Skip to main content
Research

UNRWA and Hamas — What the Agency Admitted

A UN agency that employs staff members who also work for Hamas cannot be treated as neutral. Here is what UNRWA itself has admitted, what outside reviews found, and what donors did.

UNRWA is the United Nations agency for Palestinian refugees. It runs schools, clinics, and aid in Gaza, the West Bank, Lebanon, Syria, and Jordan. After October 7, 2023, Israel told the UN that some UNRWA staff had taken part in the Hamas attack. The UN did not deny the claim outright. Instead, UNRWA and the UN ran two reviews. The results deserve a close read.

Why this page matters

Neutral humanitarian work matters. So does the word “neutral.” Donor countries — including the United States — gave UNRWA money because the agency said its staff did not double as members of armed groups. That claim is now on thinner ice than it used to be, and the public record is why.

What UNRWA admitted

In January 2024, UNRWA fired staff and opened an internal probe after Israel shared intelligence with the agency. The BBC reported that UNRWA’s commissioner-general, Philippe Lazzarini, cut ties with nine employees named in the Israeli dossier. Several more were investigated later.

The UN Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS) ran the formal probe. Its August 2024 report concluded that there was evidence nine UNRWA staffers “may have been involved” in the October 7 attack. Those staffers were separated from the agency. Reuters covered the UN’s public statement on the same day.

What the Colonna review found

The UN separately commissioned an independent review led by former French foreign minister Catherine Colonna. Her April 2024 report, hosted by the UN at the official landing page, found that UNRWA had neutrality problems but praised its basic procedures. Two findings matter most for readers:

  • UNRWA had not shared its full staff list with host authorities in a way that let them check names against terror designations.
  • A review of UNRWA textbook materials found some content that did not meet UN values of tolerance and neutrality.

The Colonna report is the most sympathetic outside review UNRWA has on the record. It still flagged real problems.

What donors did

In early 2024, at least 16 donor countries paused funding. The Congressional Research Service has maintained a running summary. The U.S. Congress went further. The 2024 Further Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 118-47) barred U.S. contributions to UNRWA through March 25, 2025. Several European donors resumed funding after the Colonna review.

The United States has not restored direct funding to UNRWA since. The State Department’s 2025 fact sheet shows U.S. humanitarian aid for Palestinians moving through other channels.

Why this matters for civilians

Civilians in Gaza need schools, clinics, and food. That is true. OZJF supports humanitarian relief and backs the Lox & Loaded standard that preparation and aid are not the same thing as endorsement. The question is who delivers the aid, and on what terms.

If UNRWA cannot keep Hamas members off its payroll, every dollar is at risk of subsidizing the very attacks the aid is meant to recover from. Channels that do not carry that risk — ICRC, WFP, trusted NGOs, and direct bilateral aid — are not hypothetical. They are already delivering.

The right takeaway

UNRWA admitted the problem. The UN’s own review admitted the problem. Congress acted. If readers are being told that scrutiny of UNRWA is an attack on Palestinians, check the dates on the reports above. The agency itself wrote them.

Sources used on this page