How? These countries are motivated by diplomacy. This is not like the ICJ where we have dedicated judges. In your argument, you are suggesting there is a “hidden” piece of information we are missing out, something only these countries know and we don’t (appeal to authority?), and that makes this “far greater than just a dozen people”… yet the evidence we have is only of 12-13 people. On the face of it, the terminations look unmotivated.
So how would we discover this “hidden” piece of information that would make this “far greater than just a dozen people”?
Fundamental issues with this organization have been known to the public for a long time. They are just finally being acknowledged and acted upon by those who can do something about it. I can only assume that you never once looked into this organization if you are honestly believing that the issue is limited to just “12-13 people”.
As it is, UNRWA is effectively a branch of Hamas. The overwhelming majority of its employees in Gaza belong to the Hamas-linked trade union.
Read the full PDF of the report. It will fundamentally change your view of this organization.
There is also the question whether it makes any sense at all that Palestinians, as the only people in the world, get their own dedicated relief agency. No other group enjoys this privilege and the amount of money and resources spent on each Palestinian during peacetime is far greater than any other group in the world. This has allowed both the PA and Hamas to neglect providing basic services to the Palestinian people, it has enabled enormously high unemployment rates and it allows these organizations to spend their money on terrorism and the support of it. Do you really think the PA could afford paying out hundreds of millions to terrorists and their families each year otherwise?
So I started reading this article and I click links when they provide them.
In the 3rd paragraph, they link to several sources that they deem as proven facts. However, the articles they link to don’t seem to agree at all.
Example 1: From the article you linked from The New Republic:
On another occasion, the UNRWA accused Israel of targeting civilians sheltering in a school when in fact those deaths were caused by a Hamas rocket that fell short.
The link takes you to a Times of Israel article that denied the 16 casualties altogether based on an IDF report, not much else.
Example 2: From the article you linked from The New Republic:
And on another occasion it accused Israel of targeting a shelter and civilians when in reality terrorists outside the facility were hit and civilian bodies possibly planted at the scene.
The article makes no conclusions about who did it, simply speculating on what it would mean if it were Israel or Hamas. In it, the IDF even admit to the possibility that it was them:
A senior Israeli military spokesman, Lt. Col. Peter Lerner, said Thursday night that “there was a possibility” shells from Israeli forces struck the U.N.-run school in the Gaza Strip. But he also suggested that Hamas mortars or rockets could have been responsible. The Israeli army was investigating the incident “to see what exactly caused the deaths and injuries,” he said.
I will probably continue reading this article, but I must say I’m not impressed at all.
I don’t think it shows that “hidden thing” that we were talking about.
I wrote you a long reply to this, have you not seen it?
I think if you want to post articles from The New Republic (which, after some Wikipedia reading, I found out is hugely and openly biased towards Israel), then it would be nice/polite/respectful to respond to criticism. Seems like that article you posted is full of BS (see my other comment). On the surface level if looks okay, but just like a painting it starts looking worse and worse the closer you stand.
How? These countries are motivated by diplomacy. This is not like the ICJ where we have dedicated judges. In your argument, you are suggesting there is a “hidden” piece of information we are missing out, something only these countries know and we don’t (appeal to authority?), and that makes this “far greater than just a dozen people”… yet the evidence we have is only of 12-13 people. On the face of it, the terminations look unmotivated.
So how would we discover this “hidden” piece of information that would make this “far greater than just a dozen people”?
Fundamental issues with this organization have been known to the public for a long time. They are just finally being acknowledged and acted upon by those who can do something about it. I can only assume that you never once looked into this organization if you are honestly believing that the issue is limited to just “12-13 people”.
This quote is from 2014:
https://newrepublic.com/article/119128/unrwa-must-be-defunded-palestinian-authority-have-viable-state
Here’s an in-depth investigation that exposes systematic indoctrination at the schools they are running:
https://unwatch.org/un-teachers-call-to-murder-jews-reveals-new-report/
Read the full PDF of the report. It will fundamentally change your view of this organization.
There is also the question whether it makes any sense at all that Palestinians, as the only people in the world, get their own dedicated relief agency. No other group enjoys this privilege and the amount of money and resources spent on each Palestinian during peacetime is far greater than any other group in the world. This has allowed both the PA and Hamas to neglect providing basic services to the Palestinian people, it has enabled enormously high unemployment rates and it allows these organizations to spend their money on terrorism and the support of it. Do you really think the PA could afford paying out hundreds of millions to terrorists and their families each year otherwise?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_Authority_Martyrs_Fund
Thanks for the links!
About this one:
So I started reading this article and I click links when they provide them.
In the 3rd paragraph, they link to several sources that they deem as proven facts. However, the articles they link to don’t seem to agree at all.
Example 1: From the article you linked from The New Republic:
Example 2: From the article you linked from The New Republic:
However, that Washington Post article doesn’t suggest anywhere anything to reach the level of “in reality” (here is the Wayback machine link btw since it’s behind a paywall: http://web.archive.org/web/20200808105036/https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/israel-hamas-show-no-signs-of-bowing-to-pressure-for-truce/2014/07/24/90213d90-1305-11e4-8936-26932bcfd6ed_story.html).
The article makes no conclusions about who did it, simply speculating on what it would mean if it were Israel or Hamas. In it, the IDF even admit to the possibility that it was them:
I will probably continue reading this article, but I must say I’m not impressed at all. I don’t think it shows that “hidden thing” that we were talking about.
Edit: made the formatting clearer
I wrote you a long reply to this, have you not seen it?
I think if you want to post articles from The New Republic (which, after some Wikipedia reading, I found out is hugely and openly biased towards Israel), then it would be nice/polite/respectful to respond to criticism. Seems like that article you posted is full of BS (see my other comment). On the surface level if looks okay, but just like a painting it starts looking worse and worse the closer you stand.