Jump to content

Talk:UNRWA and Israel/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

POV tag

Despite objections, contested material has been reinserted into the opening paragraph without consensus and in violation of WP:BURDEN and WP:BRD. This article is about Israeli allegations that UNRWA has overwhelming links with militant organizations and the consequent cutting of western aid to the organization. This article is not about UNRWA's neutrality. This is plain red herring. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:28, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

That's not quite right, what happened was that subsequent to the claims about the 12 (leading to the internal enquiry, pending), Israel made further allegations about there being a large number of Hamas members in UNRWA and those allegations were considered by Colonna while the the others were not.
I am still organizing the sources but I also think that the Colonna enquiry (which was set up by the DG before the initial Israeli allegations re the 12) was a result of all the Israeli allegations BEFORE the allegations about the 12 (If you look at the main page, you will see a reference to those in the first paragraph of the Israel Hamas war section.
So I agree it is true that the article is not about UNRWA neutrality but I do think that is about the relationship between UNRA and Israel in general with the kerfuffle about the 12 being just one more episode in a long running saga. Selfstudier (talk) 11:38, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
Correct me if I am wrong, the chronology is as follows: Israel claims in January 2024 that 12 UNRWA employees were "involved" in the attacks, followed by hundreds involved, followed by thousands "connected". As soon as the 12 employees claim was made, western governments cut aid. Colonna report reports that Israel is yet to present its claims, and many other nations resume aid including most notably Germany. These are the stories being reported by RS for the past few months. The issue of neutrality isn't connected to these issues in any major way? Makeandtoss (talk) 11:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
Colonna was set up on 17 January (by the UNSG) to look into neutrality and how allegations in general were dealt with.
The fuss about the 12 broke on 26 January and that resulted in the funding cuts and an internal enquiry (some sources say that Lazzarini made a mistake here by treating the unproven allegations as proven).
Later on Israel made more extensive allegations and Colonna did look into those, while the 12 business remained with the internal enquiry. Selfstudier (talk) 12:06, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
Ah, so what gave rise to the 17 January neutrality concerns? Makeandtoss (talk) 12:10, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
That's what I was getting at in my initial response, if you look at the initial para of https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/UNRWA#2023_Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war (I reorganized it a bit yesterday), you can see the fuss being kicked up by Israel in early January (we need more about this, I think). Israel was already gearing up to have a go at UNRWA before the 12 business. Selfstudier (talk) 12:14, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
This article is interesting Selfstudier (talk) 12:28, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
UNRWA: Claims Versus Facts Selfstudier (talk) 13:16, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
But you mentioned Colonna was set up on 17 January, and the UNRWA source provided mentions 5 February instead. Furthermore, although the Israeli allegations in 2024 were publicized on 26 January, they were first made directly to UNRWA on 18 January per the Haaretz source? Makeandtoss (talk) 13:40, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
The announcement of set up was made on 17 January, the panel was empowered on 5 February. I am pretty sure that the setting up of Colonna had nothing to do with the 12 and later allegations. I think it more likely that was an attempt to get in front of the brewing Israeli actions against UNRWA.
The detail is in the sources I gave, 17 announcement, 18 Lazzarini in Tel Aviv, after flies to NY to see SG, etcetera.
The confusion (everywhere) is caused by the overlap of the investigations and the allegations. Selfstudier (talk) 14:14, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
Do you have any source detailing Colonna's role on 17th? Makeandtoss (talk) 09:06, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
That was the date that the review was announced, there is a gap until the the panel is empowered. I will see if I can find out any more. Does it matter?
Btw, there has now been an interim report from the internal investigation (re the 12, which turned out to be 19), I added it in the article. Selfstudier (talk) 09:42, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
Slightly matters, whether the Colonna report is directly tied to the most recent Israeli allegations, or just popped out of the blue (which I find extremely unlikely to have occurred one day in advance).
I still think the major Israeli allegation of overwhelming UNRWA involvement with UNRWA groups is the main scope of this article due to its immediate and direct consequences of aid cut. And that the Colonna report explicitly stated that Israel had provided no evidence to back its central allegation.
Therefore, the opening paragraph should reflect that accordingly and define the scope within the context of the Israel-Hamas war and long-standing Israeli efforts to dismantle it. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:48, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
That's not right, the 19 (previously 12) was the allegation that that led to the funding cuts. The subsequent (major) allegations were separate further allegations made by Israel when the cuts were already ongoing. It's not that it popped out of the blue, Lazzarini had already requested the SG to do it (I guess that it was intended to preemptively respond to all the Israeli pressure earlier in January but I do not have any source for that as yet and may not get one). Then Lazzarini went to Tel Aviv and was confronted with the 12 (later 19).
I do agree that the article should reflect Israeli long standing efforts to dismantle UNRWA, of which this latest furore is just another episode. For that though, it needs to be turned into a spinout, probably titled UNRWA and Isreal (or Israel and UNRWA). Which I would like to do once we have the final report of the internal investigation. Selfstudier (talk) 14:06, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
Yeah I should have been clearer. Overwhelming UNRWA involvement with UNRWA was a reference to the 12 later 19 (later hundreds and even thousands; the reporting is confusing so I don't know what is what). Five out of the 19 cases have already been dismissed for lack of evidence or insufficient evidence [1]. So we both agree that the 12 (later 19) is the central and "minimum" allegation that led to the funding cuts? Makeandtoss (talk) 14:32, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
Yep. Selfstudier (talk) 14:34, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
Can we now change the article scope accordingly, by not highlighting neutrality concerns in the opening paragraph? Makeandtoss (talk) 14:40, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
I don't agree with that, because the Colonna report is a significant milestone in the ongoing chain of events which has as yet, not concluded. It has also led to one of UNRWAs largest funders, Germany, restoring its funding. Selfstudier (talk) 14:45, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
From my understanding, the same Germany that had cut the aid in the first place because of the 12 staff allegation.. which the Colonna report said that Israel had not yet provided evidence for? Makeandtoss (talk) 15:13, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
Not exactly, Colonna did not address the 12(19), they addressed a later allegation that Israel made, it turned out thast germany was happy enough with Colonna and decided not to wait for the internal investigation re the 12/19 (I am sure they have their ways of knowing how that is going anyway). Selfstudier (talk) 15:22, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
The Guardian cited below attributes the German resumption of aid to Colonna's report citing the lack of evidence that hundreds of staff are linked to militant groups..? Makeandtoss (talk) 15:35, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

[2] Makeandtoss (talk) 15:14, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Israeli allegations include neutrality concerns and the use of buildings by militants. It is WP:DUE for the lede. BilledMammal (talk) 14:42, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Scope

Sorry the discussion got confusing and circular. Starting over @Selfstudier:. This discussion is aimed at finding the article's scope. I am arguing for an article scope focused on the allegation that UNRWA staff 12 then 19 participated in attacks against Israel and then hundreds then thousands are members of militant groups because this is what led to the aid cuts, which has generated all the controversy and RS reporting.

Aid cut: "Major donors to the UN Palestinian refugee agency are freezing aid over alleged staff participation in terror attacks."

Aid resumption: "The decision comes after an investigation requested by the United Nations found no evidence to support Israeli allegations that the agency had been thoroughly infiltrated by the Palestinian militant group Hamas." Makeandtoss (talk) 15:41, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Still not right. The 12/19 led directly to the aid cuts. That's what this article was originally focused on (I personally think the article creation was POV, in fact).
Subsequently some countries increased aid without the benefit of any reports. Germany restored funding based on Colonna, which did not address the 12/19.
Unfortunately it does not neatly tie together in the way you want it to. It will tie together under an Israel and UNRWA title and scope but there is no hurry to do that. Selfstudier (talk) 15:55, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
Okay, good, I see what you mean, and that's indeed more accurate. So now the narrative is: the 12/19 direct participation allegation led to the aid cuts, and afterwards Israel presented more allegations regarding hundreds/thousands membership (/infiltration). Then, the Colonna report -part of a wider inquiry on neutrality that is not necessarily tied to the 12/19 claim- said that Israel is yet to substantiate the infiltration claim, but that the 12/19 participation claim is the subject of a separate inquiry, of which the UN has now closed five for lack of evidence. Nevertheless, Germany resumed aid (after having cut it after the 12/19 claim) despite the 12/19 participation claim not being tackled.
In this case, the centrality of this story, i.e. the scope of this article, as demonstrated by RS, is these allegations that led to the western aid cut and the ones that succeeded them as well. I propose then the following structure for the lede:
Opening paragraph that is both general and establishes context; brief ideas not to be taken verbatim:
In early 2024, Israel made a series of allegations against UNRWA, including that a number of its staff had participated in the attacks against it, and that a significant number of them were members of militant groups. The allegations led to aid cuts to the organization by several western nations, most of which were later reversed, after inquiries found that the membership claims are unsubstantiated, while the claims of participation in the attacks are currently being investigated. UNRWA is the largest relief organization in the Gaza Strip, which is currently undergoing a humanitarian crisis due to the Israel-Hamas war.
Second paragraph:
Chronological timeline starting elaborating on Israel's 12/19 participation claims and the expanded hundreds/thousands membership claims.
Third paragraph:
Colonna report on neutrality and UN inquiry.
Fourth paragraph:
Western aid cuts and reversal.
What do you think? Makeandtoss (talk) 08:52, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
I agree with the generalizing, that is indeed the way to go (and I would generalize it even further (its not just 2024) in the context of an Israel and UNRWA article) but I still think we should wait a bit for the internal enquiry result (the 12/19). It would be interesting to see if everyone restores funding except the US where their legislative arm has basically made it illegal to fund UNRWA until 2025. Selfstudier (talk) 10:17, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Okay, works with me to keep the article with a broader focus. I think in both options the 2024 allegations would remain central, so the decades-long allegations can be elaborated in the background section, and a simple sentence in the opening paragraph saying: "This was part of Israel's decades long allegations against UNRWA." Works with you or did you have something else in mind? As for the internal inquiry results, wouldn't it make more sense to just update the article later when the inquiry is completed? Makeandtoss (talk) 13:56, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Do you have a suggested opening para? Selfstudier (talk) 14:20, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
"In early 2024, Israel made a series of allegations against United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), including that a dozen of its staff based in the Gaza Strip had participated in the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel, and that hundreds of them were members of Palestinian militant groups. The allegations led to aid cuts to the organization by several western nations, most of which were later reversed after inquiries found the membership claims to be unsubstantiated, while the claims of participation in the attacks are currently being investigated, some of them already dismissed for lack of evidence. UNRWA, which for decades had faced Israeli allegations surrounding its neutrality, is the largest relief organization in the Gaza Strip that is currently undergoing a humanitarian crisis during the Israel-Hamas war." Makeandtoss (talk) 10:00, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
Yes, something like that would work, I think. I wouldn't say a dozen, just "including that a number of its staff..". Might be worth including UNRWA total staffing (32,000) in there somewhere to provide a sense of scale. We don't really want a word like "currently" which will become dated at some point, just say "under investigation"? I think the US funding suspension until March 2025 might be worth a mention as it was the largest funder. Selfstudier (talk) 10:21, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
In response to BM pointy and rather ridiculous revert, there are plenty of refs both in this convo and elsewhere. This one has nearly everything in it. Selfstudier (talk) 11:10, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
Makeandtoss, two editors doesn't make a consensus. Further, there are a few issues with your version; you say that "Most of the aid cuts were later reversed ... after inquiries found the membership claims to be unsubstantiated", but the provided sources don't support this reasoning for the cuts being reversed. In addition, the sources don't say the inquiries found the membership claims to be unsubstantiated; they say that Israel has not yet provided evidence, but that this report didn't consider that question and thus evidence wasn't expected to be provided.
You also said "some of them already dismissed for lack of evidence"; however, only one case has been dismissed; four have been suspended, one explicitly "pending additional information"
You also neglected to mention that the report found that UNRWA independence had sometimes been undermined by the use of its facilities for political and military purposes; given that this was a key claim of Israel, that UNRWA facilities had been used by Hamas, it is inappropriate to exclude it.
Selfstudier, the AP source you provide above does not address these issues; instead, it is actually a source that disproves some of the claims introduced by Makeandtoss. BilledMammal (talk) 11:19, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
It has the relevant material due for the lead currently reported by mainstream RS, rather than minor issues of little consequence whcih may go to the body somewhere. Remember that Colonna was set up by UNRWA itself.
Personally, as I have already said, I don't mind waiting to fix this article up, but I won't permit POV editing in the interim. Selfstudier (talk) 11:27, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
Two editors with no one opposing in the lengthy discussion indeed was a consensus. If you took a look at my 15:41, 27 April 2024 comment you would have seen the Deutsche Welle source: "The decision comes after an investigation requested by the United Nations found no evidence to support Israeli allegations that the agency had been thoroughly infiltrated by the Palestinian militant group Hamas." No evidence=unsubstantiated. As for the five dismissed/suspended cases, no sufficient evidence was found. And for the UNRWA facilities, this is not the main allegation that led to the funding cuts and would not need to be elaborated in the opening paragraph. I find it hard to take your revert in good faith considering that not only are the concerns unsubstantiated but they have nothing to do with the entirety of the opening paragraph. Instead of addressing the minor points you are mentioning here, you just simply chose to completely remove the work of two editors. I am waiting again for your self-revert and I would expect better cooperation as the past period has been resembling a troubling editing behavior. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:28, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
No evidence=unsubstantiated
That's not accurate; no evidence simply means no evidence was provided. Unsubstantiated goes further, and suggests the claims were false. In fact, Colonna explicitly stated While Israel has not produced evidence of ties to Hamas and other militant groups among UNRWA workers, that does not mean there is no evidence, she noted. “It’s very different,” she said.
As for the five dismissed/suspended cases, no sufficient evidence was found.
You said that multiple cases had been dismissed for lack of evidence; sources don't support that claim. A single case was dismissed, and you don't get to conflate suspended and dismissed cases.
And for the UNRWA facilities, this is not the main allegation that led to the funding cuts and would not need to be elaborated in the opening paragraph
It was, however, a substantial allegation, and the fact that it is an accurate allegation makes it highly relevant; it's significant enough to spend a few words mentioning. BilledMammal (talk) 11:40, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
That is a minor matter, as you well know (or should know). If you have sourcing that indicates that is not a minor matter, I would like to see it. It was not investigated as a response to any Israeli allegation afaik, Colonna covered that because she was asked to investigate UNRWA neutrality in general, textbooks, social media use, etcetera. Selfstudier (talk) 11:43, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
Israel's allegation was that its intelligence services had compiled a case “incriminating several UNRWA employees for their alleged involvement in the massacre, along with evidence pointing to the use of UNRWA facilities for terrorist purposes.” I'm curious what sourcing you have that this was a "minor matter", given it was a key piece of the Israeli allegations? BilledMammal (talk) 11:48, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
The enquiry into those allegations is still not concluded. Selfstudier (talk) 11:57, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
The use of UNRWA facilities does not imply UNRWA culpability. So this is not really an allegation against URNWA as much as it is an allegation about UNRWA that was secondary to the major controversy against it. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:12, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
That's it? You could have simply changed unsubstantiated to something else; and no evidence to no sufficient evidence. Instead you made a mass revert and you are still refusing to self-revert it and fix these minor issues yourself; or at least provide suggestions for it here on the talk page. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:08, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
I felt the issues were throughout your edit, in terms of introducing inaccuracies. Why don’t you propose a version here that you feel addresses those issues and we can discuss it? BilledMammal (talk) 23:06, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
Until such a time as evidence is provided, "no evidence" does very much equal "unsubstantiated". Iskandar323 (talk) 03:58, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
What has the four suspensions got to do with anything? That isn't a presumption of guilt. On the contrary, UNRWA has been widely panned for not standing by its staff and giving this gift to the feckless genocidaires of the West. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:18, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
Because suspensions aren’t dismissals. BilledMammal (talk) 23:06, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Recent edit

  • Comment: looking at most recent changes: diff, the present version does not look like an improvement. The lead starts with the allegation about a dozen UNFWA staff (1st sentence), but then pivots into "issues persisted with UNRWA’s neutrality" (2nd sentence), w/o rhyme or reason. The previous version 11:06, 29 April 2024 covered the matter in a more logical fashion. I suggest it be restored, perhaps with rewording of "some of them already dismissed for lack of evidence" as I'm not seeing it in the source (?): archive link. "Them" refers to "The claims of participation in the attacks are being investigated...". --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:03, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
    The latter is indeed more balanced. The current form is clearly argumentative, with elements of POV and editorialisation at work. The legal equivalent of: nothing has been proven but let's still assume guilt pre-emptively and up-front. As an example, it emphasizes the "problems that persist" angle from the Colonna report and editorialises away the "robust framework" conclusion as a mere subordinate clause with a "despite". This isn't straightforward factual writing. And "problems persisting" is a vapid vaguery in any case – it's meaningless performance review gibberish if not elucidated with some specifics; just slightly removed in terms of tone from "room for improvement". The 11:06 29 April lead, by contrast, was a marked improvement, with the first paragraph providing a simply and clear first paragraph with no tomfoolery and with the finer detail of the Colonna report reserved for subsequent paragraphs. Iskandar323 (talk) 03:27, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
    The latter included false information, such as that the allegations were unsubstantiated; this false information made it less balanced, although the former also needs work. BilledMammal (talk) 03:36, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
    What false information? Iskandar323 (talk) 03:59, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
    1. That the claim was "found to be unsubstantiated"
    2. That most donors restored funding because the claims were "found to be unsubstantiated"
    3. That multiple claims against individuals had been dismissed
    It also makes false several insinuations:
    1. That most western donors, such as the UK, had resumed funding. According to our article, only six out of eleven have done so.
    2. That Israel was expected to provide this evidence to this investigation.
    BilledMammal (talk) 05:11, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
  • The CNN source reads: However, the report did note that "Israel has yet to provide supporting evidence for their allegations that "a significant number of UNRWA employees are members of terrorist organizations." To me, "yet to provide evidence" = "failed to substantiate its allegations" = "unsubstantiated". It's just paraphrasing. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:55, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
    "Unsubstantiated" has a stronger meaning than "yet to provide evidence"; it suggests the claims are false, rather than taking no position on it. Further, the edit didn't just call the claims unsubstantiated; it says they were "found to be unsubstantiated" by the report; the report didn't find them to be anything, and the assertion that it did has been explicitly rejected by Colonna. BilledMammal (talk) 05:11, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
    The Guardian source reads: review finds government yet to substantiate claims UN relief agency staff have ties to Hamas or Islamic Jihad -- the allegations are either substantiated, or they are not, are they? "Finds" come from the source.
Further from Guardian: Their report says: “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.” -- the substantiation was asked for, but not provided. --K.e.coffman (talk) 05:26, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
Hurrah. The Guardian source uses the precise word in question, so editorial debate on the matter is over. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:30, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
Not the precise word, and the change in word - as well as the different context surrounding the word - results in it having a different meaning.
The Guardian says the report found that Israel is "yet to substantiate claims", while we said that the claim was "found to be unsubstantiated" by the report. The difference is that The Guardian's statement implies the investigation hasn't concluded, whereas our statement indicates that the investigation has concluded and definitively found the claims to lack supporting evidence. BilledMammal (talk) 05:42, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
This is an imaginary discrepancy. From the Oxford languages definition: unsubstantiated = not supported or proven by evidence, e.g. "unsubstantiated claim". The opposite of unsubstantiated is of course "substantiated", which if it is not "unsubstantiated", it must be. But it is not substantiated, because nothing has been proven with evidence. Your interpretation may differ, but perhaps at this point listen to the four other editors involved and drop this. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:28, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
From the Cambridge dictionary: "not supported by facts". BilledMammal (talk) 05:42, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
Per Guardian: review finds government yet to substantiate claims. This is hair splitting at this point, honestly. Israel was given ample opportunity to substantiate its claims but has chosen not to do so. --K.e.coffman (talk) 05:50, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
See my reply to Iskandar regarding the difference between what we said and what the guardian says. BilledMammal (talk) 05:52, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
@BilledMammal: Four editors now are explicitly telling you that your reversion has restored a worse previous version; and that you are welcome to introduce the minor edits you are concerned about to the newer version that was developed through a lengthy discussion. Refusal to self-revert now is blatantly unconstructive and is adding to the seemingly disruptive behavior on this article, and other ones as well. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:49, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
Certainly seems that this is a molehill mountain affair. Besides, it is not that Israel has not provided the evidence, they explicitly refused to do so. @Makeandtoss:, kindly put here once more an opening para that we can restore to the lead. Selfstudier (talk) 11:32, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
Given BilledMammal's unwillingness to co-operate, I've now restored the earlier consensus version. — kashmīrī TALK 11:49, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
I reordered the rest of the lead, still doesn't look right, probably bit too much detail in the second para. Not sure we really want quotes in the lead. Selfstudier (talk) 12:11, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
You reintroduced false information; are you planning to correct that? BilledMammal (talk) 12:29, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
You had a chance to fix things up but chose to ignore consensus instead. Be specific about what info is "false" and if it is the case, I am sure it will be corrected since no editor wishes to deliberately introduce false information to the encyclopedia. Selfstudier (talk) 12:41, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
This is rapidly approaching WP:1AM bludgeoning. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:42, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Lead looks better now, last para needs a bit of work still, see if we can find some summary of the current donor position rather than the newsticker approach. Selfstudier (talk) 13:48, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, much better. This whole thing reminds me of the Al-Shifa Hospital siege's lede; I can't help but get the feeling that ledes are being confused with incoherent ideas. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:18, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Percent Sum Totals

Can someone with extended permission update the percent sum totals at the bottom of the table?

Should be Sum of Frozen | 65% | 58%

Sum of Unfrozen | 28% | 35%

(at least assuming all the numbers in the table above are correct)

The missing 7% is from "other countries" with no label. Kcswathout (talk) 22:39, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Article development

The furore around the specific 2023 allegations that led to the initial creation of this article has mostly subsided. However, both Israel and UNRWA continue to press new allegations against each other.

I propose changing the scope of this article to include these new allegations as well as the historical allegations that are currently at UNRWA#Relations with Israel and then after that, I am thinking of an RM to change the title here to Israel and UNRWA.

Thoughts? Selfstudier (talk) 09:33, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

The new allegations are still related to the war which is still within the current scope, no?
Also, regarding the historical allegations, can they be presented here as part of the background? I see this to be a seemingly analogous situation with the 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight article; i.e. it does not necessarily deny that expulsions had taken place before 1948, but just that the main ones have taken place in 1948. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:48, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
The problem with the current scope (article title + first sentence(s)) is that it is limited to the early 2024 accusations made by Israel and I think the scope should include all allegations, whether made by Israel or by UNRWA, whenever they were made.
One of the problems is that this article relates the allegations only as they pertain to the current war but in truth, the Israeli allegations, including re Hamas, go back further, see UNRWA#Accusations of UNRWA facility misuse (in the wrong section, I think) and the more recent moves by Israel against UNRWA predated the early 2024 accusations. Yes, some of this can go to background, but again, the title is wrong, it's not just Israeli allegations but UNRWA allegations as well, thus "Israel and UNRWA" would be better.
It's a bit chicken and egg, I would like to rename the article now but the material is not present so better first to bring the material in under the existing title and then rename? Selfstudier (talk) 10:10, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
I agree before, and I still think this is a good idea. Better to reform it into a full parent-child arrangement. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:56, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
UNWRA made no 'allegation' against Israel (i.e. Philippe Lazzarini, UNRWA: Stop Israel’s Violent Campaign Against Us New York Times 30 May 2024 ), so to put the two positions on an equal footing is, I think, odd. Israel alleged that because there was some indication that 1 in every 924 employees of UNWRA in Gaza might have links to Hamas. That farcical accusation was quickly demolished, but it served its purpose, since UNWRA lost access to 30% of its funding, crippling its ability to continue to assist the Gazan population.
Put it in terms of an analogy .If a thug/bully keeps punching you, and you appeal for help without fighting back, a third party would be wrong to recast this as a set of claims and counterclaims.I think the page should stand on its own, and anything about Israel's earlier history of trying to pull the rug from under UNWRA's feet left to a background section.Nishidani (talk) 12:24, 13 July 2024 (UTC).
UNRWA has made historical allegations, I linked them above. I am not putting them on an equal footing, that's why "Israel and UNRWA", that is, the relations between them, which does not only consist of mutual allegations. Selfstudier (talk) 12:29, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
That Israel has a long term policy of ridding UNWRA from its areas of geopolitical interest is a fact, and stating it is not an allegation ('UNWRA is Hamas and Hamas is UNWRA' is a position officially stated, and is known to be an utter travesty of the reality, even I suspect by those senior officials who promote it. (here; here; here (a corker coming straight out of the comically named farcetank Begin–Sadat Center for Strategic Studies) etc.etc.Nishidani (talk) 13:05, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
As I mentioned in this discussion last March, I'm all for spinning off a dedicated article about Israel–UNRWA relations, mirroring thousands of other articles dedicated to countries' bilateral relations (browse the Category:Bilateral relations by country). The 2023–2024 allegations would fit in it well. — kashmīrī TALK 23:24, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
That title is also fine. Selfstudier (talk) 23:27, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
I also think that title might be safer – less ambiguous and more direct. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:40, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
UNWRA is not a country (nor a political organization), so this doesn't fit 'countries bilateral relations' (which extend to political bodies like the UN). Analogously it suggests one should spin off and create pages like AIPAC and Israel, the ADL and Israel, Israel and the ICJ, China and Human Rights Watch,Russia and Amnesty. Spin-offs are easy, but the other option is to aim for far more synthetic briefer page drafting and revising, the art of précis. Still, I have no objection. I don't object on principle to anyting proposed by editors willing to follow through and do the substantial legwork Nishidani (talk) 06:33, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
That is a little unfair. The Israel–UNRWA saga is a particularly long and entrenched one. The two establishments were essentially born together and their tales are intrinsically intertwined. And it's a subject of considerable academic devotion, in the likes of Israel, UNRWA, and the Palestinian Refugee Issue. I doubt any of the other prospective parallels above have quite the same combination of backstory, subsequent coverage and study. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:38, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
If there is general agreement to split then I wouldn't oppose. But as mentioned above the new title should avoid giving the appearance of equal footing. Makeandtoss (talk) 08:15, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
Well, as I said, it's a bit chicken and egg, we need to have the material present here to start with. If no one objects, I will make a start on that shortly. Selfstudier (talk) 10:22, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
@Nishidani It's more complex. Diplomatic relations tend to be between governments and other organisations, not between countries. For example, Czechia maintains diplomatic relations with the Palestinian Authority even though it does not currently recognise the State of Palestine. The Sovereign Military Order of Malta is another organisation that maintains diplomatic relations[3], as is the ICRC whose country heads are customarily treated like ambassadors. Similarly, the EU, even though it's essentially a consortium, is considered subject of diplomatic relations, and so we talk about Foreign relations of the European Union; same for NATO by the way. I don't see how UNRWA wouldn't be able to maintain bilateral relations (esp. when not called "diplomatic"), or why Wikipedia shouldn't write about them. — kashmīrī TALK 16:49, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
The Palestinian Authority is a governing political party in the West Bank, so the Czechia example is irrelevant, as are the other two examples. UNWRA is an organization, not a government, or an ensemble of governments (EU) and as an organization does not have a political profile, as opposed to a humanitarian function. Indeed it must be apolitical by definition.Nishidani (talk) 21:03, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
As Selfstudier suggests, between the lines, one should not make splits that create stubs, but only proceed to do so when a substantial body of material accumulates to warrant it.Nishidani (talk) 21:03, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

UK resumes funding

[4] [5]

This leaves the US as the only country in the world keeping the suspension in place. — kashmīrī TALK 14:52, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Lede issues

@Makeandtoss: rather than just reverting, can you try to fix the issues?

  • There's no source in the article for some already dismissed, and it's not clear who dismissed what.
  • There's no source in the article for undergoing ... famine; the closest is a UN special rapporteur claiming a (future) famine is inevitable.
  • Surely undergoing ... famine with no qualifications isn't sufficiently balanced for a statement in wikivoice. The title of Gaza famine is not evidence that it is, particularly since the last title discussion involved arguments like no implication that can be taken directly from the article title, and since the article body uses weaker language like "high risk of famine".

— xDanielx T/C\R 17:02, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Looking at the discussions above, so we have a source saying something related to some already dismissed but somewhat different: one case was closed because Israel provided no evidence and four others were suspended for lack of sufficient evidence. We could fix it, clarifying that it's an OIOS investigation, and that they closed one and suspended four out of 19 cases. A more precise summary like this would seem fairly uninteresting, and probably not lede-worthy. But I don't feel too strongly about whether this goes in the lede, as long it's not a vague or misleading summary of the source. — xDanielx T/C\R 04:35, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

@XDanielx: " 19 allegations against UNRWA agency staffers, one case was closed because Israel provided no evidence and four others were suspended for lack of sufficient evidence" [6] and this has been discussed specifically above. As for famine, there is a WP article on it, so there is no use in denying the existence of an impending/famine there. UNRWA is providing aid to Palestinians, and the allegations against it to curtail its operations are only contributing to the impending famine, as was stated by RS. Makeandtoss (talk) 08:22, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
I did see the discussion, where BilledMammal pointed out that dismissed for lack of evidence is a misleading characterization of the four cases which were suspended for now pending additional evidence.
I'm also not necessarily against some mention of famine risk here, but something like the other article's high risk of famine language would be more appropriate for a statement in wikivoice. — xDanielx T/C\R 15:27, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
@XDanielx: I will point out that "pending additional evidence" is misleading, as RS explicitly say suspended for insufficient evidence, which is yet to be provided. A middle ground would be to change from "lack of evidence" to "insufficient evidence" which should cover both cases. "Impending famine" already means high risk of famine. Makeandtoss (talk) 07:07, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Finally, this business of the 19 investigation has been concluded, see https://www.un.org/sg/en/content/sg/note-correspondents/2024-08-05/note-correspondents-%E2%80%93-the-un-office-of-internal-oversight-services-%28oios%29-investigation-of-the-un-relief-and-works-agency-for-palestine-refugees-the-near-east Selfstudier (talk) 17:36, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
Shall we rename the article now, since it's no longer just allegations? Alaexis¿question? 18:54, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
You mean now that it's discredited allegations? Could do. To what? Iskandar323 (talk) 19:37, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
You do realize that this was a tiny part of the propaganda allegations against UNRWA, correct? Makeandtoss (talk) 08:30, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
I think we should rename the article but as I said above, first we need to move all the UNRWA Israel stuff from the main UNRWA article to here, I was planning to do that anyway and since the two investigations are concluded and all the funding (ex USA) restored, we also don't need all the detail that is currently in this article on that subject. Selfstudier (talk) 11:09, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
I copied over the Israel/UNRWA material from the main article, now the article here needs to be reworked a bit so that everything fits nicely. Selfstudier (talk) 13:01, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
I'll be reverting this edits, unfortunately, since this was a significant change of scope which requires much more comprehensive discussions and consensus-achieving process. This article is currently about the possible involvement of UNRWA employees in the October 7 attacks, now finally confirmed by the UN. HaOfa (talk) 04:41, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
You can't just wade in and revert things after a discussion has already reached consensus and people have acted on it. You're just wasting people's time and energy. The material was in a section entitled background and was harmless to the overall effect of the page, so there was no reason to revert this prior to discussion, other than to be pointy. And no, this isn't about UNRWA involvement in anything, because that's been all but discredited. It's about the all but dismissed allegations of the same, as well as a few other things. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:03, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Although all the material is not laid out properly as yet, and the lead will need to reflect the body once it is sorted out, which of the two titles is preferred? UNRWA and Israel or Israel–UNRWA relations? Is an RM necessary for this? Selfstudier (talk) 14:11, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I saw some pushback against the relations option, based on the two entities not being equivalent/on the same level, e.g. nation on nation. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:32, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
I agree on relations part. As for UNRWA and Israel the scope of such an article from its name would extend from 1948, even though the ongoing controversy deserves its own standalone article per the present significant coverage. But it doesn't really matter that much to me, so I would support it. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:38, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
Given that recent events have basically blown over, apart from the US stance, I imagine their weight will fade with time, and as we trim out some of the recentism. Israel's longstanding beef with UNRWA is a bigger and I would argue better standalone topic. Taking a leaf out of recent RMs and discussions, I think a lot of "allegations" pages are either poorly title/scoped or basically undue and slightly POV topics. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:11, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Title change is a must if we wish to restore neutrality

Now following the UN's OIOS investigation that confirmed that at least nine UNRWA employees were involved in the October 7 attacks, it is clear that the issue is not about mere "allegations" any more. To restore the article's neturality we should change its name to something that reflects that. Yes, there is still a gap between the numbers stated by the IDF and those confirmed at this point by the United Nations, but there's no question that the very involvement in its foundation is true. IMO the title should be "UNRWA involvement in the October 7 attacks". HaOfa (talk) 04:56, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

It didn't confirm anything. The UN still said it still didn't have hard evidence, and Israel isn't sharing. And even if it were true, nine employees is a drop in the ocean of 12,000 people. To be precise, 0.00075% of the staff. It is a statistical irrelevance. But even that is not proven – "beyond reasonable doubt" being the proof burden, in court, required for determining actual guilt in most jurisdictions. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:10, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
They did confirm it, there are lots of news article on this. The actual number doesn't matter, the fact is that UNRWA employees were involved. That's the topic of this article, isn't it? PeleYoetz (talk) 07:28, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
UNRWA employees ==!== UNRWA. Only half of one of Israel's allegations were proven, which doesn't change anything. Makeandtoss (talk) 08:54, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
They weren't actually "proven", all the RS say "may". See comment below. Selfstudier (talk) 09:51, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
I will support this title PeleYoetz (talk) 07:29, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
The current title is the result of a move from UNRWA October 7 controversy back in March, as relative newcomers to the page, perhaps you are not aware of that. The matter is now concluded with the vast majority of evidence free allegations by Israel dismissed for lack of evidence. Only the original 9 members that were dismissed already back in February are confirmed as dismissed and their guilt is not absolutely confirmed, only "may". Therefore the Israeli allegations turned out to be of little consequence after everything and all donors have restored their funding with the exception of the USA. Selfstudier (talk) 09:18, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 7 August 2024

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)

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)

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)
@Makeandtoss, so you must hate this title ;) — kashmīrī TALK 11:48, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
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)
Relations/relationship between UNRWA and Israel: [7][8][9][10][11]. Undoubtedly an encyclopaedic topic. — kashmīrī TALK 14:55, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Weak Support... also "Relations between Israel and UNRWA" also seems useful and descriptive Bluethricecreamman (talk) 20:38, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
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

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)

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)
"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)
Was it 2016? Makeandtoss (talk) 13:05, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
No idea, what's the source for that? Is it in the body? Selfstudier (talk) 13:07, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
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." [12] Makeandtoss (talk) 13:13, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
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)

1949

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)

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)
Found the claim in Pappe's ethnic cleansing of Palestine book and added accordingly. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:51, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Could you please provide an excerpt (ideally) or a page number? — xDanielx T/C\R 16:20, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
As already cited in the reference, pages 235-236. Makeandtoss (talk) 16:55, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

OR

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

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)
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)
The table is very very clearly OR by building on historical data to support present claims. Makeandtoss (talk) 16:56, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

Nakba

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

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)
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)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:UNRWA_and_Israel/Archive_3&oldid=1265225224"