Category: Neutrality and Independence

The Legal Erosion of Due Process: How UNRWA’s Leadership Enabled Israel’s Narrative

A Critical Legal Analysis of UNRWA’s Commissioner-General’s Termination of Nine Gaza Staff Members

I. Introduction

When the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA) was established in 1949, its founding resolution (302 [IV]) mandated an independent humanitarian function, insulated from political interference. The Commissioner-General, as the agency’s head, is bound by the same Charter obligations as all senior UN officials: to act exclusively in the interest of the United Nations, free from instructions from any government.

Yet in January 2024, that principle was dramatically breached.

Following unverified Israeli allegations that several UNRWA Gaza staff members participated in the 7 October 2023 attacks, Commissioner-General Philippe Lazzarini swiftly terminated nine Palestinian UNRWA staff without any evidence, due process, or hearings. 

By his own admission, the Commissioner-General fired the staff “in close consultation with the Secretary-General” and “in the interest of the Agency,” even as Israel provided no substantiating proof. His actions not only violated fundamental due-process rights under UNRWA’s internal regulatory framework but also handed Israel the rhetorical weapon it had long sought: official confirmation that UNRWA employed “Hamas operatives.” This rhetoric is, of course, devoid of any truth.

Within days, Israeli authorities restricted Lazzarini’s access to Gaza, and later shuttered the Agency’s East Jerusalem office. In effect, the Commissioner-General’s legally indefensible act furnished the pretext for UNRWA’s political dismantling.

This article examines, from a purely legal perspective, how these decisions contravened the UN’s internal justice principles, undermined the agency’s independence, and blurred the boundary between humanitarian neutrality and political appeasement.

II. The Legal Framework

1. Institutional Autonomy under the UN Charter

Article 100 of the UN Charter stipulates that international civil servants “shall not seek or receive instructions from any government.” The corresponding Staff Regulation 1.1 reinforces this duty of independence. The Commissioner-General of UNRWA, although appointed by the Secretary-General, exercises authority delegated by the General Assembly, not by Member States.

The Charter therefore precludes any de facto subordination of UNRWA to a State’s political or security agenda. The Commissioner-General’s legal allegiance is to the UN system’s administrative law and to the staff regulations that safeguard fairness, neutrality, and the rule of law within the Organization, notably Article 100 of the UN Charter and Staff Regulation 1.1(a), which explicitly prohibit any UN official from seeking or receiving instructions from a government.

2. Due Process under the UNRWA Staff Rules

UNRWA’s Staff Regulations and Rules mirror the UN Secretariat’s internal justice framework, anchored in:

  • Presumption of innocence: no disciplinary measure can be imposed without clear, credible evidence. 
  • Right to be heard: staff must be informed of charges and allowed to respond before sanctions are imposed. The UNRWA nine staff did not receive any charge letters setting out the allegations, and they were not afforded any opportunity to respond before being terminated.
  • Standard of proof: allegations must be established on the “balance of probabilities” at a minimum, or “beyond a reasonable doubt” for grave misconduct. In the case at hand, since the sanction concerned staff termination (serious misconduct), the correct threshold to be applied was beyond a reasonable doubt. No standard of proof was applied to the nine staff who were terminated.
  • Proportionality and reasoned decision: sanctions must correspond to proven misconduct, supported by a reasoned administrative decision.
  • Judicial oversight: staff possess the right to appeal before the UN Dispute Tribunal (UNDT) and, subsequently, the UN Appeals Tribunal (UNAT).

These guarantees embody the UN’s internal rule of law. They are not optional, even in crises.

3. Role of the Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS)

OIOS functions as the UN’s independent investigative arm. Its mandate is fact-finding, not adjudication. The final decision to impose discipline rests with the head of entity, here, the Commissioner-General, who must base that decision on verified, corroborated evidence. OIOS does not pronounce guilt; it simply reports findings.

Therefore, when OIOS states that “evidence, if authenticated and corroborated, could indicate involvement,” this signals that proof is incomplete, not that wrongdoing is established. Acting upon such an inconclusive report constitutes a fundamental procedural error.

III. Factual Chronology

1. January 2024: The Allegations

In January 2024, Israeli authorities transmitted to UNRWA a set of allegations claiming that 12 staff members in Gaza were involved in the 7 October attacks. No supporting evidence was shared. Nevertheless, Commissioner-General Lazzarini, in consultation with the Secretary-General, immediately terminated the contracts of the implicated staff “in the interest of the Agency.”

By doing so, he pre-empted both investigation and adjudication, effectively presuming guilt. The act bypassed all procedural steps mandated by the Staff Rules; notification of charges, opportunity to respond (OTR), due process, hearing in case of termination, and proportional review.

2. March–April 2024: Expansion of the Investigation

As further unverified allegations surfaced, additional staff were placed under OIOS investigation. The UN’s Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS) later investigated a total of 19 UNRWA staff members after Israel provided information on an additional seven individuals in March and April 2024. 

The Commissioner-General maintained the summary terminations, justifying them as necessary to protect UNRWA’s reputation and reassure donors. Yet this justification itself contradicts the raison d’être of due process: protecting institutional integrity through law, not expediency.

3. 5 August 2024: The Commissioner-General’s Statement

Upon OIOS’s completion of its review, Commissioner-General Lazzarini issued a formal statement:

“In nine other cases, the evidence obtained by OIOS was insufficient to support the staff members’ involvement… For the remaining nine cases, the evidence – if authenticated and corroborated – could indicate involvement… I have decided… these remaining nine staff members cannot work for UNRWA. All contracts… will be terminated in the interest of the Agency.”

This language exposes the legal incoherence of the decision. “Could indicate” is a hypothetical, not a factual conclusion. Terminating staff on that basis amounts to administrative arbitrariness.

Moreover, Lazzarini acknowledged that Israel had not provided evidence despite repeated requests, yet proceeded regardless. The decision therefore lacked the essential element of facta probata (evidence proven).

The dismissals triggered a cascade of political repercussions: Israel restricted the Commissioner-General’s entry to Gaza, forced closure of UNRWA’s Jerusalem field office, and intensified its campaign to defund the Agency. Ironically, Lazzarini’s decision, intended to preserve UNRWA’s credibility, supplied Israel with the official validation it had long sought: that UNRWA employed Hamas affiliates.

5. 24 and 30 October 2025: The United Nations’ Spokesperson’s Clarification on the Record

More recently, during the 24 October 2025 noon briefing, the Deputy Spokesperson for the Secretary-General stated:

“There were a small number of UNRWA staff members who were credibly linked to Hamas, and we have fired those personnel.”

On 30 October 2025, during the noon briefing, the UN Deputy Spokesperson had to retract and publicly correct this statement:

**Clarification

“I have a clarification to make.  In the noon briefing on Friday, 24 October, responding to a question about allegations against UNRWA personnel by the Israeli authorities, I said that “there were a small number of staff members of UNRWA who were credibly linked to Hamas and we have handled that situation and fired those personnel”.

This was incorrect.  The outcome of the OIOS [Office of Internal Oversight Services] investigation into these allegations did not qualify them as credible.  Instead, OIOS said that the evidence that it obtained — if authenticated and corroborated — might indicate that the staff members may have been involved.  The Government of Israel, to date, has not provided additional elements to corroborate or authenticate the claims, although it has been asked to do so repeatedly. Furthermore, the International Court of Justice last week ruled that the State of Israel’s claim that UNRWA is infiltrated by Hamas was not substantiated, nor were allegations that UNRWA is not a neutral organisation.”

This clarification is decisive. It formally admits that no credible evidence existed. The nine staff members were therefore dismissed unlawfully, in violation of both internal due-process guarantees and the principle of presumption of innocence.

IV. Key Legal Issues Emerging from the Record

  1. Absence of Evidentiary Basis
     The Commissioner-General’s reliance on speculative OIOS language (“if authenticated and corroborated”) fails the basic evidentiary threshold required for termination. Without authenticated proof, the decision is ultra vires, beyond his lawful authority. Further, in cases of serious misconduct where the contemplated disciplinary measure could be termination, the threshold of evidence required is beyond a reasonable doubt.
  2. Violation of Due Process
      By acting before investigation and denying staff the opportunity to respond, the Commissioner-General contravened the UN’s procedural guarantees under Chapter X of the UN rules on disciplinary process, as well as Article 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (right to a fair hearing).
  3. Subordination to a Member State’s Allegations
     The Commissioner-General’s actions reflected de facto compliance with Israeli political pressure, contrary to Article 100 of the Charter and Regulation 1.1 of the Staff Regulations prohibiting receipt of instructions from governments.
  4. Public Defamation and Reputational Harm
     His statements, and their immediate media amplification, effectively branded UNRWA staff as terrorists. Even absent evidence, the public perception of guilt caused irreparable reputational damage to the Agency and the individuals concerned.
  5. Institutional Accountability Vacuum
     Despite the subsequent UN clarification and ICJ ruling dismissing Israel’s claims, no remedial action, such as reinstatement or compensation, has been taken. The absence of corrective measures perpetuates impunity within the UN’s leadership structure.

From a legal standpoint, the only appropriate remedy would be the immediate reinstatement of the nine unlawfully dismissed staff, or at the very least, an accountability review into the Commissioner-General’s conduct to restore institutional integrity.

UNRWA Is Not Hamas.

It is a United Nations agency operating under the authority of the General Assembly, employing doctors, teachers, engineers, and social workers, all of them refugees themselves, who serve under UN rules of neutrality and oversight. The attempt to recast this humanitarian institution as a militant organization is a political Israeli fabrication, and the Commissioner-General’s unlawful dismissals gave that fiction an undeserved aura of legitimacy

Beyond the procedural irregularities, the broader consequence is reputational and structural: the very act intended to protect UNRWA from political attack became the instrument that enabled it.

The Commissioner-General’s actions have contributed to fuel the narrative of Israel about UNRWA staff linked to Hamas. Contrary to his statements, the CG failed to protect UNRWA from reputational risks. Quite the contrary, it was his acts that led to an irreparable reputational damage by linking, incorrectly and unlawfully and outside any regulatory framework, the dismissal of these staff to Hamas- a damage that may prove be very difficult to repair.

UNAT Calls the Palestinian Suffering Under Israeli Occupation “Ordinary”

At the very moment the United Nations, through the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), acknowledges the devastation in the occupied West Bank, UNRWA management is actively punishing its staff, and the United Nations Appeals Tribunal (UNAT) reinforces this by refusing to recognize the exceptional hardship they endure.


In July 2025, OHCHR warned that the Israeli “Iron Wall” operation has already forced the displacement of some 30,000 Palestinians and forms part of a broader pattern contributing to the illegal annexation of the West Bank and that there was an unprecedented “sharp surge in killings, attacks, and harassment of Palestinians by Israeli settlers and security forces” with Palestinian injuries in June 2025 reaching their highest monthly total in over 20 years.


The United Nations Appeals Tribunal (UNAT), however, took a shocking opposite view: that such devastation is no more than the ordinary lot of Palestinians.

In Hejab v. Commissioner-General of UNRWA (Judgment No. 2025-UNAT-1570, issued last month), the Tribunal shockingly found that:

“the difficult economic conditions of living in the ‘occupied Palestine territories’ do not make Mr. Hejab’s case exceptional” and that,

“difficulty in finding another job for an older staff member close to retirement in – Occupied Palestine- cannot be considered as an unusual circumstance” (paras. 65–67).


This reasoning exposes just how profoundly disconnected UNAT is from the daily realities of Palestinian life and their unimaginable suffering. While OHCHR acknowledges forced displacement, widespread killings, and economic collapse, the UN Tribunal reduces these very conditions to routine or normal challenges. It is against this backdrop that the case of Khaled Hejab must be examined. Equally disturbing is that it was not only the UN Tribunal that failed Mr. Hejab. UNRWA management itself set the stage by building untruthful and inflated allegations to justify the Palestinian senior staff’s dismissal. On the surface, the Agency proclaims its duty of care and its commitment to staff but in reality it is actively engineering the removal of Palestinian staff.


The particularities of the case make UNAT’s dismissal all the more troubling. UNRWA management dismissed Mr. Hejab on multiple baseless and distorted allegations, including an alleged conflict of interest, supposed mismanagement, and the deletion of private WhatsApp messages.


That supposed conflict of interest was nothing more than the fact that Hejab and a contractor had been neighbors for forty years in the same refugee camp and had attended the same school. UNRWA chose to treat this as compromising his integrity, as if such proximity were evidence of collusion.


But what does it even mean to be “neighbors for forty years” in the context of a Palestinian refugee camp? This is not New York, Geneva, or Paris, where people have the privilege of choosing neighborhoods, schools, jobs, or even countries of residence.

For Palestinians, the occupier decides: where they are born, where they live, where they can or cannot relocate. Entire generations are confined to the same camps, towns, or villages, with mobility dictated by checkpoints, military orders, and residency restrictions. Daily life is governed not by free choice but by military occupation.


UNRWA knows this damn well. After all, they serve all Palestinian refugee camps in the West Bank, Gaza, Syria, Jordan, and Lebanon. The Agency has administered Palestinian camps for decades. It knows that in such settings, “neighbors” does not mean privilege, collusion, or concealed financial ties. It means survival in cramped, controlled, and immovable living conditions. UNRWA twisted Hejab’s own social reality into a ground for unlawful dismissal, punishing a staff member for circumstances dictated by the very structures of the Israeli occupation.


These accusations rested entirely on the findings of the Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS). Yet both the UNRWA Dispute Tribunal and the Appeals Tribunal observed that the Agency treated the OIOS investigation as if it were evidence itself, rather than conducting its own assessment of facts. Both UN Tribunals criticized this abdication of responsibility, underscoring that disciplinary measures must be based on established facts and not OIOS investigative conclusions that cannot withstand scrutiny.


The UNRWA Dispute Tribunal (UNRWA DT) eventually rescinded the termination, recognizing the flaws in the Agency’s decision. But when Hejab turned to the Appeals Tribunal (UNAT) seeking enhanced compensation arguing that his case was “exceptional” given the economic collapse in the occupied territories, his long unemployment, and his age close to retirement, the Tribunal dismissed his plea. It ruled that difficulty in finding another job or enduring the economic conditions of the occupied Palestinian territories did not amount to exceptional circumstances, calling them instead “routine or normal challenges.”


Such reasoning lays bare just how profoundly disconnected UNAT is from the daily realities of Palestinian life and their unimaginable suffering. While OHCHR acknowledges forced displacement, widespread killings, and economic collapse, the UN Tribunal reduces these very conditions to routine or normal challenges. I argue that the outcome reflects the cultural bias of UNAT judges, who apply Western standards of choice and mobility to a Palestinian reality defined by occupation and dispossession. 

The UNAT bench applies standards shaped in and for Western contexts where mobility, career options, and social networks are taken for granted and then judges Palestinians against them. 

What for a judge in New York or Geneva looks like an ‘ordinary difficulty’ is in fact the lived consequence of systemic occupation and dispossession. By erasing that difference, the Tribunal entrenches an unequal standard of justice: international staff are measured against realities of choice, while Palestinian staff are measured against conditions imposed by force.

Equally alarming was the Tribunal’s own note, in a footnote about the lack of due process, that UNRWA had asked Mr. Hejab to produce evidence while at the same time blocking his access to his UN email account, the very repository of the documents he needed to defend himself. 

From my own experience, I know this is not an isolated occurrence. UNRWA and other UN entities routinely deploy this tactic under the false pretext of “data protection,” denying staff access to their records while preserving those same records for the Agency’s own use in building a case. The asymmetry of power this creates is staggering: staff are expected to fight blindfolded, while management has unfettered access to every document, communication, and confidential record. This is a deliberate erosion of any aspect of due process. Indeed, judges in previous cases have highlighted that depriving staff of access to their files tilts the balance fundamentally against them, stripping proceedings of fairness.

Not only was Mr. Hejab denied access to his own email records to mount an objective and fair defense, but management also decided it would scrutinize his private WhatsApp messages. Why should UN management have access to the personal communications of a staff member? And if such intrusion is deemed acceptable, then why are staff not given equal access to the WhatsApp messages of senior management, where real collusion and misconduct are far more likely to be revealed? The selectivity of this intrusion underscores once again how accountability flows in only one direction: downward and never toward those in positions of authority.

The case of Mr. Hejab is emblematic rather than exceptional. It illustrates a recurring structural flaw: the United Nations internal justice system applies abstract legal standards that are wholly detached from the realities of occupation, while UNRWA management manipulates those standards to eliminate staff it wishes to remove. This produces a dual regime of accountability: international staff are assessed within contexts of autonomy and mobility, whereas Palestinian staff are judged within conditions of displacement, restriction, and occupation: conditions that are then shockingly dismissed as “ordinary.” This reasoning cannot be reconciled with the principle of judicial neutrality; it constitutes the entrenchment of institutional bias, concealed beneath the veneer of legality.

UNAT judges may sit in the comfort of Geneva or New York, but they are not adjudicating cases for staff living in those contexts. They are judges of international administrative law, and many of the staff who come before them live under conditions radically different from those of their white, Western colleagues. In cases involving Palestinian staff, those conditions include occupation, forced displacement, restrictions on movement, and a daily absence of choice. To ignore this is not neutrality; it is blindness. UNAT judges must be trained to understand the cultural and political realities in which staff live and work. Without such understanding, they simply cannot adjudicate fairly. Otherwise, the system ceases to be justice at all; it becomes a bureaucracy reinforcing inequality under the cover of law.

700 Killed, 560 Silenced: UNRWA, the UN Agency That Punishes Its Dead

One year ago, I published two articles exposing the deeply entrenched discrimination by UNRWA’s senior management against its Palestinian staff. Today, new and disturbing developments have emerged: ones that point not only to continued injustice but to an alarming pattern of decisions by the Commissioner-General and Western White Leadership within UNRWA that appear to serve the interests of the Israeli government and its lobbies at the direct expense of UNRWA Palestinian staff.

The ultimate trajectory?

The dismantling of UNRWA itself, particularly in Gaza.

Before revisiting the longstanding denial of rights to UNRWA Palestinian staff, it is essential to unpack the latest evidence.

UNAT Tribunal Slams UNRWA’s Abusive Use of “Neutrality” to Silence Palestinian Staff

A United Nations Appeals Tribunal (UNAT) judgment issued yesterday has delivered a stark and critical blow to UNRWA’s interpretation and enforcement of its so-called neutrality framework. In plain terms: UNRWA’s senior management, largely composed of Western officials, has been using this framework unlawfully to persecute its own Palestinian staff, often under the pretext of “anti-Semitism.” The judgment exposes the illegality and disproportionate severity of disciplinary measures imposed on Palestinian staff in ways that are unprecedented across the UN system.

This ruling shines a spotlight on the extreme and frankly, obsessive approach UNRWA has taken, positioning itself as one of the only UN agencies willing to weaponize neutrality as a tool of suppression. And the motivation? To appease the Israeli government and its lobbying networks.

The UNRWA Apartheid: Salaries for the West, Silence for Gaza

Equally disturbing is the Commissioner-General’s recent decision to suspend the pay of more than 560 Gaza staff and their families, while continuing to pay international (primarily Western) staff, even those hired under short-term surge contracts. In March 2025, Palestinian staff who had self-evacuated outside Gaza for survival were threatened with either returning to a warzone or being placed on “exceptional leave without pay.”

Less than a week ago, the Commissioner General enacted his threat and suspended the pay of some 560 Gazan staff and their families. The affected staff and their families, already displaced, were suddenly left without income or support.

This is not a logistical issue but rather a policy of abandonment. No Gaza staff member can return to the Strip today, even if they wished to. Yet UNRWA’s top leadership is punishing them for fleeing a warzone by cutting off their livelihoods.

Contrast this with the treatment of international staff: those who were evacuated were immediately offered remote working arrangements under the Alternate Working Arrangements (AWA) policy. They continue to receive full pay and benefits, working comfortably from their home countries and surrounded by the warmth of their immediate families. Even temporary international “surge staff,” recruited using the Gaza Emergency Flash Appeal funds to work inside Gaza, were not let go after evacuation: they, too, were shockingly placed on remote work and continue to be paid handsomely.

How is it legally and morally justifiable to offer full pay and protection to temporary international staff, brought in only to support Gaza operations, while denying the same to 560 Palestinian core staff whose work and knowledge sustain UNRWA’s education and relief operations?

Many of the suspended Gaza staff were educators who had developed alternative methods to continue basic education amid the conflict. Yet rather than support their efforts, the Commissioner-General is enacting policies that align more closely with the stated goals of the Israeli government: the dismantling of UNRWA and its mandate.

Publicly, the Commissioner-General says otherwise. But as we all know, in human rights, it is not the statements but the actions that define the truth.

Diplomats Get D-1 Contracts. Gazans Get Graves. UNRWA’s Moral Ledge

Despite receiving millions under the Emergency Flash Appeal for Gaza, the Commissioner-General is diverting funds away from Palestinian staff and toward bolstering UNRWA’s alleged diplomatic presence. Just today, UNRWA announced it is recruiting of “top-notch representatives” (yes you read that correctly…) for New York and Geneva at the D-1 level: positions that serve Western advocacy goals rather than Palestinian survival.

Why does UNRWA need more Western directors stationed far from the frontlines, getting paid huge salaries from the Gaza Flash Appeal (money that was destined for the Palestinians and not the Westerners) when its Gaza operations are collapsing and its staff are being systematically killed and buried under the rubbles?

Speaking of money and funding, a timely reminder.

Let us now return to what UNRWA owes to its Palestinian staff in Gaza.

As previously documented, UNRWA has systematically excluded its Palestinian staff from coverage under two key UN policies that are universally applied to other UN staff in conflict zones:

  1. Malicious Acts Insurance Policy (MAIP),  which provides compensation for death and permanent disability due to acts of war.
  2. Security Evacuation and Entitlements Policies,  which ensure that local staff are treated with parity during crises.

Despite being fully eligible under both, UNRWA’s Palestinian staff have been denied access to these protections for years. Why? Mainly because they are Palestinians, they don’t know their rights, and it comes with a significant cost to UNRWA.

At the time of my earlier reporting, 103 UNRWA staff had been killed by Israel.

Today, that number is estimated to exceed 700.

700 UNRWA humanitarian workers performing their duties under the United Nations Flag.

Yet UNRWA has refused to release an official death count, let alone compensate the families. Each family is entitled to approximately $120,000 in compensation: an essential lifeline under MAIP. Not one of these families has received a cent.

Instead, the Emergency Appeal funds are being used to finance the recruitment of international staff who are now sitting comfortably abroad under AWA status. At the same time, 560 Gazan families are left destitute.

What may be the most disturbing aspect of all: Gazan families have stopped reporting the deaths of their UNRWA-employed relatives. Why? Because they have discovered that once UNRWA is notified of a staff member’s death, their salary is immediately terminated, thereby cutting off the last thread of support for their surviving family.

UNRWA is punishing the families of the dead.

Let that sink in.

A few days ago, at the UNHQ’s noon briefing in New York, a journalist asked the following  question to the Secretary-General’s spokesperson

“Question:  what about UN staffers inside Gaza?  I mean, those Palestinian UN staffers?  What’s the situation for them now?  Are they have the same situation with other Gazan people?

Spokesman:  I mean, our Palestinian colleagues who work for the United Nations — most of them work for UNRWA — are doing two things.  They’re continuing to work to help civilians in Gaza.  And they’re also like the people they’re trying to help, just trying to survive.  They’re facing the same challenges as the rest of the population, while trying to work and maintain operations with the dwindling stocks that we have.”

But no mention was made of the 700 UNRWA staff killed. No mention was made of the UNRWA Palestinian families left without income or support. No commitment was made to compensate the dead. No acknowledgment of the systemic discrimination was uttered.

Instead, UNRWA continues to present a façade of solidarity with Palestinians, while actively undermining them from within.

Western staff are recruited, promoted, and protected.

Palestinian staff are suspended, unpaid, and buried.

This structural discrimination and racism from within UNRWA’s top leadership is enabling a system where Westerners are paid to advocate for the very people they are simultaneously disenfranchising. It is funneling donor money into Geneva offices and diplomatic posts instead of to the bereaved and the displaced. And it is doing all of this while flying the flag of neutrality.

What is clearly impossible to ignore right now is that UNRWA’s senior Westen led management is complicit in the structural dismantling of its own mandate by elevating Western political optics over Palestinian human lives.

You cannot claim to protect when your policies kill.

You cannot claim justice while burying your own staff.

There is no policy framework in the world that can excuse the abandonment of 700 of your own.

The United Nations’Complicity in the Gaza Genocide

With the focus of global attention now on Iran’s retaliation to the Israeli assault on the Iranian embassy in Syria, the UN Secretary-General is providing additional cover for Israel’s ongoing genocide in Gaza. Seemingly overnight, the world’s collective gaze has swerved towards issues of ballistic missiles, belligerence, the principle of reciprocation, and Article 51 of the UN Charter.

In the midst of it all, Israel is meticulously strategizing its Rafah assault, further extending its acts of genocide without any accountability. Israel has so far killed over 42,000 Palestinians, including 15,000 innocent children and 10,000 women, while the wounded have surpassed the 80,000 mark.

Instead of focusing the world’s attention on the imminent invasion of Rafah and the continuous slaughter of the Palestinian people, the Secretary-General bewilderingly decided to spend the 5th of April emphasizing Israel as the aggrieved party.

It seems as if the Secretary-General might be indirectly supporting Israel’s acts of genocide. 

In his own words, these were his opening remarks:

“This Sunday marks six months since Hamas launched its abhorrent terror attacks in Israel. The 7th of October is a day of pain for Israel and the world.

The United Nations, and I personally, mourn with Israelis for the 1,200 people, including many women and children, who were killed in cold blood.  I once again utterly condemn the use of sexual violence, torture, injuring and kidnapping of civilians, the firing of rockets towards civilian targets, and the use of human shields. “

Concerning Palestinians, the Secretary-General stated:

“When the gates to aid are closed, the doors to starvation are opened”

But Mr. Secretary-General, the gates of aid are not closed. It is Israel that is blocking them.

“More than half the population – over a million people – are facing catastrophic hunger.”

But, Mr. Secretary-General, it’s not that the 2 million Palestinians are simply facing a disastrous famine. The reality is that Israel is deliberately starving them right under the world’s watchful eyes.

“Children in Gaza today are dying for lack of food and water.”

But Mr. Secretary-General, the cause of Palestinian children’s deaths is not a deficiency of water. Israel intentionally cut off any water supply to Gaza with the sole aim of killing more Palestinians.

“This is incomprehensible, and entirely avoidable.”

But Mr. Secretary-General, what is incomprehensible is how, after six months, you are quietly acknowledging the demise of diplomacy instead of denouncing the brutal killing of Palestinians. 

Diplomacy which alongside the United Nations, has become at best amoral.

It’s becoming increasingly clear that the United Nations appears to show less concern with the innovative and savage methods of exterminating the Palestinians. More worryingly, any remaining vestiges of the principles of international humanitarian law seemed to have been killed along the way.

Instead, when asked yesterday about the UN’s role on the temporary pier that the US is constructing in Gaza, the Secretary-General’s spokesperson proudly stated that the UN “will support any plan to increase the delivery of aid, whether by sea, air, or, of course, most importantly, by land.”

Isn’t it baffling how the Secretary-General couldn’t manage to convince the US and Israel to provide humanitarian aid to the Palestinian people for a half-year, yet a US-built pier in Gaza, allegedly aimed at preserving Palestinian lives, is nearing completion?

When it comes to the prominent influence of the U.S. on the United Nations, one needs only look at the legislation enacted by Presidents G. Bush and Bill Clinton.

This US law unequivocally prohibits any form of financial assistance to any international organization that recognizes Palestine as a full member. This dear reader, is the chief reason that the bid for Palestine’s full membership in the UN hasn’t been successful and will never be.

This implies that if the United Nations Security Council ever approves Palestine’s full membership, the US, which is the largest contributor to the UN, is legally bound to retract its 27% assessed contributions. 

That is why the Secretary-General’s statements always start by reminding the world that we ought to condemn the 7th of October attacks and mourn those killed by Hamas while hinting that Palestinians could also be facing a mysterious famine…

The 7th of April in the UN also marked the International Day of Reflection on the 1994 Genocide against the Tutsi in Rwanda, and the Secretary-General made sure to issue another remarkable statement:

“We will never forget the victims of this genocide. Nor will we ever forget the bravery and resilience of those who survived, whose courage and willingness to forgive remain a burst of light and hope amidst this dark chapter in human history. 

Let’s ensure that the acts that began on April 7, 1994 are never forgotten — and never repeated. Anywhere.”

Yet Mr. Secretary-General, every day, every hour, every minute, every second, Palestinians are being killed in their own land. It is called Palestine. And the world is watching in silence. In cowardice.

The Secretary-General is, of course, not directly responsible for the killings of Palestinians. He, however, takes the path of least resistance and continues to offer a plethora of rationalizations and lies to conceal his cowardice and chiefly to preserve the US funding for the United Nations.

In doing so, the Secretary-General has effectively undermined any lasting faith in the virtue of multilateralism and the ethical grounding of diplomacy.

Defund as You May, The Right of Return will Not Cease to Exist, Palestine is Here To Stay.

The recent strategic move by Israel, the US, and various other Western nations to defund UNRWA is nothing but a well-orchestrated move to dismantle the Un Agency, in the mistaken confidence that doing so would somehow erase the inalienable right of return that Palestinians claim.

The deja vu crisis of defunding is about much more than just financial support and the provision of aid for humanitarian purposes. 

Don’t let yourself be led astray by misguided perspectives. 

Let’s not lose sight of the fact that UNRWA owns registration documents, historical archives, and substantial evidence collection, which includes more than half a million varied materials such as negatives, prints, slides, films, videocassettes, documents, and even original ownership papers. All these materials comprehensively cover the life experiences and the extensive history of Palestinian refugees right from 1948 to the present times.

UNRWA stands as undeniable evidence of Palestine’s rightful belonging to the Palestinian people. 

Palestinians, once the hosts to Jews on their land, have since been faced with the stark reality of their lands being claimed. Jewish immigrants then commenced a 75-year long battle of colonization against Palestine. 

The issue at hand extends far beyond the confines of humanitarian aid and services.  

The US and Israel are seeking to redefine what it means to be a Palestinian refugee. By attempting to defund UNRWA, Israel and the US are not only seeking to cut humanitarian aid or to collectively punish Palestinians. 

Rather, their ambitious goal is to eliminate the right of return for 5.5 million Palestinian refugees by abolishing UNRWA, which maintains the refugees’ registration services.  

Their goal is however, based on a fundamental misconception.  

International law grants refugee status to children of other refugee populations until they return to their permanent homes. Homes that were stolen by Israeli occupation and the land that Israel occupied. 

For over a decade, UNRWA has been continuously under attack, with the US and Israeli governments spearheading crisis after crisis, most notably during Trump’s 2018 campaign to defund UNRWA. 

The character assassination of UNRWA employees has been a persistent aim of Israel, with a string of baseless allegations against UNRWA in the past.  

For instance, in 2014, Israel used a drone video to falsely accuse two UNRWA staff members of smuggling Hamas missiles in an ambulance. It turned out they were only moving a stretcher in the ambulance. 

Why should the world continue to believe Israel after its propaganda of 40 beheaded babies was used to fuel the monstrous killing and dismembering of more than 13000 Palestinian children and babies?

In the span of two decades of my service in the United Nations globally, I have never encountered neutrality breaches, save for when I was working for UNRWA or when Israeli blogs were involved.

That’s primarily because the so called neutrality breaches are fueled by Israel’s persistent attempts to dismantle UNRWA. This constant assault on UNRWA by pro-Zionist blogs results in the US administration being inundated with false claims against UNRWA staff. This, in turn, initiates a cycle of crises centered on breaches of impartiality, ultimately leading to repeated financial cuts. 

The US administration and these zionist blogs are not the only culprits.

The fact that UNRWA largely depends on funds from the US and Western nations leads to senior executives being appointed from these countries.

The current Commissioner General hails from Switzerland and has dual citizenship with Italy, while the two deputy Commissioner Generals are from the USA and France. The other director posts are held by individuals from Germany and the UK. Given these influences, it hardly comes as a surprise that all these nations have hastily halted their financial support for UNRWA. 

The latest debacle surfaced when Israeli officials requested the UNRWA Commissioner-General to abruptly terminate the contracts of 12 staff members, whom Israel accused of involvement in the attacks on October 7th. This would undoubtedly be considered a neutrality breach and perhaps even a criminal act. 

From our inside sources, we’ve learned that the Commissioner-General of UNRWA instructed his team to announce the termination of those 12 staff members precisely at the same time as the International Court of Justice’s session on Friday, 26 January, which was passing an Order against Israel. The calculated timing aimed to soften the blow of the order from ICJ on Israeli authorities. The UNRWA CG put a 24-hour hold on his Communications Department following his statement. 

The CG’s statement began with: 

“The Israeli Authorities have provided UNRWA with information about the alleged involvement of several UNRWA employees in the horrific attacks on Israel on 7 October. I have taken the decision to immediately terminate the contracts of these staff members and launch an investigation in order to establish the truth without delay.  Any UNRWA employee who was involved in acts of terror will be held accountable, including through criminal prosecution.”

Some violations should be highlighted in the Commissioner-General’s statement. 

First, a disturbing fact is how the Commissioner-General seemingly took instructions from the Israeli authorities. This act contravenes the standards of conduct set for international civil service. Most importantly, it raises questions about the impartiality expected from international civil servants.

“If the impartiality of the international civil service is to be maintained, international civil servants must remain independent of any authority outside their organization; their conduct must reflect that independence. In keeping with their oath of office, they should not seek nor should they accept instructions from any Government, person or entity external to the organization.”

Despite the UN rules and regulations, the Commissioner-General swiftly ended contracts without launching an investigation, thereby violating the concerned staff’s fundamental right to due process. 

The Office of Investigations (OIOS) is put in a tight spot as it can no longer conduct an impartial and lawful investigation. Former staff members are under no obligation to cooperate with the OIOS, making the process even more challenging. 

Instead of rushing to terminate their contracts, the Commissioner-General had the option to first suspend the staff without pay, followed by an impartial investigation. His haste in terminating their contracts — even before commencing an investigation — hints at his attempt to appease the Israeli authorities, thereby breaching the standards of impartiality outlined by the International Civil Service’s code of conduct. 

It’s important to remember that allegations must be proven and substantiated.

A recent UNRWA  judgment issued on 31 December 2023 highlights the eagerness of the Agency to always appease the Israeli authorities by taking disciplinary measures against UNRWA staff regardless of the case’s merits.  This case involved a breach of neutrality. The Judge found that the CG imposed a serious miscounted disciplinary measure on an UNRWA staff allegedly because he was a teacher (as reported by the Israeli NGO) when it turned out that he was not one. The UNRWA Tribunal found in favor of the UNRWA staff and reversed the disciplinary measure. 

One day after the CG issued his statement on the termination of contracts, Western European countries declared their solidarity by freezing their financial aid to UNRWA. An unwanted consequence or a planned one?

Equally interesting was the reaction of the Secretary-General who expressed his horror at allegations against UNRWA staff. Yet, he has strangely not used the same term to describe the tragic death of 32,000 Palestinians, including the killing and  dismemberment of over 13000 children. 

Fear? Or sheer hypocrisy? 

As to the EU, on the day of the ICJ order on 26 January 2024, it issued a statement reaffirming its continuing support to the International Court of Justice and reminding the parties that ICJ orders were binding and that they must comply with them. 

Within days of the ICJ order, the EU took an abrupt U-turn, suspending its funding for UNRWA and demanding a review of all employees. Clearly, concerns for the integrity of their assistance do not match the reality on the ground. To make things stranger, the EU requested a review of all UNRWA employees (30,000 people) to verify that they were not involved in the attacks.

In the span of two days, the majority of Western donors had announced they were freezing funding based on a recycled “40 beheaded babies allegation” unseen by anyone, without any evidence and any sort of investigation into the matter.

Would these countries dare to withhold funds and weapons sale to Israel for the indiscriminate bombing of hospitals, UN schools, health clinics and UN shelters in Gaza? 

Today, hundreds of aid trucks are deployed at the Rafah border, with Israel blocking the delivery of essential humanitarian aid. The Palestinians wage a battle for survival, while the world watches in silence. 

Israel’s recent decision to declare the Kerem Shalom crossing a closed military zone is leading to a deadly famine. 

Israel is subjecting Palestinians to forced starvation, and the international community is observing in silence. 

It is thus clear that the humanitarian crisis will persist even if funds were not suspended.

The truth is confronting: we’re witnessing an American-Western led production aimed at more than just funds or humanitarian aid. 

This narrative seeks to shift focus from the ICJ order and set UNRWA—often synonymously associated with Palestinians—as the scapegoat. If UNRWA is guilty, all Palestinians must be deemed guilty, or so the story goes. 

Given these unfounded allegations, the conversation now centers around UNRWA staff being implicated in acts of violence, further dehumanizing entire Palestinian communities and validating their genocide. 

The message that Israel wishes to convey is that killing Palestinians is within its rights.

Led by Israel, a new wave of misinformation seeks to shift global narratives away from the injustices meted out to Palestinians. Such a scenario can only engender the opposite of goodwill and further erode the moral leadership of the Global North in the Middle East.

To the Global North we say: UNRWA does not need your funding.  

It needs you to comply with the International Court of Justice’s order by requesting Israel to stop its violence, open the humanitarian corridors and stop the bloodshed. 

Cutting funding to UNRWA at this critical juncture is nothing less than a brand new Laissez- Passer to prolong the genocide against the Palestinian people.

But one thing is certain: no amount of money will convince the millions of Palestinian refugees to give up their profound and enduring attachment to their homeland. 

To the Global North, we say:

Defund as you May, the Right of Return will Never Cease to Exist, 

and Palestine is Here to Stay.

Dichotomy of a Genocide 

A brief while before the onset of the new Gaza war on October 7, heads of state conveyed promising declarations at the 78th United Nations General Assembly.

Unbeknownst to them, just a few days later, a devastating  Genocide would tragically unfold on the Palestinian people in the Gaza strip.

The Israeli Prime Minister’s earnest endeavor in the General Assembly was to persuade the audience of his nation’s commitment to peace and progress in human rights:

“I’ve long sought to make peace with the Palestinians. 

See, the Palestinians are only 2% of the Arab world. 

The Palestinians must abandon the fantasy of destroying Israel and finally embrace a path of genuine peace with it.  

Let me show you a map of the Middle East in 1948, the year Israel was established. 

Here is Israel in 1948. It’s a tiny country, isolated, surrounded by a hostile Arab world.

For peace to prevail, the Palestinians must stop spewing Jew-hatred and finally reconcile themselves to the Jewish state. By that I mean not only to the existence of the Jewish state but to the right of the Jewish people to have a state of their own in their historic homeland, the Land of Israel. “

Judging by this morning’s obliteration of 56 residential structures and an entire community in the Northeast Gaza locality of Shujaiya, one might infer Israel is indeed steadily progressing toward its horrendous ambition: to kill the remaining 2% of the Arab Palestinian population.

Perhaps by doing so, Israel may finally achieve inner and lasting peace. With an insatiable thirst for blood, it seems that Israel will not rest until it kills every Palestinian.  

And so, the Genocide continues… to an extent that Martin Griffith, the head of OCHA, made a statement yesterday that  – Gaza may need a special tribunal to investigate Israel’s atrocities.

As for President Biden, addressing the General Assembly, he said the international community needed “to be able to break the gridlock that too often blocks consensus on the security council.”

Break the gridlock?

There is nothing blocking the gridlock like the US is.

Blocking consensus?

There is no one killing the consensus like the U.S is.

President Biden further cautioned the international community that:

“Russia believes that the world will grow weary and allow it to brutalize Ukraine without consequence.

But I ask you this: if we abandon the core principles of the UN charter to appease an aggressor, can any member state in this body feel confident that they are protected? If we allow Ukraine to be carved up, is the independence of any nation secure?

We have to stand up to this naked aggression today and deter other would-be aggressors tomorrow”

Indeed, the USA effectively put a stop to it.

From October 7th onward, the USA utilized its veto power to reject any General Assembly and Security Council resolutions aimed at even temporarily halting the ongoing massacre.

It almost appears as if the US administration is comfortable with the idea of Israel wiping out Palestinians with impunity, under the assumption that global attention will eventually fade. 

And so the Genocide goes on….

As for the European Union, it has put forward a robust proposition for reform of the Security Council and its veto power. According to them, this power was being misused, leading to a stalemate within the Security Council.

The European Union astutely highlighted the inherent conflict of interest when a P5 nation holds the capacity to veto a resolution aiming to impose sanctions against it. This observation strikes a chord of sound logic.

Emphasizing the conflict of interest, the European Union backed an initiative proposed by France and Mexico to restrict the veto power during mass atrocities.

In retrospect, however, this proposal was designed specifically with Russia in mind rather than genuinely with the aim of reforming the Security Council.

If we apply the same rationale, the United States should arguably be the first to lose its veto right, considering Israel’s conflict in Gaza is fully subsidized by the USA.

The US administration has extended $14 billion in direct military aid to Israel, which includes vast quantities of bombs and tens of thousands of 155mm artillery shells. Unfortunately, these munitions continue to be directly used to kill and maim thousands of Palestinian children.

If President Biden’s statement holds any weight, the United States should cease using its veto to block cease-fire demands and promptly put a halt to its military aid to Israel, given the significant role that US weapons and military aid play in prolonging the ongoing massacre.

And so the Genocide lives on…

While on the topic, Australia pointedly censured Russia’s manipulative ploys on food security, ones that accoring to them resulted in “millions left hungry”

It seems that the Australian government currently finds it acceptable that 2 million Palestinians lack fundamental life necessities such as food, water, electricity, and basic healthcare. Apparently, the plight of hunger among Palestinians escapes Australia’s view, along with the notion that Israel is employing food deprivation as an illegal weapon in this war.

As to the Secretary-General, he drew the international community’s attention to a crucial principle:

“When countries break the Charter’s pledge for peace, they create a world of insecurity for everyone.

Exhibit A: Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

The war, in violation of the United Nations Charter and international law, has unleashed a nexus of horror: lives destroyed; human rights abused; families torn apart; children traumatized; hopes and dreams shattered. “

Mr. Secretary-General,

We present you Exhibit B: Israel’s Genocide against Palestinian People.

A nexus of horror:

Children killed.

Journalists killed.

Doctors killed.

Health care professionals killed.

Professors killed.

Caretakers killed.

Disabled people killed.

Poets killed.

Mothers killed.

Fathers killed.

Animals killed.

Human rights Killed.

Families Killed.

Children traumatized.

Hopes and dreams Killed.. 

Mr. Secretary-General,

We present you Exhibit B:

The Killing of Palestine by the International Community

A UN official who has lost the confidence of his staff must leave.

The United Nations must come to terms with the fact that many of its staff and members of its wider family disagree with its leadership and stance on the Gaza war.

To what extent can United Nations staff remain silent when the tenets of the Organization they have sworn office to are decimated and violated daily?

The principles of international humanitarian law and human rights are nonexistent.

The principles of independence and impartiality have been trampled upon.

Asha Bradley a member of the World Food Programme family, writes:

“The trauma of having a genocide livestreamed to us was compounded by our Western governments’ and media support for horrendous violence under a false narrative of ” Israel’s right,” but I was also becoming aware that the abandonment of the people of Gaza had infected the humanitarian sphere, well at least, THE WORLD FOOD PROGRAMME.

WFPs sole duty is to uphold people’s right to food and provide food assistance. In the case of Gaza where 100% of the population is facing starvation, WFP has been uncharacteristically quiet.”

It is the mission of the WFP to rescue the Palestinians from starvation. Its Chief was busy instead attending a ceremony where Israel was presented with an award for pursuing human justice. 

How ethical, impartial, and moral is Cindy McCain?

WFP staff thinks she is not and they are demanding her resignation.

In response to staff protests, the Secretary-General’s spokesperson reiterated the SG’s complete confidence in Cindy McCain.

In the meantime, Israel has now canceled the visa of the UN Humanitarian Coordinator Lynn Hastings because she made a statement highlighting the catastrophic situation in Gaza.

The SG’s spokesperson reiterated the Secretary-General’s complete confidence in Lynn Hastings.

There is a significant difference, however, between McCain and Hastings.

Hastings was fulfilling her obligations as an international civil servant for the United Nations.

McCain was serving the interests of other countries.

In doing so, McCain was directly violating the standards of conduct of the international civil service, namely Article 8:

“If the impartiality of the international civil service is to be maintained, international civil servants must remain independent of any authority outside their Organization; their conduct must reflect that independence. It cannot be too strongly stressed that international civil servants are not representatives of Governments, nor are they proponents of their policies. 

and Article 42: 

“There may be situations in which the behavior of an international civil servant may reflect on the Organization. International civil servants must therefore bear in mind that their conduct and activities outside the workplace, even if unrelated to official duties, can compromise the image and the interests of the organizations.”

Mr. Spokesman,

Confidence must be well-earned and well-placed.

A UN official who has lost the confidence of his staff must leave.