Which, assuming the allegations that Israel refuses to provide any evidence for and the US considers to be of “low confidence” are true, would be 12 out of over 10.000 people.

In the meantime there is at least 4 members of the Israeli 33 ministers+one president government that have been explciitly called out by the ICJ for statements that can be understood to incite genocide or be an indication of the intention of commiting genocide. And these are the president, the prime minister, the minister of defense and the minister of energy and infrastrucutre. Those are highly relevant people, not some obscure smaller ministers

So we have 0,12 % rate of suspects at UNRWA based on allegations without any evidence provided, vs. a 12% rate of Israeli government leaders called out by the highest court of the world for statements that are indicative of genocidal incitement or intent.

A US intelligence assessment of Israel’s claims that UN aid agency staff members participated in the Hamas attack on 7 October said some of the accusations were credible but that the claims of wider links to militant groups could not be independently verified… According to the Wall Street Journal, the intelligence report, released last week, declared it had “low confidence” in the basic claim that a handful of staff had participated in the attack, indicating that it considered the accusations to be credible though it could not independently confirm their veracity.

It cast doubt, however, on accusations that the UN agency was collaborating with Hamas in a wider way. The Journal said the report mentioned that although the UNRWA does coordinate with Hamas in order to deliver aid and operate in the region, there was a lack of evidence to suggest it partnered with the group.

It added that Israel has not “shared the raw intelligence behind its assessments with the US”.

Confidence in Assessments, pp 5, per the US’s own National Intelligence Council:

• Low confidence generally means questionable or implausible information was used, the information is too fragmented or poorly corroborated to make solid analytic inferences, or significant concerns or problems with sources existed.