Journal still can't confirm January story about UN agency for Palestinians | Semafor
www.semafor.com
The Wall Street Journal's explosive scoop draws internal and external scrutiny.

In January, The Wall Street Journal made an explosive claim: Quoting “intelligence reports,” the paper reported that not only had 12 members of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, or UNRWA, taken part in the Oct. 7 attack on Israel, but 10% of the relief agency’s 12,000 workers in Gaza had ties to militant groups.

The New York Times on Jan. 28 had published a detailed story about 12 workers who aided in the Oct. 7 attacks, followed by the Journal’s broader piece about UNRWA staff’s alleged links to Hamas — a one-two punch that had an immediate impact on the agency. More than a dozen countries including Germany and Britain froze funding to UNRWA, stalling a total of $450 million. It was a massive scandal that put the organization, the main conduit for aid to Gaza, on the defensive.

But months later, the paper’s top editor overseeing standards privately made an admission: The paper didn’t know — and still doesn’t know —whether the allegation, based on Israeli intelligence reports, was true.

  • @LinkerbaanOP
    3•1 month ago

    To be clear their claims were not just about ties to militant groups, the big claim was that 12 UNRWA employees took part in the raid Which turned out to be without evidence.

    In the original six-page dossier, seen by Al Jazeera, Israeli intelligence provided a number of accusations against UNRWA without evidence, including that the agency’s facilities had been used by Hamas in its October attack. Moreover, according to the dossier, 12 staff members had participated directly in the attack, with 190 others offering intelligence and logistical support. In March, the Israeli military claimed it had evidence implicating four more UNRWA staff members.

    A more detailed report produced by the Nordic research groups supporting Colonna wrote: “Israeli authorities have to date not provided any supporting evidence nor responded to letters from UNRWA in March, and again in April, requesting the names and supporting evidence that would enable UNRWA to open an investigation.”

    • @norimee
      4•1 month ago

      But even then, they accused 10% of 12,000 aidworkers. Thats 1,200 people. What are the ties of the other 994 aidworkers who supposedly are involved?

      The ones they listed there are less than 2% of aidworkers.

      Maybe there were Hamas collaborators within the aid agency, you always have black sheep or infiltrators who join with an ulterior motive. But 10% is whole other ballpark. A ballpark that eliminates your funding as we have seen.

      For me, that was a targeted attack by Israeli inteligence using the media to stave out the civilian population of Gaza. Specifically aimed at the weak and vulnerable part of the population.

      • @LinkerbaanOP
        1•1 month ago

        Of course I agree. The problem is that these propaganda outlets will worm themselves out of the allegations by claiming plausible deniability on what constitutes “connections to Hamas”.

        The reason it’s easier to hammer on the allegations of the 12 employees participating in the attack is because it is a very concrete claim that leaves no wiggle room. Either they have evidence or they lied for israel.