The Justice Department supports the United Nations' assertion that relief workers accused of assisting Hamas are immune from prosecution.

The DOJ has defended the United Nations' relief agency for Palestinians in court, after some of its workers were suspected of involvement in the Oct. 7 terrorist attacks in Israel.

In August, UNRWA fired at least nine employees due to suspicion of involvement in the Hamas-perpetrated slaughter of 1,200 people, including over 30 Americans.

The families of those killed in the massacre filed a lawsuit against UNRWA in a New York federal court, alleging that the organization and its employees assisted Hamas in committing international crimes.

The U.N. has stated that the lawsuit against UNRWA should be dismissed because the charter between the U.S. and the U.N. grants the group and its subsidiaries diplomatic immunity. Since the U.N. has not waived immunity in this case, UNRWA continues to enjoy absolute immunity from prosecution.

In July, U.S. Attorney Damian Williams of the Southern District of New York submitted a brief arguing that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the United Nations due to its immunity, as stated in the United Nations' charter.

The United States recognizes and condemns the significant losses that occurred on October 7th, while remaining neutral on the factual claims in the lawsuit.

"According to Williams, the United Nations is immune from lawsuits and legal proceedings unless there is an explicit waiver of immunity, as stated in the Charter of the United Nations, which the United States adopted in 1945, granting the U.N. the necessary privileges and immunities to fulfill its purposes."

The defendants in the lawsuit are immune from being sued as U.N. employees, the brief stated.

The DOJ's brief states that the victims' lawsuit claims that UNRWA "knowingly provided financial and material support to Hamas to construct its 'terror infrastructure,' facilitated the construction of Hamas command and control centers, allowed weapons storage in UNRWA facilities, concealed rocket and rocket-launching materials on UNRWA premises, and that UNRWA selected Hamas-approved textbooks for its schools, which were used to indoctrinate children against Israel."

According to Williams' brief, the suit alleges that UNRWA was aware of several local staff members being affiliated with Hamas and paid them in a manner intended to benefit the organization.

The director of the National Jewish Advocacy Center, Mark Goldfeder, stated that the DOJ's brief on UNRWA's immunity is based on several assumptions and shows a lack of willingness on the part of the executive branch to pursue supporters of terror.

Goldfeder stated in a X-directed Justice Department statement that there are several technical reasons why UNRWA is not immune.

"UNRWA is not a self-executing organization and was never designated under the International Organizations Immunities Act of 1945. It is unfortunate that you assumed UNRWA's positions are correct without considering the points mentioned."

Goldfeder stated that the most problematic assumption you hold is that the allegations made by the plaintiffs against all the defendants in this case are related to actions or omissions committed by them while carrying out their official duties.

"The complaint contains numerous allegations that the defendants assisted Hamas, and they did so intentionally, willingly, and with full responsibility."

Goldfeder questioned on social media, "Is it your belief that all of those actions were what UNRWA was supposed to do?"

Goldfeder argued in an interview with Planet Chronicle Digital that the U.N.'s claim to immunity from civil suits for invading a country and massacring its citizens is necessary for the exercise of its functions. However, he pointed out that the Biden-Harris administration has agreed with this claim, which raises the question of whether immunity for mass murder is necessary for the U.N. to function. Goldfeder suggested that it may be time to reevaluate the U.N. entirely if immunity for mass murder is considered necessary for its operations.

The practical effect of DOJ's stance is "unaccountability" for UNRWA, according to Anne Bayefsky, president of Human Rights Voices and Director of the Touro Institute on Human Rights and the Holocaust.

Bayefsky stated that despite any claims to the contrary, the DOJ's stance effectively contributes to the lack of accountability for UNRWA and its staff, who have ties to Hamas and have engaged in reprehensible behavior.

"When employees act within their official capacities, they are legally immune. Is the DOJ now claiming that aiding and abetting an officially-designated terrorist organization is simply UNRWA carrying out its duties?" she questioned.

Neither UNRWA nor the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York responded to Planet Chronicle Digital's inquiries.