I agree, but in a war you do not have the luxury of apprehending every soldier for trial. Compare: the tactics of pretty much every single country.
OIOS was not able to independently authenticate…
OIOS are being churlish since it’s obviously excruciatingly embarrassing for a UN agency to have been used as cover by Hamas. Note they don’t say “we saw evidence and disagree with it”. They’re saying “yeah, Israel showed us actual evidence that these guys are part of the attacks, we just couldn’t get a second version of that evidence from anywhere else. But we’ll still act on it”.
But that’s to be expected if what they’ve been shown are mobile cell tower records or images from military security cameras or even private messages these guys sent themselves.
Note UNWRA are refusing to take any action against the ten or so other accused where they felt there was no good evidence. But these nine they’re saying “ok, fair enough, we’ll fire them”.
Doesn’t that show you there’s at least varying qualities of evidence in the background? And if it were easy to dismiss it as manufactured by Israel they would have done so. But for these nine they agree to take action, but just grumble about the fact that this evidence, although apparently good quality enough, was handed over via Israeli channels.
I agree, but in a war you do not have the luxury of apprehending every soldier for trial. Compare: the tactics of pretty much every single country.
OIOS are being churlish since it’s obviously excruciatingly embarrassing for a UN agency to have been used as cover by Hamas. Note they don’t say “we saw evidence and disagree with it”. They’re saying “yeah, Israel showed us actual evidence that these guys are part of the attacks, we just couldn’t get a second version of that evidence from anywhere else. But we’ll still act on it”.
But that’s to be expected if what they’ve been shown are mobile cell tower records or images from military security cameras or even private messages these guys sent themselves.
Note UNWRA are refusing to take any action against the ten or so other accused where they felt there was no good evidence. But these nine they’re saying “ok, fair enough, we’ll fire them”.
Doesn’t that show you there’s at least varying qualities of evidence in the background? And if it were easy to dismiss it as manufactured by Israel they would have done so. But for these nine they agree to take action, but just grumble about the fact that this evidence, although apparently good quality enough, was handed over via Israeli channels.