UNRWA and Hamas: What the Investigations Found

UNRWA provides schools, clinics, and relief to Palestinian refugees in Gaza, the West Bank, Lebanon, Syria, and Jordan. After Israel alleged that some employees took part in the October 7, 2023 attack, the United Nations conducted an internal investigation and commissioned a separate review of the agency’s neutrality systems. The two inquiries answered different questions and should not be conflated.

What readers need to distinguish

Humanitarian agencies depend on neutrality, particularly where an armed group governs the territory in which they operate. The employee investigation addressed alleged individual involvement in October 7. The Colonna review examined UNRWA’s broader safeguards. Neither inquiry alone answers whether the entire agency is controlled by Hamas.

What the employee investigation found

In January 2024, UNRWA fired staff and opened an internal probe after Israel shared intelligence with the agency. The BBC reported that UNRWA’s commissioner-general, Philippe Lazzarini, cut ties with nine employees named in the Israeli dossier. Several more were investigated later.

The UN Office of Internal Oversight Services conducted the formal inquiry. Its August 2024 statement said the evidence indicated that nine employees “may have been involved” in the attack. UNRWA ended their employment. Reuters reported the same finding. The wording matters: the UN found sufficient evidence for employment action, not a criminal conviction.

What the Colonna review found

The UN separately commissioned an independent review led by former French foreign minister Catherine Colonna. Her April 2024 report, hosted by the UN at the official landing page, found that UNRWA had neutrality problems but praised its basic procedures. Two findings matter most for readers:

UNRWA had not shared its full staff list with host authorities in a way that let them check names against terror designations.
A review of UNRWA textbook materials found some content that did not meet UN values of tolerance and neutrality.

The Colonna review found real weaknesses while also describing UNRWA as having more neutrality mechanisms than comparable organizations. It did not investigate the October 7 allegations against individual employees.

What donors did

In early 2024, at least 16 donor countries paused funding. The Congressional Research Service has maintained a running summary. The U.S. Congress went further. The 2024 Further Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 118-47) barred U.S. contributions to UNRWA through March 25, 2025. Several European donors resumed funding after the Colonna review.

The United States has not restored direct funding to UNRWA since. The State Department’s 2025 fact sheet shows U.S. humanitarian aid for Palestinians moving through other channels.

Accountability without abandoning civilians

Gaza’s civilians need schools, clinics, food, and protection. Scrutiny of UNRWA does not eliminate that need. The policy question is whether reforms, screening, and oversight can reduce the risk of armed-group involvement, and whether other organizations can deliver particular forms of aid at sufficient scale. ICRC, WFP, other NGOs, and bilateral programs already operate in the relief system, but they do not all perform the same functions as UNRWA.

What the record permits us to conclude

The UN found evidence that nine employees may have participated in October 7 and identified broader weaknesses in UNRWA’s neutrality safeguards. Congress and other donors responded in different ways. Those findings justify sustained scrutiny and reform. They do not establish that every employee is affiliated with Hamas or that humanitarian assistance to Palestinian civilians should end.