Lawsuit Over UNWRA Culpability In 10/7 Bloodbath Blocked By Diplomatic Immunity

The UN is supposed to be an agency built explicitly for the purpose of achieving Neville Chamberlain’s elusive goal of ‘peace in our time’. That makes this case all the more of a black eye against them.

Even many people sympathetic to the claims of the Palestinian people themselves have at least the common decency to denounce the 10/7 ‘Black Saturday’ massacre.

It was a predawn attack in which men, women, and small children were systematically killed, maimed, raped, burned alive and/or dragged back to some underground hellhole where the captives had a thousandfold more indignities and crimes heaped upon them by their captor, where their lives were meaningful only to the extent that they could be leveraged as political bargaining chips.

When it came to light that a UN subsidiary (UNWRA) was not only using UN aid money to help Hamas in their war effort, but that some of their members were shown to be active participants in the atrocities of 10/7, the world was shocked and appalled.

Even openly partisan outfits like NPR were forced to acknowledge that the UN had fired employees for alleged participation in the events of that day.

It’s all well and good to ‘fire’ them, but that’s a cold comfort to the victims whose relatives were firebombed in their beds, or slaughtered in the early morning during a concert whose event was literally centered on themes of peace, joy, unity, and love in a civilian pogrom with casualty numbers not seen among Jews since Nazis and Soviets were still vying for the control of Eastern Europe.

Families (and one of the former hostages) sued the UN in an American court for a billion dollars in damages. It was blocked by an Obama judge because the UN had not waived diplomatic immunity that shielded them, and their subordinate organizations from litigation.

This ruling directly contradicted the position of the Trump-era Department of Justice, which in April 2025 had submitted a brief rejecting the notion of immunity for UNRWA. That brief asserted that UNRWA had played a “significant role in the heinous offenses” committed by Hamas on October 7, in which approximately 1,200 people were killed and 250 taken hostage. It further argued that neither UNRWA nor its Commissioner-General Philippe Lazzarini should be protected from suit in U.S. courts.

The Trump DOJ argued that international organizations like UNRWA are not automatically entitled to immunity, stating, “The Constitution does not grant immunity to foreign sovereigns or organizations. Instead, such immunity is a matter of grace and comity.”

The lawsuit stated that UNRWA was “knowingly providing Hamas with the U.S. dollars in cash that it needed to pay smugglers for weapons, explosives and other terror materiel.” It also stated that UNRWA allegedly aided Hamas by paying staff in U.S. dollars, knowing they would have to exchange them through Hamas-linked money changers, thereby generating a steady income stream for the terror group. — DailyWire

Of course, if this turns out to be a hill Trump’s admin really wants to take a stand on, the leverage points Trump could lean on for inducing them to waive that immunity practically limitless.

After the games they played just days ago, in stopping the escalator, messing with the sound system and having an ‘error’ in teleprompter, they might want to take a good long look at which county they meet in, how much of their budget comes from that country and ask themselves if it’s really a good idea to piss off a population that’s already pushing to stop wasting tax payer dollars to pay people who hate us.

To paraphrase a line from Senator Kennedy — why should we pay people to hate use when they can hate us for free.