Jump to content

Talk:UNRWA and Israel

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Italy restores UNWRA funding

[edit]

https://www.ansa.it/sito/notizie/mondo/2024/05/25/tajani-litalia-riparte-con-i-finanziamenti-allunrwa_a96697db-8037-4192-8d93-1a539fd4f67c.html

Requested move 7 August 2024

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Per consensus, predicating on the commitment from some who participated here and in earlier threads to expand on the article. There is also some consensus on the alternate proposed titles, however the proposed one has a stronger consensus. – robertsky (talk) 05:43, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli allegations against UNRWA → UNRWA and Israel – This request follows previous lengthy discussions and a rough consensus as to whether there should be a separate page covering the relationship between Israel and UNRWA. This entails a spin out of relevant material from the main UNRWA article, already in hand, to be added to this article. The change in scope is simply that all of Israel relations with UNRWA, which take up much unnecessary space at the main page, will be covered here rather than merely the recently concluded spat. Selfstudier (talk) 08:56, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support to UNRWA and Israel to keep scope as broad as possible, and strong oppose to Israel-UNRWA relations which imply equal footing. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:44, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Makeandtoss, so you must hate this title ;) — kashmīrī TALK 11:48, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t feel strongly about that title but in that case seems a situation of diplomatic relations: “Though it possesses no territory, the order is often considered a sovereign entity under international law.” Something that could not be said about UNRWA, a UN organization. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:51, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relations/relationship between UNRWA and Israel: [1][2][3][4][5]. Undoubtedly an encyclopaedic topic. — kashmīrī TALK 14:55, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Besides, UN agencies (as well as country head) are normally extended diplomatic protocol, including diplomatic immunity for staff (usually country heads) and premises (country HQs), diplomatic accreditation for staff, etc. This is all regulated in UN documents. I see nothing improper with an analysis of the relationship between a UN agency and its host country. — kashmīrī TALK 14:59, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The main argument is to avoid giving UNRWA and Israel equal footing with the phrasing of "relations." One is a UN organization, the other is a state. Of course relations is a normal word that can be found in RS to describe the interactions and history between the two, but to avoid the connotation of equivalency "Israel and UNRWA" is a much more appropriate choice. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:33, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose since this article is about a very specific topic - the involvement of UNRWA employees in Hamas' October 7 attacks on Israel. I don't see any reason to change the scope. I'd support the move to UNRWA involvement in the October 7 attacks as suggested above, or even better due to recent confirmation, something like the old name, maybe UNRWA October 7 controversy HaOfa (talk) 14:34, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the involvement of UNRWA employees in Hamas' October 7 attacks on Israel False. It includes the Colonna inquiry for example, a separate inquiry set up by the UNRWA secretary general. Selfstudier (talk) 14:51, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I asked at your talk page but you said I should ask here instead, what is it that brings you and PeleYoetz, suddenly to this article, never having edited the article previously or participated in any talk page discussions? Selfstudier (talk) 14:55, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's in the news all over in Israel. Any more questions? You don't sound like you're assuming good faith HaOfa (talk) 15:29, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems a reasonable question to ask, and you have not really answered it, perhaps PeleYoetz can shed some light? Selfstudier (talk) 15:50, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support... also "Relations between Israel and UNRWA" also seems useful and descriptive Bluethricecreamman (talk) 20:38, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support - "UNRWA and Israel" or "Israel–UNRWA relations"; either title is fine; this scope seems more encyclopedic. Why focus on the specific instance of these particular allegations (current scope) when we are missing the parent article that discusses the broader relations and history between the two entities. "Write the parent first," I'd say. Levivich (talk) 17:17, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The article has a clear focus and scope, and I don't see a strong reason to change it. UnspokenPassion (talk) 17:21, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. It's better to have an article with a wider scope before creating an article with a narrower scope. Alaexis¿question? 20:39, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with the caveat that it will require a significant rewrite. This is a more neutral title that avoids "allegations" (or the implication that all allegations are true, which would be even worse) and is a reasonable way to cover all its existing content. Large parts of the article already reflect this broader focus anyway. However, it would require substantial rewrites to the lead. --Aquillion (talk) 01:50, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support and alternatively support either of Kashmiri's suggestions. The proper scoping for this page should be on the overall relations between Israel and UNRWA, not on the particular allegations about October 7th. Agree with Levivich here: write the parent article first, and the separate article on the October 7th allegations later, if there's enough content to support a split. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:00, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Opening sentence

[edit]

Few observations: Opening sentence should be one that establishes the scope of the article, rather than a definition of what UNRWA is. Opening paragraph should not be a chronology of events but a general descriptor that establishes context and gives general information in a neutral way; chronology should rather start in second lede paragraph. As for the large sentence on Israel being a longtime critic of UNRWA, it is phrased in a way giving the Israeli POV undue weight. Also, "longtime" is ambiguous, and the scope should probably start in 1967 rather than 1948. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:08, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The scope is Israel and UNRWA relations so one should introduce these two in the opening sentences together with a description of their relationship, using material present in the body. If you have a better way of doing it, have at it, I am just starting the process. Selfstudier (talk) 12:22, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"the past decade" needs changing to a date. Not sure that is a very good summary of how the relations have gone downhill over the years. Selfstudier (talk) 13:00, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Was it 2016? Makeandtoss (talk) 13:05, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No idea, what's the source for that? Is it in the body? Selfstudier (talk) 13:07, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The first incident of such transition to active campaigning for UNRWA's dismantlement is implicitly suggested by not explicitly by this CNN article: "In 2017, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu sought to dissolve UNRWA and merge it with the main UN refugee agency, the UNHCR." [6] Makeandtoss (talk) 13:13, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe try https://www.thenewhumanitarian.org/analysis/2024/03/06/gaza-depth-why-israel-wants-end-unrwa-and-what-its-closure-would-mean this source Selfstudier (talk) 13:20, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OR

[edit]

Funding table is clearly OR as it relies on 2022 figures from a primary source. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:12, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This material is not really needed any more in this article now that the funders (ex USA) have all restored following the 2 enquiries. Simple statements from RS as to what occurred after the 2024 allegations is all that is needed. Selfstudier (talk) 12:24, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think which countries froze funding and which didn't is pretty relevant to the topic, and a table seems like the best format for that. The current status doesn't really negate the relevance of past decisions. We could remove some details like dates if editors prefer a more compact table. — xDanielx T/C\R 16:08, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The table is very very clearly OR by building on historical data to support present claims. Makeandtoss (talk) 16:56, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How so? Combining facts isn't OR in general (or every article would be OR), only when there's an implied statement that isn't contained in the sources. What's the implied statement here? — xDanielx T/C\R 16:58, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OR: "To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article and directly support the material being presented." A 2022 source does not directly relate to the topic of aid suspensions in 2024. Makeandtoss (talk) 17:00, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The topic of the article is UNRWA and Israel; 2022 actions based on Israeli allegations against UNRWA seem strongly related to that. — xDanielx T/C\R 17:08, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing is added by this table that isn't adequately covered in RS, https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IN/IN12316 for example, the summary there is perfectly adequate if one just replaces "many" with "all others". There is no need to get into the weeds of who suspended, when did they resume, what did they say and all that.
What's wanted here is meta discussion about the donors/funding in general. I haven't got that far, yet, fixing this article up is not a trivial undertaking. Selfstudier (talk) 17:09, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't this meet the WP:PRIMARY requirements? The pledge data seems like uncontroversial facts with no interpretation. — xDanielx T/C\R 16:01, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1949

[edit]

I remember reading somewhere that it was Israeli lobbying that led to the formation of UNRWA because they did not want Palestinian refugees to be associated with an existing UN organization that had helped Jewish refugees. Any idea where or what exactly? Makeandtoss (talk) 12:30, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://israelpolicyforum.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/UNRWA-at-a-Crossroads-Full-Report-1.pdf has some details around that, tho keep in mind that this is a fairly biased account so might want to cross check. Selfstudier (talk) 12:47, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Found the claim in Pappe's ethnic cleansing of Palestine book and added accordingly. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:51, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please provide an excerpt (ideally) or a page number? — xDanielx T/C\R 16:20, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As already cited in the reference, pages 235-236. Makeandtoss (talk) 16:55, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nakba

[edit]

@XDanielx: The sentence meant to say that the expulsion and flight is known as the Nakba. Makeandtoss (talk) 16:57, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense, though I think references to related topics like Nakba probably only belong in text that contains substantive discussion of the events of 1948 (so maybe somewhere in the background section). I don't think it belongs in passing mentions, just as we wouldn't say "After the 1948 Palestine war, which occurred three years after the Holocaust, [some separate topic]". — xDanielx T/C\R 17:15, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Restored mention of the Nakba. Its mention being removed due to "not clear why references to the Nakba would be relevant/useful in this context", but it is obviously relevant. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 17:26, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Updating the image "UNRWA funding status (June 2024)"

[edit]

According to the table below the image, the UK has resumed funding, leaving the US the only country with suspended funding.

Portugal appears in gray, but the article states that it even increased its funding.

While writing this, I saw that Portugal actually pledged 10 million Euros, putting it above the cut-off for the 2022 pledges (despite having a lower GDP than 1 country on the list, not counting with Palestine) Daniel.sousa.me (talk) 10:21, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lede

[edit]

@Selfstudier: I am lost in the details. Can the three last lede paragraphs be removed as they are not a summary of the body, as well as being already summarized in the third lede paragraph? Makeandtoss (talk) 14:06, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Really needs sorting out the body first, then the lead will take care of itself (and finally, summarizing back in the parent/removing the duplicated material from there). Selfstudier (talk) 14:16, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
True but the current situation isn't readable. I think the 4th and 5th lede paragraphs can be removed for now from the lede without affecting the overall summary. Useful bits can be later extracted from them in the future. Makeandtoss (talk) 21:57, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you insist, then please do the summary of the new lead back at the main page and clean up the duplication (from when I copied all the UNRWA/Israel relations stuff over to here). Selfstudier (talk) 22:05, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which new lede and which main page? I am confused. Makeandtoss (talk) 22:51, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are redoing the lead here. Then summarize it and replace all the material in the main UNRWA article that I copied to here with the summary and this article as main. That was the whole point of the recent RM. Selfstudier (talk) 23:25, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are going to include the relations between 67 and 2024 in the lead, right? Selfstudier (talk) 12:24, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will check what I can do here soon, need a few days. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:25, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I removed the duplicated material from the parent that was copied here, when the lead is finalized here, it needs to be summarized and included at the main article (I have left what was there before pending that being done). Selfstudier (talk) 10:53, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[7] Leaving this NYT article here; clearly articulates the 2024 controversy as: allegation of direct participation of 12, later expanded to reach 10% are involved; former allegation half disproved, later one unsubstantiated. Also mentions that UNRWA's creation was also due to push by Iraq and Egypt in 1951. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:19, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:UNRWA_and_Israel&oldid=1245328875"