US backs UN relief workers accused of Hamas ties in court
- The Justice Department has sided with the United Nations in a lawsuit involving its relief workers accused of aiding Hamas during the October 7 attacks in Israel.
- The U.N. claims diplomatic immunity under its charter, asserting that the lawsuit should be dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction.
- Critics argue that this position contributes to unaccountability for UNRWA and its employees despite serious allegations of their involvement with Hamas.
The Justice Department has supported the United Nations in a legal case concerning its relief workers, who are accused of involvement in the October 7 terrorist attacks in Israel. Victims and their families have filed a lawsuit against the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), alleging that the agency and its employees aided Hamas in committing international torts. The U.N. argues that the lawsuit should be dismissed based on diplomatic immunity granted under the U.N. Charter, which the U.S. has recognized since 1945. U.S. Attorney Damian Williams emphasized that the U.N. enjoys immunity from legal action unless explicitly waived. The DOJ's brief contends that the claims made against UNRWA and its employees relate to actions taken in their official capacities, thus reinforcing their immunity. The lawsuit accuses UNRWA of providing support to Hamas, including financial aid and facilitating the construction of military infrastructure, which raises serious allegations about the agency's operations in Gaza. Critics, including Israel's U.N. ambassador and human rights advocates, have condemned the U.N.'s stance, arguing that it allows for unaccountability regarding the alleged connections between UNRWA and Hamas. They assert that the claims made against the relief workers indicate a conscious and culpable involvement in terrorist activities, challenging the notion that these actions were part of UNRWA's legitimate functions. The ongoing legal battle highlights the complexities of international law, particularly regarding the immunity of international organizations and their employees. As the case unfolds, it raises significant questions about the accountability of humanitarian agencies in conflict zones and their potential complicity in acts of terrorism.