Weird how the Israeli forces suddenly started finding all of these connections between UNWRA and Hamas hours after the ICJ ruled against them. Also weird that the IDF claims that anything set up to help Palestinian civilians, like UNWRA, hospitals, and refugee camps, are Hamas strongholds, but no one can ever verify these claims (usually because they been obliterated by Israeli air strikes).
These allegations have been around for years. Dude, it’s the largest employer in Gaza. You don’t think there’s some overlap between the largest employer and the hugely popular terrorist organization?
You know some of the MAGAs on January 6 probably worked at Wal-Mart, just statistically. Not really much difference here, except the MAGAs probably didn’t co-opt Wal-Mart’s resources to pull off their attack.
I mean, there are 1,300 of UNWRA employees in Palestine, most of them Palestinian. Do I think it’s possible the 13 accused employees were involved in the October attack? Yes, I believe it’s possible that literally 1% of them were involved.
Do I think that UNWRA as an institution was working with Hamas? Only in the sense that Hamas is in control of the government, and there is literally no way to carry out their mission of aiding the Palestinian people without working the the ruling government.
Do I think that UNWRA was working the Hamas on planning military attacks, or allowing their building to be used as a base of operations for Hamas terrorists? No, and the IDF is going to have to produce better evidence than a tunnel underneath a building (which they completely leveled) to convince me of otherwise.
13,000 in UNRWA employees in Gaza, as I understand. The IDF’s dossier also alleged that 1,300, or 10%, were direct supporters of Hamas whilst 50% have close family or close friends who are members of Hamas.
I don’t think UNRWA itself was officially coordinating the attacks, but I have zero doubt that UNRWA negligently let it’s resources being coopted, and the world needed a reality check on UNRWA’s activities in Gaza. As you said, they do justifiably work with Hamas as much as anyone can justify working with terrorists. The question is how friendly is UNRWA to Hamas and it’s strategies in that work? Some of longstanding allegations are that UNRWA teaches that martyrdom is honorable and that martyrs are heroes. Perhaps that explains some of the shocking numbers of civilians killed?
You’re right, I misread that statistic…so, literally 0.1%. I highly doubt that 10% number, or at least I believe that they’re inflating it with a loose definition of, “support.” I suspect that a lot of instances of, “directly supporting,” Hamas will turn out to be people working the Hamas government to distribute supplies to civilians, some of which wound up going to militants. The 50% having close friends of family supporting Hamas seems closer to true, but what of it? Going back to your example, I’m sure at least that percentage of Americans have family/friends who support the January 6th rioters, but that doesn’t mean they want to overthrow the government.
These allegations seem like war propaganda, and the fact that they came out at the exact same time as the ICJ ruling is even more suspicious. Until they are backed up any other credible source, I will treat them as such.
Well, I can’t read most of the WSJ’s coverage because it’s behind a pay wall, but it’s anything like the AP or Reuters coverage, it’s going to say that these claims are only being made by the Israeli military and not independently verified (the opening paragraph of the WSJ coverage seems to line up with this). The AP even notes, “It did not prove definitively that Hamas militants operated in the tunnels underneath the UNWRA facility, but it did show that at least a portion of the tunnel ran underneath the facility’s courtyard.” So, did the IDF show that Hamas was working with UNWRA, or did they show some journalists a tunnel near UNWRA building?
I can read the first paragraph, the rest is behind a pay wall. Have you never seen a pay wall? Here’s the first sentence: “Hidden deep below the headquarters of the United Nations’ aid agency for Palestinians here is a Hamas complex with rows of computer servers that Israel’s armed forces say served as an important communications center and intelligence hub for the Islamist militant group.” My guess is, based on the fact that no news agency is verifying this claim, and the opening sentence of the WSJ coverage is citing Israeli claims, they also don’t have any evidence besides the IDF’s claims.
But why don’t you tell me? You obviously read the entire article, or you wouldn’t be referencing it. Does the WSJ have any independent evidence outside of the Israeli presentation show to the news agencies? What evidence is provided by the WSJ that is absent from the AP coverage I linked to? I mean, you must know, you did read the article, not just the headline, right?
Edit: Weird, this guy made 9 comments since I left this reply, including some trying to undermine the AP article I cited, but he hasn’t responded to this. If I didn’t know any better I’d swear he hadn’t read that WSJ article.
Weird how the Israeli forces suddenly started finding all of these connections between UNWRA and Hamas hours after the ICJ ruled against them. Also weird that the IDF claims that anything set up to help Palestinian civilians, like UNWRA, hospitals, and refugee camps, are Hamas strongholds, but no one can ever verify these claims (usually because they been obliterated by Israeli air strikes).
Ah we’ve progressed to delusional conspiracy.
LOL, you are claiming the U.N. is in league with Hamas my guy, please get some perspective.
These allegations have been around for years. Dude, it’s the largest employer in Gaza. You don’t think there’s some overlap between the largest employer and the hugely popular terrorist organization?
You know some of the MAGAs on January 6 probably worked at Wal-Mart, just statistically. Not really much difference here, except the MAGAs probably didn’t co-opt Wal-Mart’s resources to pull off their attack.
I mean, there are 1,300 of UNWRA employees in Palestine, most of them Palestinian. Do I think it’s possible the 13 accused employees were involved in the October attack? Yes, I believe it’s possible that literally 1% of them were involved.
Do I think that UNWRA as an institution was working with Hamas? Only in the sense that Hamas is in control of the government, and there is literally no way to carry out their mission of aiding the Palestinian people without working the the ruling government.
Do I think that UNWRA was working the Hamas on planning military attacks, or allowing their building to be used as a base of operations for Hamas terrorists? No, and the IDF is going to have to produce better evidence than a tunnel underneath a building (which they completely leveled) to convince me of otherwise.
13,000 in UNRWA employees in Gaza, as I understand. The IDF’s dossier also alleged that 1,300, or 10%, were direct supporters of Hamas whilst 50% have close family or close friends who are members of Hamas.
I don’t think UNRWA itself was officially coordinating the attacks, but I have zero doubt that UNRWA negligently let it’s resources being coopted, and the world needed a reality check on UNRWA’s activities in Gaza. As you said, they do justifiably work with Hamas as much as anyone can justify working with terrorists. The question is how friendly is UNRWA to Hamas and it’s strategies in that work? Some of longstanding allegations are that UNRWA teaches that martyrdom is honorable and that martyrs are heroes. Perhaps that explains some of the shocking numbers of civilians killed?
You’re right, I misread that statistic…so, literally 0.1%. I highly doubt that 10% number, or at least I believe that they’re inflating it with a loose definition of, “support.” I suspect that a lot of instances of, “directly supporting,” Hamas will turn out to be people working the Hamas government to distribute supplies to civilians, some of which wound up going to militants. The 50% having close friends of family supporting Hamas seems closer to true, but what of it? Going back to your example, I’m sure at least that percentage of Americans have family/friends who support the January 6th rioters, but that doesn’t mean they want to overthrow the government.
These allegations seem like war propaganda, and the fact that they came out at the exact same time as the ICJ ruling is even more suspicious. Until they are backed up any other credible source, I will treat them as such.
You can talk to the Wall Street Journal. They think the same thing. But, you can’t even accept what your eyes see on video.
Well, I can’t read most of the WSJ’s coverage because it’s behind a pay wall, but it’s anything like the AP or Reuters coverage, it’s going to say that these claims are only being made by the Israeli military and not independently verified (the opening paragraph of the WSJ coverage seems to line up with this). The AP even notes, “It did not prove definitively that Hamas militants operated in the tunnels underneath the UNWRA facility, but it did show that at least a portion of the tunnel ran underneath the facility’s courtyard.” So, did the IDF show that Hamas was working with UNWRA, or did they show some journalists a tunnel near UNWRA building?
So you can’t read it, but will tell me what it says? Pretty funny.
I can read the first paragraph, the rest is behind a pay wall. Have you never seen a pay wall? Here’s the first sentence: “Hidden deep below the headquarters of the United Nations’ aid agency for Palestinians here is a Hamas complex with rows of computer servers that Israel’s armed forces say served as an important communications center and intelligence hub for the Islamist militant group.” My guess is, based on the fact that no news agency is verifying this claim, and the opening sentence of the WSJ coverage is citing Israeli claims, they also don’t have any evidence besides the IDF’s claims.
But why don’t you tell me? You obviously read the entire article, or you wouldn’t be referencing it. Does the WSJ have any independent evidence outside of the Israeli presentation show to the news agencies? What evidence is provided by the WSJ that is absent from the AP coverage I linked to? I mean, you must know, you did read the article, not just the headline, right?
Edit: Weird, this guy made 9 comments since I left this reply, including some trying to undermine the AP article I cited, but he hasn’t responded to this. If I didn’t know any better I’d swear he hadn’t read that WSJ article.
deleted by creator