At a time when the UK is facing a £15 billion black hole in Defence funding, the government has now announced another £23 million for UNRWA, the separate UN agency built around the category of “Palestine refugees”, which includes millions across the region and civilians in Gaza.
If Palestine is a state, why are Palestinians still administered by a permanent refugee agency rather than by the institutions of the state Britain says it recognises?
UNRWA is more than a relief mechanism. It preserves a political architecture in which refugee status is passed down the generations, with descendants of Palestine refugee males eligible for registration. That is the core absurdity: the refugee question has not been treated as a problem to be resolved through statehood, compensation, resettlement, or a final-status compromise. It has been kept alive solely as a permanent claim against Israel.
The “right of return”, when understood as mass return to Israel rather than to a future Palestinian state, is a demographic veto on Israel’s continued existence as a Jewish state. No two-state settlement can survive that demand. You cannot simultaneously claim to support two states and continue to subsidise the institutional machinery of a maximalist refugee claim that points back into one of them.
Then there is UNRWA’s record. UN Watch has documented hundreds of UNRWA employees connected to terrorism, including 12% of UNRWA’s Gaza staff who are members of Hamas or other designated terrorist organisations. In any other theatre, an agency under that kind of cloud would not be treated as the default, indispensable vehicle for British aid.
None of this requires indifference to the suffering of civilians in Gaza. Food, medicine, shelter, and clean water should reach civilians. The question is why British policy keeps choosing a channel that entrenches hereditary refugeehood, sustains the fantasy of return to Haifa and Jaffa, and has repeatedly been compromised by the very forces that made Gaza ungovernable.
Recognition of Palestine should have meant a move towards normal statehood: institutions, accountability, borders, and responsibility. Instead, Britain is funding the maintenance of exceptionalism while telling itself it is buying peace. The result is incoherent, sentimental, and shameful.
Mick Hartley 
Leave a comment