The U.N. agency for Palestinian refugees, UNRWA, is losing support and funding for a very good reason. Israel’s intelligence alleges that at least six UNRWA employees infiltrated Israel on October 7, including two who may have helped kidnap Israeli civilians to be taken as hostage. Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told Britain’s TalkTV, “UNRWA is perforated with Hamas.”

Last week, U.N. Secretary General António Guterres said 12 UNRWA employees were implicated in the Hamas attacks. Of those, “nine were immediately identified and terminated,” one is “confirmed dead,” and “the identity of the two others is being clarified.” In response at least 15 countries, including the United States, have announced a halt to payments to UNRWA, pending further investigations. Officials have expressed fears that UNRWA could run out of money, endangering its humanitarian efforts in Gaza.

Too bad. That consequence should have been considered before allowing terrorism supporting U.N. employees to work for the organization.

The New York Times published an opinion piece by the foreign minister of Norway, one of the nations holding fast to its funding commitments. Espen Barth Eide argues that “we should not collectively punish millions of people for the alleged deeds of a few.”

I may have to fashion that time-honored excuse into a rationalization for the list. We read and hear versions of that entreaty constantly: it is a call to avoid just consequences for unethically run, untrustworthy organizations, agencies, societies, cultures and businesses. The only rational response to that argument is “Sorry. The organization is at fault, not those who make a reasonable and rational decision in response to it.”

No one should give funds to any organization that has proved itself untrustworthy, and UNRWA has. Apologists for the agency keep talking about “alleged misconduct,” but the U.N. acted quickly in firing twelve of the accused Hamas agents in the organization, almost certainly because the allegations were true. UNRWA obviously didn’t properly oversee its activities or properly vet its employees. The agency has has the same leadership responsible for this inexcusable botch; there is no way at this point for nation donors to have confidence that their money won’t be re-channeled into fighting Israel or other illicit projects.

Enron was punished for the deeds of a relative few. Germany was punished for the deeds of a relative few. Sports Illustrated, Disney, Budweiser, Harvard University, Boeing, New York City, the Catholic Church, the Boy Scouts, Chicago, Portland, the Republican Party, the United States—the list is endless, depending on how far back in history and how far around the world you want to go—have all been punished for the misdeeds and poor choices of a relative few. That’s part of the deal when one joins any organization: if the leadership and management fail, you suffer. That fact of life creates an incentive for individuals to be proactive and to hold leadership to high standards.

Eide’s lament is an extension of the Saint’s Excuse: the organization does good things, so it should be able to avoid accountability for misconduct that would doom most organizations to harsh consequences. No, it shouldn’t. Organizations permitted to fail their missions this badly become unaccountable and corrupt.

If the funding decisions are not reversed, says the Norwegian,”we run a serious risk of worsening the dire humanitarian crisis in Gaza.” Then Gaza should unconditionally surrender to Israel, so the plight of the civilians there can be reversed. The region’s populace elected a terrorist organization to govern them, and the terrorist organization engaged in terrorism. The fault for the region’s dire circumstances lies with the Gazans and Hamas. UNRWA failed them, and has removed itself as a reliable supplier of aid until potential donors can be reassured that they won’t be funding terrorism.

Untrustworthy organizations, and UNRWA is that, are ethically estopped from pleading for assistance or even their continued existence.