UN fires 9 staffers after probe finds they may have been involved in Oct. 7 attack on Israel
JERUSALEM — The UN says it has fired nine employees of the agency for Palestinian refugees, known as UNRWA, after an internal investigation found they may have been involved in the Hamas-led attack on Israel on October 7.
The U.N. secretary-general’s office announced the move in a brief statement to reporters on Monday. It did not provide details about the UNRWA staff’s likely role in the attack. It said the nine included seven staff members who had previously been fired over the allegations.
The UN’s internal watchdog has been investigating the agency since Israel in January accused 12 UNRWA staff of involvement in the October 7 attack on Israel, in which militants killed 1,200 people and kidnapped about 250 others.
Israel’s accusations initially led major donor countries to suspend funding to UNRWA, the main agency providing aid to Palestinians in Gaza amid the 10-month war there, leaving a cash shortfall of about $450 million. Since then, all donor countries except the US have decided to resume funding.
The U.N. watchdog, called the Office of Internal Oversight Services, said it used evidence Israel provided in discussions with Israeli authorities. It said it could not independently confirm that evidence because it did not have direct access to it. The investigators also reviewed internal UNRWA information, including personnel files, email and other communications data.
The company said it had found sufficient evidence of the possible involvement of nine employees in the October 7 attack.
“I have decided that the remaining nine staff members cannot work for UNRWA,” the agency’s head, Philippe Lazzarini, said in a statement.
“The agency’s priority is to continue providing life-saving and crucial services to Palestinian refugees in Gaza and the region, especially in light of the ongoing war, instability and risk of regional escalation,” said Lazzarini, who also said he condemned the October 7 attack.
In nine other cases the evidence was insufficient and in one case there was no evidence to suggest involvement.