UN seeks immunity for UNRWA employees complicit in Oct. 7 massacre - Channel 12 report

[moniss]

48. Nobody disputes that the document was filed

or that they are using an immunity exemption as their legal reasoning. This seems to me to be less about the facts of the actual events at this point than it is about a legal principle of immunity for UN employees. Lawyers and their actions can be understood in the context of having a reprehensible appearance and outcome but their job is to use the law regarding their client. In these immunity matters the UN has that immunity so that people will come to work for the various agencies in contentious areas and situations. It would be very difficult to convince people to work in an area for example that would try to give aid to civilians/monitor activity in countries in Africa that are in conflict with each other if those doing so were subject to constant accusations and lawsuits. Not only would the agencies have a difficult time recruiting personnel but those they could recruit would be subject to tremendous costs in money, time and reputation if they didn't have immunity.

Let's be clear that having a suit go forward against UNRWA for having employed, apparently unknowingly, people who would and did take part in a horrible attack may be pleasing at first glance. But also be sure that the same sword of legal recourse can swing against any and all charities and groups who have supplied money, support and recruited people to be settlers in the West Bank and then had some of them be ones who are committing crimes against people there. Should we now jam the US Federal Courts with decades worth of thousands of cases? On a strictly legal principle basis the basis is the same. Recruitment, employment and funding of people by an organization, or by individuals, that results in one or more of those recruited, funded or employed committing an act that causes harm then those organizations/individuals who recruited, employed and funded those who caused the harm are to be held liable.