[negidius]

Gaza is a ghetto controlled by a genocidal group at war with another genocidal group. It's an active war zone. It's not comparable to Silicon Valley. How does the 0.001% of employees being accused of involvement in the October 7 attack compare with the adult population of Gaza? How does it compare with the adult population of Israel and involvement in attacks on Gazan civilians?

I think you are holding UNRWA to an impossible standard, and I think it's up to those who think it should be able to meet that standard to propose an alternative before proposing its abolition.

[gryzzly]

A relief agency that employs terrorists is being held to an impossible standard you think? It’s an impossible standard to not hire people who kill, kidnap and rape?

And btw, 12 out 12000 is 0,1%. Also, it’s more like 10% btw, and 50% having personal family ties to Hamas.

[negidius]

Sorry, that should have been 0.1%.

The claim about 10% doesn't seem to say much. What does it mean exactly for someone to be a "Hamas/PIJ operative"? Has UNRWA been told who these people are and what they have done? I suspect we will eventually find out if there was any truth behind the allegations against the 12 (or 13) specific people accused of involvement in the attack, but I doubt we will ever learn anything about the 10%. The 50% is completely meaningless. People are responsible for their own individual actions, not those of their family members.

My question remains, are UNRWA employees more likely to have been involved in or associated with atrocities than the average person in the region? Involvement and association doesn't necessarily mean that they personally committed those atrocities. How does this compare with the average Palestinian or Israeli? Should I boycott an Israeli company if 0.1% of their employees were involved in the commission of war crimes or other atrocities in the IDF, even if they were fired/suspended when the accusation came to light, and no one seems to be able to suggest what they should have done differently to avoid hiring them?

[cykros]

If we're not funding and arming organizations known for killing, kidnapping, and raping, I'm glad to hear the IDF will not longer be receiving arms manufactured in the US and UK.

Meanwhile, it's amusing the rape claims keep coming, even though not one woman has actually claimed that she was raped. But sure, it was widespread. Most certainly near the pile of 40 beheaded babies. Except, whoops, Haaretz reported the list of those killed on 10/7, and only one person was under the age of 3. Given the number of those killed by the IDF themselves due to the Hannibal protocol, there's a pretty high chance even that one wasn't killed by Hamas, who was more interested in military targets.

There's a reason all the songs go "lie lie lie lie lie lie..."

[light_hue_1]

The original person said that this is standard for any organization. So that's false then?

Now you're saying that it's normal for any organization in a war zone to include 0.1% terrorists in it?

That means that the UNCHR, which operates in the same environments, has had 20 ISIS members among their ranks that participated in terrorist attacks? Nope.

That UN peacekeeping missions like the one in Kosovo just went around murdering a few people here and there? Nope.

It's not true that to operate in these environments you need to include terrorists among your ranks. No one else does.

The UNRWA decided a long time ago that it was easier to work with Hamas. That's just unacceptable for an international organization.

Also, accusing Israel, who literally left Gaza to the locals and forcefully displaced its own people to do so, of genocide is absurd. Israel gave Gazans what they wanted: autonomy. They then elected a genocidal organization.

[negidius]

12 or 13 employees in an organization being accused of terrorism or war crimes doesn't necessarily mean the organization is complicit in those acts, or could have foreseen the situation. This is especially the case in a region where such acts are common.

Did UNHCR operate in ISIS territory? I could be wrong, but I don't believe they ever did. The UN peacekeepers in Kosovo were not from the region, so that comparison doesn't make sense. Do you think it would be possible for UNRWA to recruit a sufficient number of people who do not already live in Gaza to move there and work for them, considering the rate at which UNRWA employees have been killed so far? You still have not said what UNRWA should have done differently.

My understanding is that the Israeli government never ended the occupation of Gaza in a way that could have allowed it to function as anything more than a ghetto or open-air prison. They forcefully removed their citizens from the territory, but did they ever end the blockade? Was there even a day when people in Gaza could import and export goods, generate electricity, or travel in and out of the territory without Israeli permission?

It makes no sense to solely blame the Palestinians for Hamas controlling Gaza when the Israeli government created the conditions that allowed them to seize power and the current prime minister of Israel has said: "Anyone who wants to thwart the establishment of a Palestinian state has to support bolstering Hamas and transferring money to Hamas [...] This is part of our strategy — to isolate the Palestinians in Gaza from the Palestinians in the West Bank."