The United Nations has now openly confirmed what critics long understood: UNRWA isn’t an agency for a specific class of 1948 refugees—it exists for ALL Palestinian Arabs.
In a recent statement, the UN described UNRWA as essential for “millions of Palestinians, including Palestine refugees,” collapsing even the agency’s own elastic definition. The distinction has vanished. The entire population is the constituency.
UN admits that UNRWA is “irreplaceable lifeline” for every single Palestinian Arab.
This is a fundamental admission. UNRWA was created in 1949 as temporary relief for Arabs – and only Arabs – displaced in a particular conflict. Twisted at its start, it has evolved into a hereditary, permanent system—unlike any refugee regime in the world—preserving grievance rather than enabling the “two state solution” the same UN purports to advance. Now the UN goes further, implying UNRWA’s mandate covers every Palestinian Arab regardless of any manufactured refugee criteria.
That is not humanitarian work. It is political infrastructure.
By broadening its mission to one entire group, the UN reveals UNRWA’s true function: a nation-building institution for Palestinians, not a neutral welfare agency. The “refugee” label is just a cudgel to wage war against the Jewish State.
The UN’s own wording now confirms that UNRWA is not designed to end a refugee situation; it is designed to expand it—to serve all Palestinian Arabs whether they fit the already-distorted definition or not.
A system once justified as emergency relief is a highly partisan political project. And the UN has finally said so out loud.
United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres crossed a moral line when he called Palestinian Arabs an “inspiration” and a model of “resilience” this week. Inspiring how? By the crowds who celebrated the October 7 massacre? By polls showing majorities still glorifying the murders of Israeli civilians? By a culture whose media, schools, and leaders reject coexistence and sanctify violence?
Guterres didn’t qualify his praise. He erased the difference between the paltry few who seek peace and the dominant culture that cheers attacks on Jews. He took a society steeped in martyrdom worship and Jew-hatred — a culture that teaches children to dream of a land without Jews — and wrapped it in moral language.
That isn’t nuance. It’s whitewashing.
And the moral preening about UNRWA, the “irreplaceable lifeline for millions of Palestinians, including Palestine refugees“, which by his own admission is not just about an agency for descendants of displaced people from 75 years ago, but for ALL ARABS? That agency which was intimately engaged in fighting a war against Israel? He insists that the international “stand firmly” with the agency which fosters the violence and perpetual state of war?
Guterres has dignified the ideology that drives repeated attacks on Israeli families. He has signaled to the world that Jewish suffering is incidental, and Palestinian rejectionism is to be emulated.
If the Secretary-General looks at a society that celebrates slaughter and sees “a testament to the human spirit”, what won’t he excuse next?
It’s time for moral clarity. If Hamas supporters chant, “There is only one solution! Intifada Revolution!’— then outside the UN, people should gather in front of the campus with the truth:
“There is only one response — eradication of Hamas!”
Peace will never come from praising a culture of violence. Only from defeating it.
Antonio Guterres, the United Nations’ Secretary-General, flew to Saudi Arabia last week to praise tourism as a “force for peace” and “inclusive development.” He told the UN Tourism Assembly that travel “brings humanity closer together.” The speech glowed with globalist virtue.
Except for one problem: it was delivered in a country that bans people of certain religions from entering its holiest city. Non-Muslims can tour the malls of Riyadh, but not take a single step inside Mecca. “Inclusive,” Saudi style, comes with a checkpoint.
The hypocrisy is so thick you could pave a runway with it. The leader of the United Nations extolling openness from a podium in a state that literally posts “Muslims Only” signs on highways. Tourism for peace—so long as you’re the right faith.
Saudi Arabia’s Vision 2030 invites the world’s money while keeping its spiritual gates locked. And the UN, a tool of Islamic Supremacy, pretends not to notice. It’s hard to bring humanity closer together when half of humanity is forbidden to enter.
The latest United Nations conference on “social justice” met in Qatar – that same Qatar that supports the antisemitic genocidal terrorists of Hamas and instills their narrative into the United States and the world.
UN Deputy Secretary-General Amina Mohammed pretended to reach for the moral high ground, invoking the Copenhagen Declaration and the Doha Development Agenda as the guiding stars of global fairness. She spoke of social justice, inclusion, development, and the duty to “leave no one behind.” And then, inevitably, she cited Gaza – and only Gaza – not as a lesson in hypocrisy, but as a tragedy of war that, in her telling, derailed those noble promises.
But the fact is that Gaza did not collapse because the UN’s social programs failed to reach it or from war. Gaza was the UN’s social program. For decades, the UN built and funded the schools, administered the food aid, managed the clinics, and drafted the talking points. Generations were raised under their flag of humanitarian idealism. Yet what was taught was not coexistence, tolerance, or equality. It was grievance, entitlement, and the dream of a land without Israel.
If Copenhagen promised inclusion, Gaza delivered indoctrination. If Doha promised shared prosperity, Gaza institutionalized dependency. The UN’s own agencies became the state’s scaffolding—without the accountability of a state or the moral compass of true social justice. There was never any “leaving no one behind”; there was only teaching millions that history owed them everything and responsibility was optional.
The United Nations Deputy Secretary-General mourns Gaza as proof that war has undone the UN’s human-development vision. Alas, Gaza is proof that the vision itself was hollow, or at least deeply corrupted when it came to the Stateless Arabs from Palestine (SAPs). The declarations were printed on fine paper, but the values were never applied where it mattered most. No education for coexistence. No curriculum of compromise. No inclusion for those outside the narrative.
The Copenhagen and Doha declarations were supposed to represent the conscience of human values. In Gaza, they became the cover for a project that replaced human rights with perpetual resentment. That is not social justice. That is social decay, dressed up in UN language and called compassion.
The United Nations Relief and Works Agency, UNRWA, declares that it operates on four humanitarian principles — humanity, neutrality, impartiality, and independence. It is none of those things.
UNRWA is unlike any other UN agency. It is not the UNHCR, which manages refugees from every nation and conflict on earth. UNRWA is a creature of exception — created for a particular people, in a particular region, in a particular war.
The agency claims it was established to address the plight of refugees from Palestine following the 1948–49 Arab-Israeli War. But was that truly its purpose? When the fighting ended, thousands of Jews were also expelled from their homes east of the 1949 Armistice Lines (E49AL) — from Jerusalem’s Old City, from Hebron, and across Transjordan’s illegally occupied territory. They, too, were refugees from Palestine. Did UNRWA help any of them? No.
Jews expelled from the Old City of Jerusalem via the Zion Gate by the army of Transjordan
From its inception, UNRWA was built to serve Arabs alone. Even when those same Arabs became full Jordanian citizens, the agency continued to provide them with housing, food, education, and medical care — benefits that by any logical standard should have ended once citizenship was granted. Instead, UNRWA preserved refugeehood as an inheritance, not a temporary condition.
Over time, UNRWA’s mission has morphed from relief to perpetuation. It has shown itself highly partisan, politically entangled, and morally compromised. Its schools and clinics may operate under the UN flag, but the agency’s allegiance is often indistinguishable from the politics of rejectionism that dominate its host territories.
During the 2023 Gaza war, UNRWA boasted that only it had the infrastructure to provide food, education, and healthcare to the Gazan population. Yet when 250 Israelis were dragged into Gaza as hostages, where was this agency of “humanity”? Did it deliver a single bandage or calorie to the kidnapped Israelis held underground? Did it condemn their abduction, or even acknowledge their suffering? It did not. UNRWA’s humanity proved selective, its independence nonexistent.
Its operations in Gaza function only through integration with Hamas, the political-terrorist organization that rules the territory. Schools double as weapons depots; employees have been implicated in massacres; aid is distributed by political loyalty, not human need. Leaders at the OCHA, another UN “humanitarian” group, are not shy to say they view Hamas a legitimate political representatives of Palestinians, not as a terrorist group.
UNRWA now has additional offices outside of its field operations. It opened an office in Turkey to “expand its political and financial support base,” backed by the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), a political group. Very political. Neither independent nor neutral.
UNRWA is not a neutral humanitarian actor. It is a political instrument masquerading as one. It fails every principle it proclaims.
So long as UNRWA exists, it will preserve resentment, dependency and hatred. That agency founded in the shadow of war is the leading obstacle to peace.
The headline deal which everyone pretends is a simple human-rights triumph — hostages home in exchange for prisoners and a ceasefire — is, on its face, a moral imperative. Families and politicians, of course want the war to end and hostages back home. But if we treat this swap as merely a humanitarian ledger without thinking about incentives, strategy and deterrence, we invite a replay of October 7 — not because anyone wants it, but because the arithmetic of the deal makes another mass-carnage payoff seem rational to those who plan such crimes.
Palestinian Arabs wave Hamas flags atop the Red Cross truck bringing releases terrorists to the West Bank in November 2024
Here’s the cold calculus the bland statements miss.
Hostages for prisoners. Civilians for killers. A handful for hundreds. These trades have an immediate human relief value. The cost, however, is structural: they reset the reward function for terrorism. If a violent raid can reliably purchase the release of leadership, fighters, and political capital — and if the international response includes legal actions that delegitimize the responding state — then the net effect is to make mass atrocity an instrument of statecraft.
Celebrations for released Palestinian Arab terrorists in 2014
But the mathematics isn’t just – and must not be viewed as – the prisoner-to-hostage ratio. It includes the defensive response: the likely military, political, and territorial consequences of the assault. Hamas should be forced to accept that math too. If it contemplates another October 7-style operation as it has promised to do repeatedly, it must understand that the outcome will not be a tidy prisoner exchange and a televised victory lap. It will be the destruction of leadership and the decimation of military infrastructure, with broad international support for the defensive measures taken to prevent a repeat.
Which brings us to the international legal theater now playing out: the ICJ’s “genocide” accusations, the vociferous statements from states threatening arrest of Israeli officials, and the diplomatic embrace of Palestinian statehood in some quarters. These actions, however well intended by their proponents, have immediate strategic effects. They amplify Hamas’s narrative of global validation and, crucially, complicate the deterrent effect of defensive operations. If a state in self-defense risks being publicly criminalized or its leaders subject to arrest, the calculus of deterrence is altered – for the entire world.
So, what should sensible governments do if they insist on both protecting Palestinian rights and preventing another October 7? Two practical propositions:
If regional governments want backing for Palestinian statehood and avoid terrorism in their own countries, they should drop the ICJ case. the Arab and Muslim countries which backed the U.S. ceasefire plan should pressure South Africa and other countries which brought the case to drop the charges and let diplomacy take center stage. Law and diplomacy should be tools of stability, not absolution for terror strategies.
If the desired outcome is that populations on both sides live within range of cross-border terror and reprisals, then investing in defensive infrastructure as a bridge to a political solution is a rational step. The United Nations and donor states should be pressed to fund a replacement barrier between Gaza and Israel — walls and surveillance that reduce the risk of mass infiltrations, so that the question of where futures lie for Palestinians becomes a matter of state-building and safety inside Gaza, not a perpetual recruitment slogan for militancy.
Hamas breaks through security fence between Gaza and Israel on October 7, 2023, on way for mass murder and abductions
This is not a call to abandon human rights oversight or to whitewash abuses. Accountability and adherence to international law matter. But timing and incentives matter too. Legal actions taken in the heat of war — unmoored from a strategy to prevent recurrence — can harden positions and diminish the tools of deterrence. If the objective is to keep people alive and build a durable peace that allows Stateless Arabs from Palestine (SAPs) self-determination without repeated massacres, then international actors must think like engineers of stability, not moral prosecutors on a press release timetable.
If we are serious about both ending the war and preventing future acts of mass terrorism and barbarity, we must stop evaluating deals by immediate feel-good optics alone. The right measure of a deal includes whether it reduces the incentive to perpetrate mass atrocities, strengthens deterrence against their planners, and clears a path toward political arrangements that give civilians on all sides a future. Anything less is not a solution — it is an invitation.
A horrific antisemitic attack happened on the holiest day of the Jewish year at a synagogue in Manchester, England. The killer was a Muslim man named “Jihad.” The parents tattooed his fate at his birth.
After the killing of Jews on Yom Kippur in Manchester, England, October 2025
Yet the press – The New York Times, BBC, Wall Street Journal – would not identify the man by his religion. Rather than state he was a Muslim, they all wrote he was “Syrian-born.”
The New York Times would not state that the antisemitic killer was a Muslim
This was clearly a hate crime based on religion – one that even former US President Obama could not excuse as a madman out to “randomly shoot a bunch of folks.” So why not identify the religion of the killer?
This seems to harken back to the British grooming gangs which sexually assaulted and traded 1,400 girls in Rotherham, 40 miles from Manchester. The police kept mum on the story for years. As for the press, they twisted themselves every which way that the gangs were “Asian” or “Pakistani,” avoiding saying they were Muslim.
Is this silencing of the media due to the influence of Qatari money? Is this the Islamic Privilege that is writ large at the United Nations where all must bend the knee? Has Islamic terrorism become so mainstreamed that it needn’t be mentioned, or are people too worried to call it out because the fear of reprisals feels so close?
Obama said that he refused to use the phrase “radical Islam” because the religion was twisted by extremists. “They are not religious leaders; they are terrorists. We are not at war with Islam. We are at war with people who have perverted Islam.” Yet members of Obama’s party use the phrase “white supremacy” liberally, and liberal colleges teach/ accuse all White people of “privilege” and racism, even though many are obviously not racist.
Everyone knows that not all 2 billion Muslims are terrorists. And many countries took a particular action on March 15, 2022, when the United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution introduced by Pakistan on the International Day to Combat Islamophobia that “terrorism and violent extremism as and when conducive to terrorism, in all its forms and manifestations, cannot and should not be associated with any religion, nationality, civilization or ethnic group.”
So perhaps that is the simple answer: the media doesn’t want to conflate extremism and religion – for Muslims. It is de rigueur for the media to do it for Jews.
The New York Times lambasting Jews
Islamic terrorism is real. Whether from ISIS, al Qaeda, Boko Haram, Hamas or the local zealot next door. Pretending it doesn’t exist will not save the West. It certainly won’t protect Jews, especially when the media miseducates the world that they are the real threat.
Islamic radicals came for Jews again. This time, on Yom Kippur, the holiest day on the Jewish calendar.
In Manchester, England, Jihad Al-Shamie, a 35-year-old British man of Syrian descent, rammed his car into a synagogue and then started stabbing people. Two were killed and three injured. The press would not say that the man was Muslim (his name was Jihad) nor what the motive was.
But it was clear to everyone – even the United Nations – that this was not a casual madman but a force of evil. The UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres issued a statement the same day that he “stands in solidarity with the Jewish community and calls for those responsible to be brought to justice.”
This is a completely normal and appropriate reaction.
Yet compare it to Guterres’s statement when seven Jews were killed outside a synagogue in Jerusalem in January 2023: there was no statement of standing in solidarity with the Jewish community. There was no call to “confront hatred and intolerance.” There was no demand that the perpetrators be brought to justice.
Quite the contrary: he demanded that Israel “exercise utmost restraint.”
Because the United Nations has long blessed the Palestinian Arab war to kill Jews.
Mark Medoff titled his play Children of a Lesser God to expose the way society infantilized the deaf, treating them as incomplete people. The phrase still burns because it names the humiliation: being allowed to exist but denied equal dignity.
That is precisely the status of Jews on the Temple Mount. The holiest place in Judaism, the very ground of the First and Second Temples, the site of the binding of Isaac. Yet Jews are barred from uttering a prayer there. Visitors, reluctantly and barely; worshipers, never. The “status quo” enforced by the Jordanian Waqf with United Nations’ support dictates that Jews must keep their mouths shut.
It is a civic cruelty disguised as compromise. Jews are told they may stand in the place of their ancestors, but only as tourists in a museum, not as children before God. Muslims pray freely on the Mount by the millions, but Jews are gagged at their own holiest site. That is not neutrality — it is Islamic Imperialism.
The excuses are familiar: security, stability, avoiding unrest. But those words simply sanctify discrimination as pragmatism. As every Jew is expelled for moving lips in silent prayer, the world is reminded: some children are still treated as children of a “lesser” god.
At the very moment Jews prayed in synagogues over Rosh Hashanah 5786 in September 2025, reading the story of Abraham binding Isaac on the Temple Mount and repeatedly praying for a complete Jerusalem, the Islamic world – from as far away as Pakistan and Indonesia – made demands of the United States that it would ensure that Israel maintains the “status quo” on the Mount. The despicable continued humiliation of Jews was essential for them even under the guise of stopping the Hamas war. Even above “humanitarian aid to Gaza.”
Islamic world makes demands on the United States to stop the war – and Jews attempting to pray at their holiest location
International diplomacy has institutionalized the humiliation of Jews. The so-called status quo is nothing but a permanent statement of inequality.
Medoff’s play forced audiences to confront a society that silenced the deaf. The Temple Mount forces us to confront a world that silences Jews. While both are intolerable, the latter is demanded at the anti-Jewish United Nations.
“Decolonization” has become one of the most fashionable buzzwords of the modern age. It is taught in schools, shouted in protests, and deployed at the United Nations as a moral bludgeon against the West. European imperialists, we are told, robbed indigenous peoples of their land, stripped them of their culture, and erected foreign regimes on stolen soil. The work of decolonization — dismantling those legacies and restoring dignity — has been cast as the great ethical project of our time.
But what of the other colonial power that swept across continents, subjugating peoples and erasing their sacred spaces? What of Islamic imperialism, which invaded the Jewish promised land centuries ago, laying claim to sites that predated Muhammad’s birth by millennia?
Consider Hebron, the resting place of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Sarah, Rebecca, and Leah. For Jews, it is the Ma’arat HaMachpelah, the Cave of the Jewish Matriarchs and Patriarchs — a holy site woven into the very text of Genesis. When Muslim conquerors took over, they renamed it the “Ibrahimi Mosque,” transformed it into a shrine for their own creed, and barred Jews from entering. For seven hundred years, Jews were not even allowed to set foot past the seventh step of the building.
This was not preservation; it was expropriation. A classic colonial tactic: erase the indigenous name, overwrite the meaning, and forbid the natives from practicing their own faith.
But unlike the narratives drilled into young students about European settlers in Africa or Asia, the Jewish story is not told.
In 1967, Israel liberated Hebron, and Jews once again could pray at the burial site of their patriarchs and matriarchs. Slowly, painstakingly, the work of de-Islamification has begun — not by erasing the Muslim presence, but by restoring Jewish rights. Jews may now pray, Jews may now enter, Jews may now sanctify their ancestral home.
And in June 2025, a historic step was taken: the Israeli government transferred administration of the second holiest site in Judaism to Jewish leaders in Kiryat Arba, removing it from the sole control of the Islamic waqf. This was neither vengeance nor displacement. It was simple justice — the recognition that all of those buried at the site are the founders of Judaism (while only one is revered by Muslims), and Jews are the indigenous people in the land as proven by that fact.
Decolonization movements have received global endorsement. Universities run entire programs on “postcolonial studies.” Yet when Jews engage in the parallel project of reclaiming their holy spaces from centuries of Islamic imperial rule, the world looks away — or worse, condemns.
Why should “decolonization” be celebrated while “de-Islamification” is scorned? Both are projects of justice. Both undo centuries of cultural theft. Both restore indigenous peoples to their rightful heritage.
If the United Nations were consistent, it would champion de-Islamification alongside decolonization. It would recognize Jewish efforts as authentic acts of restoration, not “provocations.” Schools should teach children that just as Africans reclaimed their lands from European empires, Jews are reclaiming their sacred spaces from Islamic erasure.
Instead, the UN gives its platform to radical jihadists who claim that Israel is trying to “Judaize” the Jewish holy sites in Jerusalem and Hebron. It’s an offensive smear deliberately made to try to erase the reality of their Islamic imperialism, colonization, ethic cleansing and cultural appropriation.
Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas talking about the “Judaization” of Jerusalem to conceal that Islamic cultural appropriation.
The jihadists fear that after Hebron, the Jews will come for the site they know is really Jewish – Jerusalem. They are calling the transfer of the Cave of the Jewish Matriarchs and Patriarchs from the Hebron Waqf to Jewish authorities a “rehearsal for al Aqsa” in Jerusalem. They know the Jewish Temple Mount is the holiest site for Jews and Muslims invaded and took the site. They are proud of the feat and fear a reversal would legitimize a people they consider “sons of apes and pigs.“
There is no “Judaization” of Jerusalem and Hebron. There is de-Islamification.
Decolonization may be decades old, but de-Islamification is still in its early chapters. It deserves not only legitimacy, but applause.
First One Through 