On Sunday, the Palestinian Authority (PA) hosted a group of Israeli journalists in Ramallah, where they were given a tour and met with various officials. During the course of the daylong visit, the reporters, as is now common practice, posted pictures and comments on their social media. One of them, Lahav Harkov, tweeted in praise of the knafeh—a sweet, cheese-filled pastry—she and her colleagues were served at lunch:

When I woke up in the morning, several American anti-Israel Twitter accounts picked up on my love of the dessert, somehow arguing that it exemplified the “occupation” because I could go to Ramallah “freely,” but Palestinians can’t enter Israel freely. Never mind that I can’t go to Ramallah freely; it’s illegal for Israelis to go, because it’s not safe for them. Nor did I wander . . . into a random bakery. I was part of a special PA delegation.

But the issue is really a larger one than the Twitter wars about Israel, and it reflects a broader opposition among Palestinians to normalization with Israelis. . . . [S]everal people attacked the restaurant that served us, using Molotov cocktails. No one was hurt, and no damage was reported. But the incident highlighted that it really is not safe for Israelis to waltz into Ramallah for dessert. It’s not even safe for Palestinians who want to invite Israelis to have some dessert and a conversation.

Videos and photos of Mahmoud al-Habash, [a chief shariah judge and an adviser to Mahmoud Abbas], addressing us in the restaurant, as well as the videos of reporters, . . . were spread on Palestinian media, with people commenting and attacking the PA official for even speaking to us.

Indeed, a Hamas operative in the West Bank had edited a video of the delegation so that it showed only kippah­­-clad journalists, and posted it on Facebook with the caption “religious settlers invading Ramallah.” And Saeb Erekat and Hanan Ashrawi, both high-ranking officials in the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), which governs the PA, joined in the condemnation, as Harkov writes:

Ashrawi and Erekat are too cowardly to stand behind their own organization’s official position and the people who are acting upon it. The PLO has had a Palestinian Committee for Interaction with Israeli Society. But the PLO also condemns interaction with Israeli society.

In his inauguration speech, Donald Trump put forth ambitious goals for his first days in office. An additional item that should be on the agenda of his administration, and also that of the 119th Congress, should be defunding, and ideally dismantling, UNRWA. The UN Relief and Works Organization for Palestine Refugees—to give its full name—is deeply enmeshed with Hamas in Gaza, has inculcated generations of young Palestinians with anti-Semitism, and exists primarily to perpetuate the Israel-Palestinian conflict. Robert Satloff explains what must be done.

[T]here is an inherent contradiction in support for UNRWA (given its anti-resettlement posture) and support for a two-state solution (or any negotiated resolution) to the Israel-Palestinian conflict. Providing relief to millions of Palestinians based on the argument that their legitimate, rightful home lies inside Israel is deeply counterproductive to the search for peace.

Last October, the Israeli parliament voted overwhelmingly to pass two laws that will come into effect January 30: a ban on UNRWA operations in Israeli sovereign territory and the severing of all Israeli ties with the agency. This includes cancellation of a post-1967 agreement that allowed UNRWA to operate freely in what was then newly occupied territory.

A more ambitious U.S. approach could score a win-win achievement that advances American interests in Middle East peace while saving millions of taxpayer dollars. Namely, Washington could take advantage of Israel’s new laws to create an alternative support mechanism that eases UNRWA out of Gaza. This would entail raising the stakes with other specialized UN agencies operating in the area. Instead of politely asking them if they can assume UNRWA’s job in Gaza, the Trump administration should put them on notice that continued U.S. funding of their own global operations is contingent on their taking over those tasks. Only such a dramatic step is likely to produce results.