20, 21, and 25, 1953 (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1953), p. 103. ”

    ” In April of 1952, Sir Alexander Galloway, then head of the UNRWA for Jordan, said to our study group, and this is really a direct quote from what he said:
    It is perfectly clear than the 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.
    Then, by way of emphasis he said:
    Arab leaders don’t give a damn whether the refugees live or die. “

  4. elixelx says:

    Let's see; thieves ask Good Guys for money so that they will leave you in peace; GG's give it to them; then the mafia goes to the thieves and asks them for the money lest the thieves' own house see an uptick in thievery; and the thieves give it to the Mafia who promptly use it to start thieving in the house of the GG's… nI believe it's the RICO Act that outlaws this sort of behaviour in the US; so why does the US encourage it in other parts of the word?

  5. gee59 says:

    It's not "UNRWA is overcounting refugees by several hundred percent in order to gain funding for them". It is really several thousand percent. n nThere are a couple of important issues. First the unique definition of 'refugee' for UNRWA. Under the Geneva Convention – a person has to have lived in a region since time immemorial – for UNRWA that period is some 18 months – not even enough time to establish residency. n nThe second issue is the fact that UNRWA has NEVER counted the refugees. And yes I do mean never.. When the Mandate ended and the war began – the British keep count on the number of Arabs that fled. They said it was between 320 and 360,000 people. When UNRWA was formed they asked the Arabs how many of them there were and the answer was 720,000. Big difference and UNRWA took that number without question. n nSince then the Arabs will claim a new 'refugee' and UNRWA adds them to the count. Nobody is ever removed even if they move and get citizenship in other countries, or dies. Nobody has ever been removed from the rolls. n nThat is how they get their numbers – UNRWA just takes whatever number the Arabs invent.

Leave a Reply