The Biden-Harris Department of Justice has recently taken a stand that’s raising some eyebrows. In a legal case, the DOJ is backing the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), claiming that employees of the agency who were allegedly involved in the horrific October 7th terror attack should be immune from lawsuits.

This case, filed in June by relatives of the victims, highlights the disturbing fact that some UNRWA employees supported or even directly participated in the attacks. The lawsuit gained traction after UNRWA itself admitted that nine of its employees may have been involved in the violence, with one even transporting a murdered Israeli back to Gaza, as reported by Breitbart.

Despite these grave accusations, UNRWA is seeking refuge behind the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations, a 1946 agreement that grants immunity to U.N. employees.

Trump Fighting For America Collectable Gold Coin - Fight! - Must See

According to reports, the U.N. hasn’t waived this immunity, and UNRWA has used this defense in a federal court case heard in the Southern District of New York. The Biden administration’s DOJ has stood by this argument, echoing the U.N.’s claim that UNRWA employees should remain untouchable.

In their court filings, the DOJ argues “Because the U.N. has not waived immunity in this case, its subsidiary, UNRWA, retains full immunity, and the lawsuit against UNRWA should be dismissed due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction.”

This position has angered many, especially in light of UNRWA’s ties to Hamas, a U.S.-designated terror group. The DOJ claims there’s no legal basis for holding the U.N. accountable, a stance that critics say is an unnecessary policy choice, not a legal requirement.

Prominent voices, such as legal scholar Eugene Kontorovich and Rabbi Mark Goldfeder, point out that this decision isn’t a forced one. In an op-ed, they argued that while the U.S. has historically supported broad U.N. immunity, this case presents a unique scenario.

UNRWA is directly linked to individuals involved in terrorism, a situation not previously seen in such cases. They stress that international organizations don’t enjoy full immunity when terrorism is involved, as outlined in the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA).

This case brings to light a stark difference in how two administrations have handled UNRWA. In 2018, President Trump cut off funding to UNRWA due to its troubling ties to Hamas. In contrast, upon taking office in 2021, President Biden restored funding, including back pay for previous years, despite the agency’s ongoing controversies.