We say: The issue of Palestinian refugees has been recognized by all parties - including Israel - as an integral part of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and one of the key "final status issues" that must be resolved through negotiations. The United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) is the UN body charged with providing humanitarian support for Palestinian refugees in the West Bank, Gaza, Syria, Jordan, and Lebanon until the issue is resolved.

UNRWA plays a vital role as a source of stability and humanitarian assistance - food, medical care, education - to a population in severe stress. In the West Bank and Gaza, it is UNRWA that in effect absolves Israel of responsibilty for the day-to-day humanitarian needs of this population. The continued effective operations of UNRWA - until such time as a permanent and mutually acceptable solution for the Palestinian refugees can be achieved - is vital to both American and Israeli security interests. It provides some degree of stability for the population and helps to stave off a humanitarian disaster that would be blamed on Israel. In fact, when American Jewish organizations in the past considered a campaign campaign to dismantle UNRWA ,Israeli diplomats worked to disuade them from doing so.

Despite the fact that Israel has recognized the Palestinian refugee problem as an issue to be resolved in final status negotiations, some people continue to argue that the problem simply doesn't exist. They argue that the real problem is the UN and UNRWA, and that the issue can be easily resolved by the UN if it ends its "special treatment" of Palestinians. They demand that UNRWA be dissolved and replaced by the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), which should then resolve the Palestinian refugee problem using the same solutions it uses for refugees everywhere else in the world.

This view is simplistic and misguided. After a half century of limbo, the Palestinian refugee situation remains an explosive political issue. Efforts to use technical or bureaucratic means to bypass a mutually-acceptable negotiated solution as part of a comprehensive Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement are doomed to fail and may well exacerbate the conflict.

Moreover, the uniquely political nature of the Palestinian refugee problem means that none of the options available under UNHCR would work. Typically, UNHCR seeks to return refugees to their original homes. With respect to Palestinian refugees, whose original homes, for the most part, are inside Israel, this is an option that would be unacceptable to Israel. UNHCR's second option is to settle refugees permanently in their current country of residence. This option is opposed, with varying degrees of vehemence, both by the Palestinian refugees and by the countries hosting the largest numbers of them - Lebanon, Syria, and Jordan - each of which have their own domestic political calculations in mind. For example, the already precarious sectarian balance in Lebanon makes the naturalization of a large number of Palestinians (who are predominantly Sunni Muslims) completely unacceptable to most Lebanese. UNHCR's third option is to settle refugees in a third country. However, third countries cannot be forced to accept Palestinian refugees, and outside of the scope of a broader political solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, it is unlikely that all or even most Palestinians would willingly leave, or that third countries would welcome them. For its part, UNHCR does not have the authority to impose any of these options - it can neither force refugees to go anywhere, nor can it force any country to accept them.

Clearly, the U.S. must demand accountability and oversight of UNRWA, to ensure that U.S. funding is used effectively, to ensure that the agency is taking all possible steps to keep assistance out of the hands of terrorists and to ensure that UNRWA facilities are not exploited by terrorists.

The bottom line is that efforts to do away with UNRWA are inconsistent with the interests of both the U.S. and Israel. That's why we oppose them.