Trump redirects over $200 million in U.S. aid for West Bank, Gaza

[dexterm]

So if Trump witholds money from UNWRA, who is going to fund the schools, health centers and a whole host of other social care facilities in the Occupied West Bank that UNWRA now provides to the refugees?

https://www.unrwa.org/where-we-work/west-bank

 

Will it be Israel (subsidized by USA) or will the schools and hospitals simply be closed to add to the people's suffering?

 

As the Occupying Power Israel under the Geneva Convention has a duty of care for the 2.5 million Palestinians whose lives it controls.

Article 50. The Occupying Power shall, with the cooperation of the national and local authorities, facilitate the proper working of all institutions devoted to the care and education of children.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Geneva_Convention#Article_50:_Children

 

Article 56 To the fullest extent of the means available to it, the Occupying Power has the duty of ensuring and maintaining, with the cooperation of national and local authorities, the medical and hospital establishments and services, public health and hygiene in the occupied territory, with particular reference to the adoption and application of the prophylactic and preventive measures necessary to combat the spread of contagious diseases and epidemics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Geneva_Convention#Article_56:_Hygiene_and_public_health

[sanemax]

1 minute ago, dexterm said:

So if Trump witholds money from UNWRA, who is going to fund the schools, health centers and a whole host of other social care facilities in the Occupied West Bank that UNWRA now provides to the refugees?

 

I believe that the Palestinians receive about 4 Billion US$per year from other Countries , 200 million wont make much difference

[mikebike]

8 minutes ago, sanemax said:

I believe that the Palestinians receive about 4 Billion US$per year from other Countries , 200 million wont make much difference

Then you'll be the first to line up for a 5% income reduction. Or a 5% increase in your taxes, right? 'Cause it won't make much of a difference, right?

Edited August 26, 2018 by mikebike

[sanemax]

Just now, mikebike said:

Then you'll be the first to line up for a 5% income reduction. Or a 5% increase in your taxes, right? 'Cause it won't make much if a difference, right?

Ive recently had a 20 % reduction on my income due to currency fluctuations , I just needed to cut down on a few things

[mikebike]

2 minutes ago, sanemax said:

Ive recently had a 20 % reduction on my income due to currency fluctuations , I just needed to cut down on a few things

Then you are a privileged individual. For those existing a wee bit closer to the bone a 5% reduction in income could negatively affect anything from nutrition to shelter to health care.

[BestB]

34 minutes ago, mikebike said:

Why would you have to ask in a transparent democracy?

Why should they publish anything and everything ?

[sanemax]

Just now, mikebike said:

Then you are a privileged individual. For those existing a wee bit closer to the bone a 5% reduction in income could negatively affect anything from nutrition to shelter to health care.

Or it could stop them paying families of people who commit terrorism (which is why the money has been stopped)?

[dexterm]

17 minutes ago, sanemax said:

I believe that the Palestinians receive about 4 Billion US$per year from other Countries , 200 million wont make much difference

I hope other countries can make up the shortfall, so that the children's education and healthcare don't suffer. 

 

One wonders then what was the real purpose of Trump's whole mean exercise if $200m is apparently so insignificant.

It will certainly have further alienated his adminstration from the Palestinians and perhaps his ever fewer allies as well , undermining US influence again in the region.

[Morch]

8 hours ago, simple1 said:

I responded to a member's attempts to denigrate the status of Palestinian refugees. My response  referred to official UN policy concerning refugee status, often being rejected for political purposes by some governments. Contrary to the member, for me it is logical to include the new generations of extended families for those families whose refugee status has not been resolved for decades which places them in a deplorable status for their futures. My POV informs me Palestinians, with UN affirmed refugee status, are fully entitled to direct support via UN agencies and others, not vilification.

 

You have a significant understanding of the Israeli / Palestinian positions, perhaps you would like to summarise the political positions of the respective parties concerning Palestinian refugee status.

 

Again, as yet I yet to read the Trump Administration justification of the claim the UN Agency named in the OP is diverting funds to HAMAS or the families of killed terrorists. 

 

As far as I'm aware the Palestinian's refugee status is unique in that it passes from one generation to another. I don't think that this is quite the norm with regard to all non-Palestinian refugees.

 

I'm not party to the view that ordinary Palestinians ought to be vilified for whatever reason. But criticizing their refugee status, and its implications is quite a different matter.

 

In any realistic resolution of the conflict, there will be no scenario including millions of Palestinian refugees being resettled in Israel. That's not going to happen. Similarly, even if a Palestinian state emerges in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, it will be hard pressed to absorb such an influx of returnees. Both observations are not new, nor even unique to Israel's (or pro-Israeli) point of view.

 

Despite these points being pretty obvious, maintaining (or even perpetuating) the Palestinian refugee situation served several political goals.

 

Mainly it allowed keeping up the anti-Israel narrative within the Arab world (and a handy deflection from shortcoming of relevant regimes), while avoiding any "danger" of the Palestinians being settled or given a more permanent status in these countries. Similarly, it helped maintain the Palestinian leadership's agenda - pointless and hopeless as it was.

 

Meaningful actions toward resettlement or providing Palestinian refugees with more permanent status would have implied a recognition of Israel, the futility of the "struggle", plus "burdening" Arab countries with a people that aren't particularly well though of, and are often seen as potential troublemakers. 

 

Some of the relevant criticism against UNRWA relates to its role in maintaining the illusion that the fulfillment of the Palestinian "right of return" is an actual prospect. Rather than pushing harder for realistic solutions, it just went along with the program. In this, it contributed to prolonging the conflict, and making its resolution harder. If the supposed main consideration in creating UNRWA was the lot of the Palestinian refugees, rather than achieving the goals of Arab/Palestinian leaderships' agendas, then along the way something went wrong.

 

My views on the Trump administration's comments, statements and justifications across multiple issues is public and appears in posts above. I don't think UNRWA directly does quite the things alleged. Do they sometimes use funds in an inappropriate manner or one which contradicts the terms? Yes, that's a reoccurring issue, and I doubt it could be helped much, or that it makes for sufficient grounds to a wholesale withholding of funds.

 

There were claims (which again, were partially correct) that family members of killed terrorists were given preferential treatment when hiring, or invited as paid speakers - but the by itself, the scope or novelty weren't of much note. With regard to cooperating with Hamas etc. - there is the reality of Hamas ruling the Gaza Strip and UNRWA having to cope with that. There were instances in which UNRWA facilities (including schools) were used by Hamas to store arms, for shelter, or as a handy cover from counterattacks. I don't think this reflects official UNRWA policy or wishes, though - more like local initiatives and limits as to how much Hamas can be defied. UNRWA workers are almost all Palestinians, hence keeping the line between job description and political views probably a bit tricky in certain instances.

[BestB]

11 minutes ago, mikebike said:

Then you'll be the first to line up for a 5% income reduction. Or a 5% increase in your taxes, right? 'Cause it won't make much of a difference, right?

As if US owes them this money, right?

[dexterm]

12 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

As far as I'm aware the Palestinian's refugee status is unique in that it passes from one generation to another. I don't think that this is quite the norm with regard to all non-Palestinian refugees.

 

I'm not party to the view that ordinary Palestinians ought to be vilified for whatever reason. But criticizing their refugee status, and its implications is quite a different matter.

 

In any realistic resolution of the conflict, there will be no scenario including millions of Palestinian refugees being resettled in Israel. That's not going to happen. Similarly, even if a Palestinian state emerges in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, it will be hard pressed to absorb such an influx of returnees. Both observations are not new, nor even unique to Israel's (or pro-Israeli) point of view.

 

Despite these points being pretty obvious, maintaining (or even perpetuating) the Palestinian refugee situation served several political goals.

 

Mainly it allowed keeping up the anti-Israel narrative within the Arab world (and a handy deflection from shortcoming of relevant regimes), while avoiding any "danger" of the Palestinians being settled or given a more permanent status in these countries. Similarly, it helped maintain the Palestinian leadership's agenda - pointless and hopeless as it was.

 

Meaningful actions toward resettlement or providing Palestinian refugees with more permanent status would have implied a recognition of Israel, the futility of the "struggle", plus "burdening" Arab countries with a people that aren't particularly well though of, and are often seen as potential troublemakers. 

 

Some of the relevant criticism against UNRWA relates to its role in maintaining the illusion that the fulfillment of the Palestinian "right of return" is an actual prospect. Rather than pushing harder for realistic solutions, it just went along with the program. In this, it contributed to prolonging the conflict, and making its resolution harder. If the supposed main consideration in creating UNRWA was the lot of the Palestinian refugees, rather than achieving the goals of Arab/Palestinian leaderships' agendas, then along the way something went wrong.

 

My views on the Trump administration's comments, statements and justifications across multiple issues is public and appears in posts above. I don't think UNRWA directly does quite the things alleged. Do they sometimes use funds in an inappropriate manner or one which contradicts the terms? Yes, that's a reoccurring issue, and I doubt it could be helped much, or that it makes for sufficient grounds to a wholesale withholding of funds.

 

There were claims (which again, were partially correct) that family members of killed terrorists were given preferential treatment when hiring, or invited as paid speakers - but the by itself, the scope or novelty weren't of much note. With regard to cooperating with Hamas etc. - there is the reality of Hamas ruling the Gaza Strip and UNRWA having to cope with that. There were instances in which UNRWA facilities (including schools) were used by Hamas to store arms, for shelter, or as a handy cover from counterattacks. I don't think this reflects official UNRWA policy or wishes, though - more like local initiatives and limits as to how much Hamas can be defied. UNRWA workers are almost all Palestinians, hence keeping the line between job description and political views probably a bit tricky in certain instances.

>>As far as I'm aware the Palestinian's refugee status is unique in that it passes from one generation to another. I don't think that this is quite the norm with regard to all non-Palestinian refugees.

 

You are incorrect.

 

"Kraehenbuehl [head of UNWRA] said that Israeli claims that the Palestinians are the only people to pass down refugee status to their children also are unfounded, saying that Afghan refugees displaced decades ago have the same status."

https://www.yahoo.com/news/un-official-palestinian-refugee-issue-061511764.html

[Morch]

6 hours ago, simple1 said:

Guess one can kiss any glimmer of light for Palestinian cooperation with negotiations goodbye. So much for the Trump peace initiative...

 

Well, it's not like there was a whole lot of cooperation prior to this. I doubt it will work as planned, but it seems like the drive here is to make both Palestinian leaderships irrelevant. Considering their ineffectual performance and inability to promote anything much, this might not have been a bad idea. But seeing as this is the Trump administration - there doesn't seem to be much of a follow-up plan or a back-up one.

 

I get the point of bypassing current leaderships, but undermining them without credible alternatives is dangerous. 

[robblok]

On 8/25/2018 at 9:42 AM, dexterm said:

The solution is easy.
Israel created the refugee problem; they can uncreate it.
Israel initially allows in an orderly gradual security-vetted manner Palestinian refugees who were actually born within Israel along with their immediate families, in accordance with international law.

 

They would no longer be refugees. They could become productive members of Israeli society. The UN and USA would no longer need to provide funds, and the olive branch would be a beacon of detente for the entire region.

How about the following solution.. the Palestine leaders stop their violence and that will help with Israel their sanctions and will lead to a peaceful solution.... (my solution is as feasible and right as yours)

[Morch]

5 hours ago, bristolboy said:

Clearly you are unfamiliar with the concept of idiomatic expressions. Believe it or not, they are not used in a literal sense. At least by people with a reasonable command of English. What a nonsensical interpretation.

 

And you think it's significant that the decision may not have been made at the last minute? And insignificant that the decision was announced that way?

 

And this from a POTUS who had stated  not long ago that the Palestinians could expect good things from negotiations?

 

I think that by now, there are no grounds to expect Trump making reasonable or coherent statements. Insisting otherwise requires ignoring his presidency so far.

[Morch]

5 hours ago, OneMoreFarang said:

I know what Trump should do with those 200 millions and with the over 3 billions which they pump into Israel every year and with all the rest of the money which they spend all around the world. They should take that money and use it in the USA for education, health care, all the homeless people, etc. Maybe if they do that for a decade or two that will make America great. Imagine if there wouldn't be so many idiots over there, wouldn't that be great? Most well educated people would never vote for a maniac like Trump.

Please Don Tangerine, use all that money where it is needed most - in your home country.

 

Them 3 billions they supposedly "pump into Israel" are actually conditioned on buying US made arms. Some rather big contracts, providing quite a few jobs.

[Morch]

 

@dexterm

 

The US's contribution does not amount to UNRWA's entire budget, even if it is a large chunk. Not something that can't be picked up by other countries. At least on declaratory level, that's a safe bet. Other countries not living up to promises of donations and such is another matter. Sure you'll find a way to blame the US (or Israel) for that as well.

 

As for your standing bogus international law interpretations - the existence of the PA pretty much nullifies most of the nonsense you posted. I'm aware you're not in the habit of acknowledging Palestinian accountability or commitments, but such is life.

 

[simple1]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

As far as I'm aware the Palestinian's refugee status is unique in that it passes from one generation to another. I don't think that this is quite the norm with regard to all non-Palestinian refugees.

 

I'm not party to the view that ordinary Palestinians ought to be vilified for whatever reason. But criticizing their refugee status, and its implications is quite a different matter.

 

In any realistic resolution of the conflict, there will be no scenario including millions of Palestinian refugees being resettled in Israel. That's not going to happen. Similarly, even if a Palestinian state emerges in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, it will be hard pressed to absorb such an influx of returnees. Both observations are not new, nor even unique to Israel's (or pro-Israeli) point of view.

 

Despite these points being pretty obvious, maintaining (or even perpetuating) the Palestinian refugee situation served several political goals.

 

Mainly it allowed keeping up the anti-Israel narrative within the Arab world (and a handy deflection from shortcoming of relevant regimes), while avoiding any "danger" of the Palestinians being settled or given a more permanent status in these countries. Similarly, it helped maintain the Palestinian leadership's agenda - pointless and hopeless as it was.

 

Meaningful actions toward resettlement or providing Palestinian refugees with more permanent status would have implied a recognition of Israel, the futility of the "struggle", plus "burdening" Arab countries with a people that aren't particularly well though of, and are often seen as potential troublemakers. 

 

Some of the relevant criticism against UNRWA relates to its role in maintaining the illusion that the fulfillment of the Palestinian "right of return" is an actual prospect. Rather than pushing harder for realistic solutions, it just went along with the program. In this, it contributed to prolonging the conflict, and making its resolution harder. If the supposed main consideration in creating UNRWA was the lot of the Palestinian refugees, rather than achieving the goals of Arab/Palestinian leaderships' agendas, then along the way something went wrong.

 

My views on the Trump administration's comments, statements and justifications across multiple issues is public and appears in posts above. I don't think UNRWA directly does quite the things alleged. Do they sometimes use funds in an inappropriate manner or one which contradicts the terms? Yes, that's a reoccurring issue, and I doubt it could be helped much, or that it makes for sufficient grounds to a wholesale withholding of funds.

 

There were claims (which again, were partially correct) that family members of killed terrorists were given preferential treatment when hiring, or invited as paid speakers - but the by itself, the scope or novelty weren't of much note. With regard to cooperating with Hamas etc. - there is the reality of Hamas ruling the Gaza Strip and UNRWA having to cope with that. There were instances in which UNRWA facilities (including schools) were used by Hamas to store arms, for shelter, or as a handy cover from counterattacks. I don't think this reflects official UNRWA policy or wishes, though - more like local initiatives and limits as to how much Hamas can be defied. UNRWA workers are almost all Palestinians, hence keeping the line between job description and political views probably a bit tricky in certain instances.

From my limited knowledge all of the above resonates with truth, so thanks for the effort to respond. I do agree with your POV concerning Right of Return, sadly does not seem to be an equitable political solution so drags on year after year with the associated suffering.

 

I would assume those who are born into refugee families or extended families who regroup in refugee camps etc, if unable to return to their homes, would be eligible for refugee status. As an example vast numbers of Afghan refugees have been hosted for decades (death, birth, marriages, family reunions and so on) in Pakistan & Iran due to ongoing threats / conflicts. As far as I'm aware there has not been any actions to withdraw UN funding by donor countries for Afghan refugees in Pakistan and Iran.

Edited August 26, 2018 by simple1

[My Thai Life]

Ultimately what the USA does with its aid budget is its own business.

 

But people on this forum claiming that there are no Palestinian refugees are either totally blind, bigoted, or completely uninformed.

 

Try being kicked out of your house, kicked off your land, and your house bulldozed by a state which has a racist constitution aimed against you. Said state backed by apparently limitless funding from the world's biggest arms manufacturing, warmongering nation.

 

Yes, ultimately what the USA does with its aid budget is its own  business. And what it does with its once pretty good international reputation is also its own business.

 

Sheeeeesh.

 

 

Edited August 26, 2018 by My Thai Life

[farcanell]

3 hours ago, Morch said:

 

What "peace talks" was Hamas involved (and supposedly "withdrew from") in prior to the transfer of the US embassy? I think you're conflating between the PA and Hamas there.... 

 

 

Your 100% correct....

 

i should have written “ Palestine”, or similar, but I think the concept stands... a stick to beat into attending the peace talking table.

 

I think that because my normal position is to demonize hamas, as a terror organization, it just popped out in relation to Gaza and the West Bank.... Which makes me guilty of generalizing... my apologies.

[metisdead]

Off topic posts and the replies have been removed. 

 

An offensive hyperbolic post and the replies were removed. 

[Morch]

1 hour ago, simple1 said:

From my limited knowledge all of the above resonates with truth, so thanks for the effort to respond. I do agree with your POV concerning Right of Return, sadly does not seem to be an equitable political solution so drags on year after year with the associated suffering.

 

I would assume those who are born into refugee families or extended families who regroup in refugee camps etc, if unable to return to their homes, would be eligible for refugee status. As an example vast numbers of Afghan refugees have been hosted for decades (death, birth, marriages, family reunions and so on) in Pakistan & Iran due to ongoing threats / conflicts. As far as I'm aware there has not been any actions to withdraw UN funding by donor countries for Afghan refugees in Pakistan and Iran.

 

There are solutions, only that they involve parties letting go of long held narratives. Not wholesale, mind, but even that seems too much. Not solutions which will satisfy everyone's fantasies, but much better than the ongoing situation. IMO, and that's where we differ, UNRWA contributes to this state of affairs.

 

As said elsewhere on topic, I think the issue of just how far down the line we're talking about. Second generation is probably less controversial. Claiming the exact full rights third generation and onward seems unrealistic and bogus. It might not seat well with some bent on absolute justice, but perpetuating people's refugee status is no answer either.

 

The Palestinian refugees issue dates back some 70 and 50 years. That's a wee bit longer than the Afghanistan refugees been around, meaning extra generations and more people included as time goes by. At some point it will face the same issues and questions.

 

Short term handling of refugee crises is one thing, and while dramatic, less complicated than dealing with things long term. I think relevant agencies, efforts and policies are finding it difficult to address such problems, and that's not going to get better.

 

I'm loath to say what the Trump administration may or may not do, but I think if the political situation and circumstances regarding the Afghani refugees were similar, maybe they'd get shafted as well. That's the problem with drawing  such comparisons, though - relevant factors are rarely similar.

[Morch]

 

@My Thai Life

 

Other than in your post, I don't think anyone claimed that "there are no Palestinian refugees". There were views that the application of refugee status in this case is excessive. Not quite the same thing, but obviously less hyperbole material.

 

Israel doesn't actually have a constitution, which may or may not account for some of the issues that often arise. That's hardly what the topic is about, though - other than in your rant.

 

 

[My Thai Life]

1 minute ago, Morch said:

Other than in your post, I don't think anyone claimed that "there are no Palestinian refugees".

Just go and read the thread.

[Morch]

1 minute ago, My Thai Life said:

Just go and read the thread.

 

Edited August 26, 2018 by Morch

[robblok]

4 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Them 3 billions they supposedly "pump into Israel" are actually conditioned on buying US made arms. Some rather big contracts, providing quite a few jobs.

Funny.. something earmarked for aid .. turned around to the own economy by a trick.. kinda smart.

[farcanell]

5 hours ago, dexterm said:

So if Trump witholds money from UNWRA, who is going to fund the schools, health centers and a whole host of other social care facilities in the Occupied West Bank that UNWRA now provides to the refugees?

Hopefully more responsible and less self serving aid donors will redirect their aid from wherever trump diverts USaid too.... thereby enabling them (other aid donors) To send it to Palestinian relief efforts.

 

these other countries are unlikely to make knee jerk decisions, (what, with being responsible and all) so it may  be a trickle effect

 

personally, I really really want to see something like this happen.... and trumps reaction (much like I’m waiting to see what the Europeans will do in Iran ?)... hopefully his head will explode ???

[candide]

9 hours ago, Morch said:

 

There are solutions, only that they involve parties letting go of long held narratives. Not wholesale, mind, but even that seems too much. Not solutions which will satisfy everyone's fantasies, but much better than the ongoing situation. IMO, and that's where we differ, UNRWA contributes to this state of affairs.

 

As said elsewhere on topic, I think the issue of just how far down the line we're talking about. Second generation is probably less controversial. Claiming the exact full rights third generation and onward seems unrealistic and bogus. It might not seat well with some bent on absolute justice, but perpetuating people's refugee status is no answer either.

 

The Palestinian refugees issue dates back some 70 and 50 years. That's a wee bit longer than the Afghanistan refugees been around, meaning extra generations and more people included as time goes by. At some point it will face the same issues and questions.

 

Short term handling of refugee crises is one thing, and while dramatic, less complicated than dealing with things long term. I think relevant agencies, efforts and policies are finding it difficult to address such problems, and that's not going to get better.

 

I'm loath to say what the Trump administration may or may not do, but I think if the political situation and circumstances regarding the Afghani refugees were similar, maybe they'd get shafted as well. That's the problem with drawing  such comparisons, though - relevant factors are rarely similar.

Well. One big difference is that in Afghanistan, it's about a conflict between people from the same country.

[Tailwagsdog]

On 8/25/2018 at 10:13 AM, simple1 said:

Get off your soapbox. There are currently 24 million officially recognised refugees worldwide by the UN, 10 million stateless, 40 million IDPs etc.

 

http://www.unhcr.org/en-au/figures-at-a-glance.html

 

You have already been provided with the official definition for Palestinian refugees, so enough of the nonsense. But just for you, more detail...

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_refugees#Palestinian_definitions

 

In your opinion Palestinian refugees have an easy life??? Go and live in Gaza, a Palestinian refugee camp and so on for six months and report back...

Lets buy them guns so they can fight for their freedom & rights in their home country like the people in europe & asia did in the last century. ... and don't neglect them like they have in Syria. Support Taiwan Kurdistan & other beacons of democracy to join the free world & fight tyrants.

[simple1]

43 minutes ago, candide said:

Well. One big difference is that in Afghanistan, it's about a conflict between people from the same country.

Whilst Off Topic your observation is incorrect. Foreign fighters and security agencies from Pakistan and elsewhere have been & are are deeply involved in the Afghan conflict

[simple1]

11 hours ago, Morch said:

 

There are solutions, only that they involve parties letting go of long held narratives. Not wholesale, mind, but even that seems too much. Not solutions which will satisfy everyone's fantasies, but much better than the ongoing situation. IMO, and that's where we differ, UNRWA contributes to this state of affairs.

 

As said elsewhere on topic, I think the issue of just how far down the line we're talking about. Second generation is probably less controversial. Claiming the exact full rights third generation and onward seems unrealistic and bogus. It might not seat well with some bent on absolute justice, but perpetuating people's refugee status is no answer either.

 

The Palestinian refugees issue dates back some 70 and 50 years. That's a wee bit longer than the Afghanistan refugees been around, meaning extra generations and more people included as time goes by. At some point it will face the same issues and questions.

 

Short term handling of refugee crises is one thing, and while dramatic, less complicated than dealing with things long term. I think relevant agencies, efforts and policies are finding it difficult to address such problems, and that's not going to get better.

 

I'm loath to say what the Trump administration may or may not do, but I think if the political situation and circumstances regarding the Afghani refugees were similar, maybe they'd get shafted as well. That's the problem with drawing  such comparisons, though - relevant factors are rarely similar.

It's interesting to note Israeli Defence officials do not support the proposed funding cuts by the Trump Administration, I understand you currently are of a similar POV.

 

Israeli defense officials told the country’s leaders Sunday that a swift cut in the budget of the UN’s Relief and Works Agency could lead to a vacuum in supplying basic services to the Gaza Strip, creating a gap that Hamas might fill. As per the link below the Trump decision is likely act of folly which will only exacerbate problems.

 

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-officials-swift-cuts-in-unrwa-funds-will-create-vacuum-for-hamas-1.6413809

 

Getting back to UNRWA, I still do not understand why you claim the Agency perpetuates Palestinian refugee problems. UNRWA operates under a UN Mandate described below.

 

UNRWA is unique in terms of its long-standing commitment to one group of refugees. It has contributed to the welfare and human development of four generations of Palestine refugees, defined as “persons whose normal place of residence was Palestine during the period 1 June 1946 to 15 May 1948, and who lost both home and means of livelihood as a result of the 1948 conflict.” The descendants of Palestine refugee males, including legally adopted children, are also eligible for registration. 

UNRWA services are available to all those living in its areas of operations who meet this definition, who are registered with the Agency and who need assistance. When the Agency began operations in 1950, it was responding to the needs of about 750,000 Palestine refugees. Today, some 5 million Palestine refugees are eligible for UNRWA services.