US terror victims sue Unrwa over alleged Hamas links

“Money is fungible, and whether the money is maybe spent for providing some aid or food or grenades or Kalashnikovs or RPGs, or whether the money is used to provide safe haven, that money is fungible, and this fiction must be rejected,” went on.

Some 13 per cent of Hamas’ annual $2.5 billion budget came from Unrwa, and the aid organisation’s staff heavily overlapped with that of the terrorist group, according to the suit, which was filed in the US District Court for the District of Columbia.

“Unrwa has not denied that a material number of its staff personally participated in the October 7 attack, although it has quibbled with the numbers estimated by credible outside sources,” the complaint alleged.

The UN has, however, consistently denied knowingly hiring Hamas operatives and said it had dismissed a number of staff after they were linked to terrorist activity.

The plaintiffs in the case include victims of Hamas and Hezbollah attacks dating back to 2015, including the targets of the October 7, but all are US citizens.

The suit contains 38 pages of descriptions of Hamas and Hezbollah attacks and their impact on victims.

It seeks damages under the Anti-Terrorism Act and Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act from both Unrwa and its US-based nonprofit arm, Unrwa USA.

The UN and its subsidiaries are typically protected from lawsuits under the UN Headquarters Agreement and other treaties, which grants officials and organisations a form of diplomatic immunity.

But Heideman argued that those protections do not apply in Unrwa’s case.

“Yes, there is a Headquarters Agreement. Yes, there are treaties. Yes, they cover the United Nations itself,” he told JNS. “So the UN General Assembly, for example, is covered. The UN Security Council is covered.

“But Congress didn’t say in any of its documents that Unrwa, which was established after the UN itself was established, should have immunity,” Heideman claimed. “There is no such agreement.”

Under the Biden administration, the US Department of Justice argued that Unrwa had legal immunity under the UN umbrella in a similar suit brought by Israeli citizens in New York.

But the Trump administration dropped that argument in April, confirming that the the government had “reevaluated that position”.

“Unrwa is thus not properly characterised as a subsidiary organ and therefore is not entitled to immunity,” wrote Yaakov Roth, acting assistant attorney-general for the civil division.

“The government appreciates that it previously took a different view on this issue, but it now believes the arguments in favor of that view are lacking,” he added.

The case also follows a ruling by the Supreme Court in June that US courts had jurisdiction to hear civil suits brought by US citizens who were injured or lost family members in terror attacks against foreign organisations – such as the Palestinian Authority (PA) – over their alleged support for terrorism.

In a 9-0 decision, the court ruled that the Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act 2019 (PSJVTA) did not violate the PA’s right to due process.

"It is permissible for the Federal Government to craft a narrow jurisdictional provision that ensures, as part of a broader foreign policy agenda, that Americans injured or killed by acts of terror have an adequate forum in which to vindicate their right to ATA compensation,” wrote Chief Justice John Roberts in the opinion of the court.