UNRWA Faces Funding Crisis Amid Allegations, Guterres Appeals for Continued Support

[Brickleberry]

24 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Giant Hamas tunnel found under UNRWA’s Gaza headquarters

During a meeting between U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Prime Minister Netanyahu in Jerusalem on Wednesday, the American diplomat was shown photos of a giant tunnel that was exposed in recent days underneath the central headquarters of UNRWA in the Gaza Strip. The meeting was attended by senior officials from both sides.

The Israeli leader showed Blinken proof of the misuse of the UNRWA headquarters’ underground premises for apparent terrorist tunneling purposes.

https://www.jns.org/giant-tunnel-discovered-under-unrwas-gaza-headquarters

 

Put your thinking cap on for just a moment. How did the IDF uncover a tunnel under UNRWA's headquarters? It would not be possible without either blowing up the headquarters, or IDF soldiers illegally breaking into it.

 

What you are misleadingly presenting as a tunnel shaft into the organization is probably a tunnel running underneath it. How did they know this? How did they find it? There is literally no information. This story is 2 days old, and it has not been picked up by any western media.

 

There might be a tunnel running underneath it - apparently there are tunnels underneath all of Gaza. There will not be a tunnel shaft running into UNRWA.

 

[Bkk Brian]

5 minutes ago, Brickleberry said:

 

Put your thinking cap on for just a moment. How did the IDF uncover a tunnel under UNRWA's headquarters? It would not be possible without either blowing up the headquarters, or IDF soldiers illegally breaking into it.

 

What you are misleadingly presenting as a tunnel shaft into the organization is probably a tunnel running underneath it. How did they know this? How did they find it? There is literally no information. This story is 2 days old, and it has not been picked up by any western media.

 

There might be a tunnel running underneath it - apparently there are tunnels underneath all of Gaza. There will not be a tunnel shaft running into UNRWA.

 

How did the IDF uncover a tunnel under UNRWA's headquarters? It would not be possible without either blowing up the headquarters, or IDF soldiers illegally breaking into it.

 

After your first line I ignored the rest. 

[Morch]

11 hours ago, Brickleberry said:

 

I know exactly what is contained in the report - no evidence. You can keep bleating on about this, or you can accept mainstream independent Western Media who have analyzed these documents and found them to be lacking any evidence whatsoever. You obviously didn't watch the video, as the report showed several pages. They even said at the start of the video "we analyzed all 16 pages of the intelligence dossier". Stop lying about what the report is, and what it contains.

 

Did you not know that this Israeli government is far right? There are literally people who have been convicted of terrorism in the government (Ben Givr). The entire world reports that this is a far right government. We both know you know this. Stop deflecting, admit when you are wrong. 

 

It wasn't my opinion that I referenced. It was a picture of the laws all signatories must abide by, from a reputable source - the UN. Governments are concerned which is why the EU is now backtracking and is talking about resuming funds. Biden is currently being sued in the USA for enabling genocide and the court has accepted the case. The ICJ has ruled that genocide is plausibly being committed. How many more court cases does Israel need to lose for you to pull your head out of the sand? How many more UN resolution s does Israel have to break - I think we are at 26 legally binding orders it is ignoring. How much more of the West Bank will Israel steal until you pull your head out of the sand? How many more Palestinian deaths will it take?

 

I haven't avoided it like the plague, you just keep spouting this nonsense and ignoring the facts that media has seen the report and reported on it. I have answered you several times already - it is unconscionable, unfathomable and immoral. Even if the allegations were true - which they are not - 0.009% of employees does not represent the 30,000 members of staff UNRWA has. Ignoring the facts that Israel wants this organization destroyed, and has publicly stated its intentions over decades should not come as a surprise to someone who claims to be informed. In fact, Israel's allegations should be taken with a truck load of salt because of its clearly stated goals to destroy UNRWA. Quite why governments are doing this is beyond me. It truly is. Even if the allegations are true, it is such a small minority, and the aid MUST continue. The ICJ has ordered that more aid MUST reach the Palestinian people. What these governments are doing is illogical, immoral and absolutely insane! These governments who are shirking their duties are the ones who are in control of UNRWA, renew its mission, elect the heads of it. etc. It's like they don;t trust themselves - ridiculous!

 

@Brickleberry

 

You do not know what is in the report. You claim you do. The news outlet you talk about did not see fit to release the actual document, make it public and so on. I don't see this being the main story on all Western media. I do not see relevant governments scrambling to defend their actions after the segment was aired. You treating things as gospel is not an indication of anything much.

 

The current Israeli government is a coalition one. While it is right-wing, the far-right elements are not the majority in this coalition, and obviously they are no majority when it comes to Israel as a whole. They certainly punch above their weight, though - given Netanyahu's ongoing political weakness and legal issues. What you originally posted seemed to be a wider claim, referencing the entire country, all of its people. This is incorrect. Further, the current emergency coalition includes a centrist party usually on the opposition. In the war cabinet itself, where actual decisions are made regarding the war and IDF actions, there are no far-right representatives (much to their chagrin), but the new addition (that centrist party mentioned) does. As usual, you make big claims, without actually bothering with details.

 

The same goes for the dubious legal angle you try to push. Other than in your posts, I do not see a whole lot of talk about it, at least not from solid sources. Again, relevant governments do not seem too worried about this. The commentary following this got nothing to do with the point you were trying to make.

 

And still, avoiding it like the plague. You can rant all day, but bottom line you cannot address it, cannot explain it in any rational manner - your only answers are either solipsism, conspiracy theory stuff, or assuming you are more informed than the governments in question. All three verities are ridiculous in their own way.

[Morch]

11 hours ago, Brickleberry said:

 

Put your thinking cap on for just a moment. How did the IDF uncover a tunnel under UNRWA's headquarters? It would not be possible without either blowing up the headquarters, or IDF soldiers illegally breaking into it.

 

What you are misleadingly presenting as a tunnel shaft into the organization is probably a tunnel running underneath it. How did they know this? How did they find it? There is literally no information. This story is 2 days old, and it has not been picked up by any western media.

 

There might be a tunnel running underneath it - apparently there are tunnels underneath all of Gaza. There will not be a tunnel shaft running into UNRWA.

 

 

@Brickleberry

 

Again, you do not know the details. You make up some. Then go on to treat them as facts.

Rinse. Repeat.

 

As for your last bit, how do you know that? Where you there? Did you build it?

[placeholder]

Interesting article in the Times of Israel in which a UN official explains why replacing the UNRWA is unlikely to succeed.

 

"With such a large number of local staff in a territory controlled by a terror organization, Hamas’s infiltration into the agency was inevitable, a senior Israeli official told The Times of Israel.

De Domenico notes that the salaries of the local UNRWA staffers are on a far lower pay scale than those received by employees recruited by other agencies, so switching to another agency would cost a lot more money, which donor countries are not likely interested in spending."

https://www.timesofisrael.com/

 

That's a couple reasons right there. Others are addressed in the article.

[Bkk Brian]

9 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Interesting article in the Times of Israel in which a UN official explains why replacing the UNRWA is unlikely to succeed.

 

"With such a large number of local staff in a territory controlled by a terror organization, Hamas’s infiltration into the agency was inevitable, a senior Israeli official told The Times of Israel.

De Domenico notes that the salaries of the local UNRWA staffers are on a far lower pay scale than those received by employees recruited by other agencies, so switching to another agency would cost a lot more money, which donor countries are not likely interested in spending."

https://www.timesofisrael.com/

 

That's a couple reasons right there. Others are addressed in the article.

I think changing the agency in the middle of a war is a no no and everyone will eventually agree with that but for longer term, well that is one of the solutions that still needs to be agreed on by all.

 

February 01, 2024

COGAT say no immediate replacement for UNRWA in Gaza

While Elian acknowledged the potential for alternative aid organizations, including those affiliated with the United Nations, he highlighted the absence of an immediate replacement capable of efficiently distributing humanitarian supplies in the Gaza Strip. He emphasized that, for the time being, collaboration with UNRWA is unavoidable.

https://www.i24news.tv/en/news/israel-at-war/1706778362-cogat-say-no-immediate-replacement-for-unrwa-in-gaza

[Morch]

17 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Interesting article in the Times of Israel in which a UN official explains why replacing the UNRWA is unlikely to succeed.

 

"With such a large number of local staff in a territory controlled by a terror organization, Hamas’s infiltration into the agency was inevitable, a senior Israeli official told The Times of Israel.

De Domenico notes that the salaries of the local UNRWA staffers are on a far lower pay scale than those received by employees recruited by other agencies, so switching to another agency would cost a lot more money, which donor countries are not likely interested in spending."

https://www.timesofisrael.com/

 

That's a couple reasons right there. Others are addressed in the article.

 

The link above is to the website's main page, the article can be found here:

https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/us-proposals-to-fund-other-agencies-instead-of-unrwa-not-viable-senior-aid-official/

 

Other than this being another Mandy Rice-Davies act, one could point out to several issues with the points raised:

 

- Some governments may be more willing to donate knowing Hamas and/or UNRWA are out of the picture.

- Arab countries ought to be more involved in said funding - some of that is directly related to political issues vs. either Palestinian faction.

- The argument that it's difficult is not a good enough answer, not if the end result is that you get a more streamlined, transparent, Hamas-free outfit.

- As for salaries, maybe some of the involved high level officials (including the guy interviewed) could lead by example.

[placeholder]

5 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

I think changing the agency in the middle of a war is a no no and everyone will eventually agree with that but for longer term, well that is one of the solutions that still needs to be agreed on by all.

 

February 01, 2024

COGAT say no immediate replacement for UNRWA in Gaza

While Elian acknowledged the potential for alternative aid organizations, including those affiliated with the United Nations, he highlighted the absence of an immediate replacement capable of efficiently distributing humanitarian supplies in the Gaza Strip. He emphasized that, for the time being, collaboration with UNRWA is unavoidable.

https://www.i24news.tv/en/news/israel-at-war/1706778362-cogat-say-no-immediate-replacement-for-unrwa-in-gaza

I don't see you addressing the points I cited much less what's in the article.. And keep in mind that even in peacetime, Gaza depends on the UNRWA. And what would such a transition accomplish. I think hatred of Israel is pretty much universal in Gaza. It seems inevitable that some will be alliied with Hamas or other violent organizations.. Where are the workers for the relief agencies going to come from?

[Morch]

3 minutes ago, placeholder said:

I don't see you addressing the points I cited much less what's in the article.. And keep in mind that even in peacetime, Gaza depends on the UNRWA. And what would such a transition accomplish. I think hatred of Israel is pretty much universal in Gaza. It seems inevitable that some will be alliied with Hamas or other violent organizations.. Where are the workers for the relief agencies going to come from?

 

Gazans would not have to depend on UNRWA is Hamas was out of the picture. The whole economic situation in the Gaza Strip stems from Hamas's rule, and its agenda/actions.

 

Gazans may hate Israel, with good reasons. Question is how many of them hate Hamas as well now, or afterwards, when things calm down some. As for your 'inevitable' assertion, go back to step one. If there's no Hamas to coalesce and organize such violence, it is of lesser concern, and can be addressed.

 

 

[placeholder]

3 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

The link above is to the website's main page, the article can be found here:

https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/us-proposals-to-fund-other-agencies-instead-of-unrwa-not-viable-senior-aid-official/

 

Other than this being another Mandy Rice-Davies act, one could point out to several issues with the points raised:

 

- Some governments may be more willing to donate knowing Hamas and/or UNRWA are out of the picture.

- Arab countries ought to be more involved in said funding - some of that is directly related to political issues vs. either Palestinian faction.

- The argument that it's difficult is not a good enough answer, not if the end result is that you get a more streamlined, transparent, Hamas-free outfit.

- As for salaries, maybe some of the involved high level officials (including the guy interviewed) could lead by example.

1)What countries ever had a problem donating to the UNRWA before this Hamas issue came up? Got any candidates in mind?

2) Ought to be? That's your argument? There's "ought to be" and then there's reality.

3)Your comment about difficulty betrays no acknowledgement of degrees of difficulty and whether the result would even be worth it. As noted, the residents of Gaza overwhelmingly hate Israel and that's the workforce in place. All that effort to exclude what seems to be a small number of terrorists? Could it even succeed in doing that? 

4)Your last point reminds me of people who say that those who advocate for higher taxes should voluntarily pay more. As though that was a solution to anything. Deflecting much?

 

[Bkk Brian]

9 minutes ago, placeholder said:

I don't see you addressing the points I cited much less what's in the article.. And keep in mind that even in peacetime, Gaza depends on the UNRWA. And what would such a transition accomplish. I think hatred of Israel is pretty much universal in Gaza. It seems inevitable that some will be alliied with Hamas or other violent organizations.. Where are the workers for the relief agencies going to come from?

What makes you think I have to address points you mentioned that come from the UN spokesman? I read the article. Interesting, no further comment needed. I did provide a response with another very important actor in this war that also addresses the UNRWA issue and states quite clearly that it should not be changed yet. So agreeing with the UN Spokesman. 

 

My comment of  "but for longer term, well that is one of the solutions that still needs to be agreed on by all" remains.

[placeholder]

34 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Gazans would not have to depend on UNRWA is Hamas was out of the picture. The whole economic situation in the Gaza Strip stems from Hamas's rule, and its agenda/actions.

 

 

 

You sure of that? Israel would have economically opened up Gaza if not for Hamas? You know that for a fact? Israel helped prop up Hamas because it didn't want the PA to look better by comparison. You think if the people of the West Bank see that if Gaza were allowed to prosper under a system that allowed Gaza to prosper it would just exacerbate anger against the Israeli government given that there is no such likelihood of Israel allowing it for them? 

Edited February 10 by placeholder

[Bkk Brian]

Arab countries barely donate to UNRWA, and attack the West for giving millions

After several countries announced that they were halting their funding to the Palestinian refugee relief agency UNRWA following information that some of the agency's employees participated in the October 7 massacre, a number of Arab countries spoke out against the decision.

It is important to note that UNRWA's main source of funding is donor countries - which come mainly from the West, and not from the Muslim world. In the list of the 20 countries that contributed the highest amounts to the agency in 2022, The only Muslim countries are Saudi Arabia, in eighth place, with a donation of $27 million, and Qatar in 20th place , with a contribution of $10.5 million. Turkey is also on the list, in 10th place, with a contribution of slightly more than $25 million.

https://www.ynetnews.com/article/rkahwhe56

[Morch]

1 minute ago, placeholder said:

1)What countries ever had a problem donating to the UNRWA before this Hamas issue came up? Got any candidates in mind?

2) Ought to be? That's your argument? There's "ought to be" and then there's reality.

3)Your comment about difficulty betrays no acknowledgement of degrees of difficulty and whether the result would even be worth it. As noted, the residents of Gaza overwhelmingly hate Israel and that's the workforce in place. All that effort to exclude what seems to be a small number of terrorists? Could it even succeed in doing that? 

4)Your last point reminds me of people who say that those who advocate for higher taxes should voluntarily pay more. As though that was a solution to anything. Deflecting much?

 

 

 

I suggest that you read the OP. It references such reservations. This is not even the first time these issues came up, or funding withheld. Also notice that I said 'may be more willing to donate' - as in possibly increase funding.

 

Your second item is meaningless. The reality is that they weren't seriously pressured on this, and I think would be in the future. It also relates to the issues mentioned regarding Palestinian factions/politics.

 

My comment about difficulty is on par with what was presented in the interview. As for the result being 'worth it' - I've no idea what's your actual point or complaint is. This was addressed in more detail on another post.

 

I don't care much of what things you're reminded of. Deflecting much?

[Morch]

5 minutes ago, placeholder said:

You sure of that? Israel would have economically opened up Gaza if not for Hamas? You know that for a fact? Israel helped prop up Hamas because it didn't want the PA to look better by comparison. You think if the people of the West Bank see that if Gaza were allowed to prosper under a system that allowed Gaza to prosper it would just exacerbate anger against the Israeli government that there is no such likelihood of Israel allowing it for them? 

 

I know that you chopped my post for no good reason.

 

As for your comment - I am sure this won't happen overnight. But long term, without Hamas (or clone of) about? Yes. It won't make life in the Gaza a paradise, but much better than currently or since Hamas took over. There were talks about related measures for years. All which were discussed on similar topics (many with your participation). From Egypt's point of view as well, Hamas out of the picture would probably mean easing up of restrictions.

 

No idea what you wanted with the convulsed bit about comparing the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.

[Morch]

7 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Arab countries barely donate to UNRWA, and attack the West for giving millions

After several countries announced that they were halting their funding to the Palestinian refugee relief agency UNRWA following information that some of the agency's employees participated in the October 7 massacre, a number of Arab countries spoke out against the decision.

It is important to note that UNRWA's main source of funding is donor countries - which come mainly from the West, and not from the Muslim world. In the list of the 20 countries that contributed the highest amounts to the agency in 2022, The only Muslim countries are Saudi Arabia, in eighth place, with a donation of $27 million, and Qatar in 20th place , with a contribution of $10.5 million. Turkey is also on the list, in 10th place, with a contribution of slightly more than $25 million.

https://www.ynetnews.com/article/rkahwhe56

 

Some Arab countries donate funds/aid directly rather than going through UNRWA etc. For some it's about issues with the  PA, for others issues with Hamas, and some don't contribute at all. It's rather complicated, and involves endless bickering among parties involved. The bottom line is that they could do better. For example, all that Qatari money going to civilian projects rather than to Hamas projects.

[Brickleberry]

6 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

I know that you chopped my post for no good reason.

 

As for your comment - I am sure this won't happen overnight. But long term, without Hamas (or clone of) about? Yes. It won't make life in the Gaza a paradise, but much better than currently or since Hamas took over. There were talks about related measures for years. All which were discussed on similar topics (many with your participation). From Egypt's point of view as well, Hamas out of the picture would probably mean easing up of restrictions.

 

No idea what you wanted with the convulsed bit about comparing the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.

 

It is an Israeli tactic to try and separate Gaza & West Bank.

 

The two places are not separate, they are both parts of a future Palestinian state, and they are both under occupation. When things kick off in the Gaza strip, they are not just about things happening there, they are responding to events happening in the West Bank - and vice versa.

 

The facts are thus. Israel has broken every single ceasefire that has ever been enacted - by continuing to build and expand settlements in the West Bank. Hamas will never stop until Israel abides by international law and leaves the occupied territories.

 

If you want to know the facts, listen to Noam Chomsky.

[Bkk Brian]

2 minutes ago, Brickleberry said:

 

It is an Israeli tactic to try and separate Gaza & West Bank.

 

The two places are not separate, they are both parts of a future Palestinian state, and they are both under occupation. When things kick off in the Gaza strip, they are not just about things happening there, they are responding to events happening in the West Bank - and vice versa.

 

The facts are thus. Israel has broken every single ceasefire that has ever been enacted - by continuing to build and expand settlements in the West Bank. Hamas will never stop until Israel abides by international law and leaves the occupied territories.

 

If you want to know the facts, listen to Noam Chomsky.

Back on topic. Those UNRWA schools in the west Bank need to have a complete overhaul of the hate curriculum they teach young kids. Not a very good teaching method by the UN what do you think?

[placeholder]

6 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

 

I suggest that you read the OP. It references such reservations. This is not even the first time these issues came up, or funding withheld. Also notice that I said 'may be more willing to donate' - as in possibly increase funding.

 

Your second item is meaningless. The reality is that they weren't seriously pressured on this, and I think would be in the future. It also relates to the issues mentioned regarding Palestinian factions/politics.

 

My comment about difficulty is on par with what was presented in the interview. As for the result being 'worth it' - I've no idea what's your actual point or complaint is. This was addressed in more detail on another post.

 

I don't care much of what things you're reminded of. Deflecting much?

1)There is nothing in that article about any reservations countries might have had previous to the Israeli report. Nothing. Zero. Nada. Zip. So your claim that a change might move the previously reluctant to donate (or increase donations)  has no basis in this article. So your suggestion that I go back and read the article is pointless.

 

2)Whether they weren't seriously pressured or whether even if serious pressure would result in any change, is highly speculative.

 

3)As I pointed out, and the article goes into more detail, it will be hugely difficult to accomplish this. And for what? It seems highly unlikely given that sentiments of the Gazans,  that there wouldn't be some among those 13,000 employees who would also be terrorists. Does cost vs benefits mean anything to you? Of course, if Israel elminates the terrorist threat, or reduces it to near zero, then that problem is solved.

 

And another deflection. Instead of addressing the validity of the analogy, you engage in more distraction. So let me put it in a way that's more congenial to the literal-minded: The salary of those officials, being relatively few in number is irrelevant to the fact that it would cost a lot more to pay replacement workers.  

 

[Morch]

5 minutes ago, Brickleberry said:

 

It is an Israeli tactic to try and separate Gaza & West Bank.

 

The two places are not separate, they are both parts of a future Palestinian state, and they are both under occupation. When things kick off in the Gaza strip, they are not just about things happening there, they are responding to events happening in the West Bank - and vice versa.

 

The facts are thus. Israel has broken every single ceasefire that has ever been enacted - by continuing to build and expand settlements in the West Bank. Hamas will never stop until Israel abides by international law and leaves the occupied territories.

 

If you want to know the facts, listen to Noam Chomsky.

 

The first part of your post have nothing to do with the topic at hand, or even my comment. No idea what you wanted with that. Also, whether you like to acknowledge it or not, the political schism among the Palestinians is not Israel's doing (even if Netanyahu used and leveraged it).

 

It is not true that Israel broke 'every single ceasefire'. That's just you blabbering. There were ceasefires with Hamas, for example, which did not include any conditions regarding settlements etc. Why you post such nonsense is beyond me.

 

Hamas is not interested in 'international law', and its agenda does not end with Israel leaving the occupied territories. Hamas's agenda is about Israel being destroyed, dismantled, and a Palestinian State replacing it. Again, more nonsense from you.

 

Noam Chomsky is not actually an expert on these things. Not his field of expertise by a long shot. And evidently, you cannot make your case by yourself....

[placeholder]

26 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Arab countries barely donate to UNRWA, and attack the West for giving millions

After several countries announced that they were halting their funding to the Palestinian refugee relief agency UNRWA following information that some of the agency's employees participated in the October 7 massacre, a number of Arab countries spoke out against the decision.

It is important to note that UNRWA's main source of funding is donor countries - which come mainly from the West, and not from the Muslim world. In the list of the 20 countries that contributed the highest amounts to the agency in 2022, The only Muslim countries are Saudi Arabia, in eighth place, with a donation of $27 million, and Qatar in 20th place , with a contribution of $10.5 million. Turkey is also on the list, in 10th place, with a contribution of slightly more than $25 million.

https://www.ynetnews.com/article/rkahwhe56

As we know, at least in the case of Qatar, its government was giving $30 million per month to Qataris. If you include that not insubstantial contribution, Qatar comes in 2nd place.

[Bkk Brian]

Just now, placeholder said:

As we know, at least in the case of Qatar, its government was giving $30 million per month to Qataris. If you include that not insubstantial contribution, Qatar comes in 2nd place.

Yes we all know that Qatar was giving millions per month directly to Hamas terrorists, its been discussed numerous times in the other topics

 

 

[placeholder]

22 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

I know that you chopped my post for no good reason.

 

As for your comment - I am sure this won't happen overnight. But long term, without Hamas (or clone of) about? Yes. It won't make life in the Gaza a paradise, but much better than currently or since Hamas took over. There were talks about related measures for years. All which were discussed on similar topics (many with your participation). From Egypt's point of view as well, Hamas out of the picture would probably mean easing up of restrictions.

 

No idea what you wanted with the convulsed bit about comparing the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.

Well, comparatively, restrictions in the West Bank were less onerous than those in Gaza. So "easing of restrictions" is setting a very low bar.

 

As for the West Bank vs Gaza. Israel engaged in surreptitiously helping to prop up the Gazan economy so as not to make Hamas look bad in comparison to the economy in the West Bank. You think Israel wants the West Bank Palestinians to see how an economy can flourish in the absence of the kind of harsh restrictions that Israel still imposes on West Bank Palestinians?

[placeholder]

28 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

I know that you chopped my post for no good reason.

 

As for your comment - I am sure this won't happen overnight. But long term, without Hamas (or clone of) about? Yes. It won't make life in the Gaza a paradise, but much better than currently or since Hamas took over. There were talks about related measures for years. All which were discussed on similar topics (many with your participation). From Egypt's point of view as well, Hamas out of the picture would probably mean easing up of restrictions.

 

No idea what you wanted with the convulsed bit about comparing the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.

Also, I "chopped up" your post because I was only addressing one point that you raised. If you think I've altered the meaning of what you posted, take it up with the mods.

[Morch]

2 minutes ago, placeholder said:

1)There is nothing in that article about any reservations countries might have had previous to the Israeli report. Nothing. Zero. Nada. Zip. So your claim that a change might move the previously reluctant to donate (or increase donations)  has no basis in this article. So your suggestion that I go back and read the article is pointless.

 

2)Whether they weren't seriously pressured or whether even if serious pressure would result in any change, is highly speculative.

 

3)As I pointed out, and the article goes into more detail, it will be hugely difficult to accomplish this. And for what? It seems highly unlikely given that sentiments of the Gazans,  that there wouldn't be some among those 13,000 employees who would also be terrorists. Does cost vs benefits mean anything to you? Of course, if Israel elminates the terrorist threat, or reduces it to near zero, then that problem is solved.

 

And another deflection. Instead of addressing the validity of the analogy, you engage in more distraction. So let me put it in a way that's more congenial to the literal-minded: The salary of those officials, being relatively few in number is irrelevant to the fact that it would cost a lot more to pay replacement workers.  

 

 

The topic itself is about such reservations. Similar issues came up in the past. I understand that you now imagine I should ignore anything but the article you linked, but that's not obligatory. My suggestion was that you go and read the OP - as in the first post on this topic.

 

That they were not seriously pressured is not speculative. That such a pressure plus changes in the political situation (as in Hamas out of the picture, PA reformed) is rather probable.

 

You can 'point out' whatever you like. Your comments were already addressed.

 

I don't recognize the validity of the analogy. I'm not interested in your analogies. My comment was about 'lead by example'.

[placeholder]

45 minutes ago, Morch said:

Gazans may hate Israel, with good reasons. Question is how many of them hate Hamas as well now, or afterwards, when things calm down some. As for your 'inevitable' assertion, go back to step one. If there's no Hamas to coalesce and organize such violence, it is of lesser concern, and can be addressed.

 

 

Well, I'll address this point,  too. If Hamas (and other terrorist groups) is defunct or gravely weakened, then there is no problem. So either way, what's the point?

[Morch]

3 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Well, comparatively, restrictions in the West Bank were less onerous than those in Gaza. So "easing of restrictions" is setting a very low bar.

 

As for the West Bank vs Gaza. Israel engaged in surreptitiously helping to prop up the Gazan economy so as not to make Hamas look bad in comparison to the economy in the West Bank. You think Israel wants the West Bank Palestinians to see how an economy can flourish in the absence of the kind of harsh restrictions that Israel still imposes on West Bank Palestinians?

 

I wasn't comparing things to the West Bank. You were.

 

And some of the measures discussed, like having a port in Gaza, or even an airport - never mind more work options in Israel/Egypt would improve things for Palestinians in general.

 

I think your description of events and actions is flawed, and biased. Same goes for description of economic conditions in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.

 

As usual, you're injecting your views into the exchange, masked as 'you think?' bits. Low. Expected.

[Morch]

5 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Also, I "chopped up" your post because I was only addressing one point that you raised. If you think I've altered the meaning of what you posted, take it up with the mods.

 

Of course you did.

[placeholder]

2 minutes ago, Morch said:

The topic itself is about such reservations. Similar issues came up in the past. I understand that you now imagine I should ignore anything but the article you linked, but that's not obligatory. My suggestion was that you go and read the OP - as in the first post on this topic.

 

That they were not seriously pressured is not speculative. That such a pressure plus changes in the political situation (as in Hamas out of the picture, PA reformed) is rather probable.

 

You can 'point out' whatever you like. Your comments were already addressed.

 

I don't recognize the validity of the analogy. I'm not interested in your analogies. My comment was about 'lead by example'.

The topic is about reservations subsequent to the Israeli report. Nothing in it about reservations previous to that report. All you have to do to prove me wrong is point out where in the OP, previous reservations are referenced. Good luck with that.

 

Whatever the case may be about previous pressure, what is speculative is that serious pressure will make a difference.

 

Yes, My comments were addressed by you. And, as I pointed out, poorly.

 

Whether or not you recognized the validity of the analogy, I made a literal explanation for you. And lead by example? You think this is some kind of feel good Hollywood tale?

[Morch]

3 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Well, I'll address this point,  too. If Hamas (and other terrorist groups) is defunct or gravely weakened, then there is no problem. So either way, what's the point?

 

The point is that if one assumes UNRWA being 'infiltrated' (to quote the Israeli official mentioned in the article linked) by Hamas, then it could be used as a platform for Hamas revival. Also, given UNRWA's past record on playing along with terrorist organizations, spreading hate speech and so on - there are obvious benefits for an overhaul/replacement.