Palestinians pass by the gate of an UNRWA-run school in Nablus in the West Bank. Photo: Reuters/Abed Omar Qusini.

Following the release of evidence by Israel that Palestinian UNRWA employees took part in the Hamas massacre on October 7, most of the organization’s major donors have suspended funding to the Palestinian refugee agency.

The United States, UNRWA’s biggest donor, was the first to announce its decision to withdraw aid, in a statement that said officials were “extremely troubled” by the allegations that Palestinian agency workers participated in the kibbutz atrocities, kidnapped Israeli hostages, and helped coordinate the movement of weapons that were used in the attack.

According to a dossier handed over to the US State Department, at least 1,200 UNRWA employees were found to be members of either Hamas or Palestinian Islamic Jihad.

When it comes to @Refugees, most are looked after by the UNHCR. However, Palestinians have their own agency, @UNRWA.

So what’s going on here? pic.twitter.com/WGoZE9qQzX

— HonestReporting (@HonestReporting) January 27, 2024

None of these revelations, however, will come as a surprise to anyone who’s a bit more clued up about UNRWA’s chequered history.

What we (and other organizations) have repeatedly demonstrated over the years, is how UNRWA is completely rotten to its core.

From UNRWA employees discovered to be members of terrorist groups, to teachers in its schools who encouraged students to murder Jews, and the agency’s facilities being used as terror bases, UNRWA has repeatedly shown that it is corrupt, inefficient, and, as the evidence indicates, exacerbating the plight of Palestinians.

Despite all of this — specifically, the disturbing truth about UNRWA being laid bare — a strange incredulity emerged among media outlets regarding the latest revelations. This was followed by a rush to either downplay the findings or engage in excessive handwringing about the potential consequences for Palestinians without UNRWA.

The BBC, for example, obscured the horrifying accusations against UNRWA that resulted in it being defunded, by referring to the situation as a “diplomatic storm” in the headline of a piece that suggested heartlessness by donor states that have removed the “lifesaving assistance on which two million Gazans rely…”

Indeed, the whole piece reads as a sort of press release for UNRWA, which is described in positively glowing terms as running Gaza’s “medical and educational facilities, including teacher training centres and almost 300 primary schools — as well as producing the textbooks that educate young Palestinians.”

While the BBC does reference some of UNRWA’s troubling history, it frames these issues as mere accusations from Israeli governments, which have “long denounced the agency’s teaching and textbooks for, in their view, perpetuating anti-Israel views.”

A note to the BBC: children’s textbooks that explicitly call for the genocide of Jews, encourage youngsters to become suicide bombers, and glorify Palestinian terrorists go beyond “perpetuating anti-Israel views.”

Is UNRWA finally facing a reckoning? Maybe.

The US has pulled funding and the UN Secretary-General is allegedly horrified, despite knowing UNRWA’s history. What happens next? We’ll have to wait and see, but we’re not holding our breath. pic.twitter.com/As4J7gzK95

— HonestReporting (@HonestReporting) January 27, 2024

The BBC also dismisses criticism of UNRWA as suggestive of the agency becoming “something of a political football” while its “very existence is criticised by Israel as entrenching the status of Palestinians as refugees, encouraging their continued hopes of a right of return to land from which they were driven in 1948 or during successive wars.”

Unsurprisingly, given its sympathetic tone, the piece fails to clarify that barely any of the 5.9 million Palestinians deemed “refugees” worldwide were actually alive in 1948. Additionally, it omits that UNRWA’s definition of refugee status diverges from all accepted definitions, being so broad that it allows inheritance of this status from parents and grandparents.

Likewise, Newsweek also steered its coverage away from the unmasking of UN workers as terrorists to focus on UN Secretary-General António Guterres’ plea for donors to carry on funding the organization on the grounds that humanitarian workers in the region “should not be penalized.”

While the piece quotes Guterres at length, including his praise of UNRWA’s Philippe Lazzarini, Newsweek doesn’t actually bother to go into any real detail about the latest allegations or any of the other claims made against UNWRA over the years.

The Guardian went even further, to emphasize how “outraged” aid agencies are at UNRWA’s defunding.

With no mention in the headline of what prompted the funding cut — details of which are buried toward the bottom of the story — the piece also ignores the many other accusations against UNRWA that stretch back years.

Meanwhile, Sky News’ Diplomatic Editor Dominic Waghorn was apparently so desperate to rehabilitate UNRWA’s image that he desperately attempted to discredit one of the journalists who wrote a Wall Street Journal exclusive that revealed some 10 percent of UNRWA’s 12,000 staff members in Gaza have links to terror groups.

Is the @cjkeller8 behind WSJ report that 10 percent of UNRWA staff have Islamist links the same Carrie Keller Lynn who served in the Israeli military and is a close friend of a pioneering IDF propagandist? https://t.co/Rr26a1hcuD

— Dominic Waghorn (@DominicWaghorn) January 30, 2024

UNRWA benefits from the halo effect. We’ve repeatedly observed how the media portray UNRWA as a paragon of virtue while simultaneously failing to scrutinize it as rigorously as they would any other organization receiving substantial public funding.

However, the incredulity displayed by numerous news outlets in response to the latest allegations is astonishing.

What more could it possibly take for UNRWA’s halo to finally fall in the eyes of the international media?

The author is a contributor to HonestReporting, a Jerusalem-based media watchdog with a focus on antisemitism and anti-Israel bias — where a version of this article first appeared.