The US support for UNRWA was not an act of generosity. The USA in 1950 was behind the establishment of the Agency, with a promise that its creation would lead to the implementation of resolution 194 (11 December 1948).
5
182
11
245
The resolution called for the unconditional return of the Palestinian refugees. UNRWA can only be dismantled if that resolution would be respected. The recent Trump decision is a break for the American commitment and responsibility and is made in the service of Israel.

6:59 AM · Sep 2, 2018

13
66
4
101
with no concern to the American national interest. It is another case of the tail waving the dog. It can have disastrous effect on a community that has already suffered for seventy years and one hopes that other countries would chip in and replace the dishonest broker of peace.
5
38
0
72
Replying to @pappe54
The return endorsed in 194 was absolutely not unconditional. It specifically said it was for refugees who agreed to "live at peace with their neighbours." What's more UNRWA's founding charter called to end international assistance at earliest possible date. 70 years is too soon?
1
2
0
6
But did the #neighbours, after killing them, live at #Peace with them? Did they give the farms 🔙? Did they give the #cultures back? Did they give the #houses back? Honestly, did they?
0
0
0
0
Replying to @pappe54
Israel certainly has the neans to take in the 1948 refugees. There are 20-30,000 remaining, but they would not be given leave by the Palestinian authorities, because that would mean that Israel is a nation that can give them Return.
1
0
1
2
It seems You are not well informed : The #palestinian associations came long time #after #Israel refuse to take the #refugees back. Furthermore, a few ones tried to come 🔙 , according to the UN resolution, and were killed by #Israeli.
0
0
0
0
Replying to @pappe54
descendants arent refugees...ever...there are less than 50k actual Palestinian refugees...regardless of how jew haters want to pretend otherwise
0
2
0
3
Replying to @pappe54
Um. No. It did not. In fact, it did not mention Palestinian refugees but that all refugee issues should try to be settled.
0
0
0
1
Replying to @pappe54
What part of NO don't you understand? NO return and NO state! h/t @OGAride
1
0
0
2
Not only that, but Resolution 194 was a non-binding General Assembly resolution that was REJECTED by all the Arab countries. 194 is thus considered null and void. Palestinians could have accepted it, but they rejected it, like they have done with every peace deal
0
0
0
3
Replying to @pappe54
That true
0
0
0
0