Photo: A screenshot of drone footage released by the IDF on May 14, 2024, shows Palestinian gunmen next to UN vehicles at a UNRWA logistics center in Gaza's southernmost city of Rafah. (Israel Defense Forces)
In the aftermath of Hamas’s October 7 attacks, Israel accused at least 12 of United Nations Relief and Work Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA)'s - the UN aid agency for Palestinians - direct employees of participating in the Hamas-led attack.
Israel's report revealed as well that some of the hostages were held by UNRWA employees in their homes in Gaza and that UNRWA facilities have been used by Hamas.
UNRWA’s involvement goes beyond the atrocities that took place in southwestern Israel on Oct. 7. While 10% of UNRWA’s employees are confirmed Hamas terrorists, half of the workforce identifies with Hamas, with more than 6,000 Hamas members related to UNRWA workers.
Following the devastating Hamas assault, the victims and their family members filed multiple lawsuits in federal court against UNRWA.
One complaint, filed in June in New York by more than 100 victims, claims $1 billion in damages from UNRWA, accusing that it aided and abetted the terror group’s assault by "helping Hamas build up the terror infrastructure and personnel that were necessary to carry out the October 7 attack."
The 167-page lawsuit, filed by Chicago-based law firm MM-Law LLC and New York firm Amini LLC, named as defendants UNRWA, as well as seven of its past and current leaders, including head Philippe Lazzarini.
It said UNRWA, which coordinates nearly all aid to Gaza, let Hamas use its facilities for weapons storage, allowed tunnels and command centers to be built under its sites, and funneled cash into the terror group’s coffers by insisting on paying employees in US dollars.
While many of the claims have been made by Israel over several years, the lawsuit alleges for the first time that UNRWA insisted on paying its employees in US dollars, so that they were unable to spend the dollars directly in the Gaza Strip, which uses the Israeli shekel, needing instead to convert the cash at Hamas-controlled money changers who took a commission.
UNRWA, the plaintiffs said, “knowingly providing Hamas with the US dollars in cash that it needed to pay smugglers for weapons, explosives, and other terror materiel.”
Hamas money changers took a 10%-25% spread on transactions, “ensuring that a predictable percentage of UNRWA’s payroll went to Hamas.” This amounted to $1 billion in the period covered by the claim.
In addition, the lawsuit said UNRWA “knowingly provided material support to Hamas in Gaza” by allowing the terror group safe harbor in its faculties, including schools and other buildings used for weapons storage or command centers, based on the assumption that its premises “were inviolate” and thus immune to attack by Israel.
“The resulting atrocities were foreseeable, and the defendants are liable for aiding and abetting Hamas’ genocide, crimes against humanity, and torture,” the lawsuit said.
It also accused UNRWA of using Hamas-approved textbooks in its schools that “indoctrinate children from a young age into a death-cult ideology of hatred and genocide” and produce new recruits for the terror group.
The lawsuit includes firsthand accounts of abuse that some hostages suffered during their abduction and imprisonment in Gaza.
“Hamas did not carry out these atrocities without assistance,” the lawsuit said. “Defendants were warned repeatedly that their policies were directly providing assistance to Hamas,” it asserted. “In the face of those warnings, Defendants continued those very policies.”
The lawsuit, filed by Chicago based law firm MM-Law LLC and New York firm Amini LLC, which specialises in looking at who funds terrorists, insists the lawsuit is not political but determined on the needs of the many victims of the October 7 attacks.
“Plaintiffs understand that there are many politically charged controversies swirling around the October 7 attack and its aftermath,” it says. “Plaintiffs do not come to this court seeking a forum to air political grievances but as ordinary tort for claimants seeking monetary compensation for their inquiries from parties who are liable for those injuries on traditional tort principles.”
While Israel has alleged UNRWA complicity in the Hamas attacks – with Britain and the USA withdrawing funding from the organisation as a result – this case will be the first time those claims will be tested in court.
The big question now is if this lawsuit can stand.
The United States Department of Justice has filed a Statement of Interest in the case.
"The United States acknowledges and deplores the profound losses suffered on October 7... The United States takes no position on the factual allegations in the complaint... [However], at the request of the United Nations and in accordance with the United States’ treaty obligations to respect the immunities of the United Nations and its officials, we write to explain [that] the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the United Nations. Similarly, the individual U.N. defendants enjoy immunity for their official actions, and two of the individual defendants, by virtue of their high-ranking positions, also enjoy diplomatic immunity," wrote Assistant United States Attorney Tara Schwartz.
"The United Nations is absolutely immune from suit and legal process absent an express waiver of immunity. Article 105(1) of the Charter of the United Nations, to which the United States acceded in 1945, provides that the United Nations “shall enjoy in the territory of each of its Members such privileges and immunities as are necessary for the fulfilment [sic] of its purposes.” U.N. Charter, art. 105, § 1. The Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations (the “General Convention”), which the United Nations adopted shortly after the U.N. Charter, and to which the United States acceded in 1980, further defines the United Nations’ privileges and immunities, and specifically provides that “[t]he United Nations, its property and assets wherever located and by whomsoever held, shall enjoy immunity from every form of legal process except insofar as in any particular case it has expressly waived its immunity.” General Convention, art. II, § 2, adopted Feb. 13, 1946, 21 U.S.T. 1418, 1 U.N.T.S. 16, §2. United States courts have determined that the General Convention is a self-executing treaty and interpreted this provision as affording absolute immunity to the United Nations. E.g., Brzak v. United Nations, 597 F.3d 107, 112 (2d Cir. 2010) (“the United Nations enjoys absolute immunity from suit unless it has expressly waived its immunity”). It is thus well established that the United Nations and its subsidiary organs are absolutely immune from suit in domestic courts. See, e.g., Georges v. United Nations, 834 F.3d 88, 98 (2d Cir. 2016); Brzak, 597 F.3d at 112," the letter further states.
United States District Judge Analisa Torres has ordered the plaintiffs to respond to this Statement of Interest.
To join the FAA News WhatsApp Status, click here.
No comments:
Post a Comment