• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

UNRWA fires 12 workers over suspected involvement in the October 7 attacks on Israel

Ebionite

Well-Known Member
Let's read the whole statement in context. Do you have a source for the quote?
What context could possibly affect the meaning of Cohen's statement? It clearly implies that the state of Israel is ultimately responsible for the current conflict. The quote is not hard to find.
 

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
What context could possibly affect the meaning of Cohen's statement? It clearly implies that the state of Israel is ultimately responsible for the current conflict. The quote is not hard to find.

I not interested in discussing it without a source. If I have time, maybe, I'll look it up myself.
 

libre

Skylark
Staff member
Premium Member
I have mediated on how to respond and I think the crux of our disagreement can be expressed without getting bogged down in the teaching resources.
There is good strong evidence. The private citizens and the press are not provided these details. This is a criminal investigation. It takes a long time to develop a case like this and even longer for the details to be made public.
The good evidence I am to believe exists that Israel has is about the alleged crimes of 12.
I do think that it was irresponsible for countries that did not have this evidence (my own country Canada,) to make decisions that affected the funding for dozens of clinics based on the alleged actions of 12 people during the lowest point in Gaza in my lifetime.
UNRWA is a problem. They are a key element in the war HAMAS is waging against israel. They are piles of evidence against them. The PDFs I brought above have the evidence showing UNRWA is actively participating, and has been actively participating, in MAKING war, raising an army, using the funding of the UN.
Suffice it to say that I do not consider the the stance that these teaching resources constitute 'Actively participating' in 'making war' to be serious positions. There are several levels of subjectivism here between the actions of a small group of ex-employees and the 3% of teaching materials and that UNRWA is raising an army against Israel.
 

libre

Skylark
Staff member
Premium Member
As I had mentioned earlier in the thread, Canada had made this decision without reviewing the evidence.
Canada has in the last two weeks since reinstated UNRWA funding. The CBC is reporting that Canada resumed funding after reviewing the UN report on the evidence: https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-government-resume-unrwa-funding-1.7134961.

Yesterday the Canadian parliament voted to halt further authorizations of arms exports to Israel which some have reported as constituting an arms embargo. The tide seems to be changing here.
 

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
What I wrote is absolutely true.
No, it was not. You deliberately left out significant details, such as the fact that LESS THAN 7% of Mandatory Palestine was actually legally sold to Israeli settlers, the rest was militarily occupied following the outbreak of war. You even ignore literally all of the historical evidence I presented, which is very telling.

You're clearly not depicting history accurately. You're pretending ALL OF THE LAND was sold to Israel, when only a TINY PORTION of it was. The rest was taken over by military force, and through numerous massacres, displacements and ethnic cleansing. You are engaging in propaganda.
 
Last edited:

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
I have mediated on how to respond and I think the crux of our disagreement can be expressed without getting bogged down in the teaching resources.

The good evidence I am to believe exists that Israel has is about the alleged crimes of 12.
I do think that it was irresponsible for countries that did not have this evidence (my own country Canada,) to make decisions that affected the funding for dozens of clinics based on the alleged actions of 12 people during the lowest point in Gaza in my lifetime.

Suffice it to say that I do not consider the the stance that these teaching resources constitute 'Actively participating' in 'making war' to be serious positions. There are several levels of subjectivism here between the actions of a small group of ex-employees and the 3% of teaching materials and that UNRWA is raising an army against Israel.

Without knowing precisely the reasons which produced cutting off the funding, how are you able to judge whether or not it's irresponsible? Do we agree that there is good strong evidence against these 12 or not? If there is good strong evidence, then the executives made a good choice cutting off funding. Their trust in their sources has been shown to be valid.

If an executive receive's communication 2nd hand or 3rd hand from a trusted source: "Israel has strong evidence that UNRWA is participating in making war ( actions which are specifically prohibited in their mandate )" and they cutoff funding prior to reviewing the evidence themself, it's not irresponsible unless their "trusted-source" is known to be untrustworthy or Israeli evidence is known to fallacious. Since the allegations are true, there is strong evidence, then the decision is not irresponsible.

But putting all of this aside: the humanitarian aid has increased dramatically as a direct consequence of removing UNRWA from the distribution tasks. They were a roadblock standing in the way of getting aid to northern Gaza. They were, at the least, contributing to the humanitarian crisis. There is no good reason to continue to nurture the failure called UNRWA. This ignores that they publish and distribute violent propaganda. I'm not sure where your 3% number is coming from, but, it's not from the reports I brought showing what UNRWA is doing with the majority of their funding.
 

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
No, it was not. You deliberately left out significant details, such as the fact that LESS THAN 7% of Mandatory Palestine was actually legally sold to Israeli settlers, the rest was militarily occupied following the outbreak of war. You even ignore literally all of the historical evidence I presented, which is very telling.

The Palestinian's started a war to steal the land purchased legally by the Jewish immigrants. It doesn't matter if it was 7%, 15%, or 3%. Then, the Jewish immigrants fought back. The Palestinians list the war and surrendered their land.


You're clearly not depicting history accurately. You're pretending ALL OF THE LAND was sold to Israel,

No. Not at all. I wrote that a buffer zone was needed between the Jewish immigrants and the Palestinians who had cowed to annihilate them and had acted on those aspirations. Palestinians are still making those same vows. Palestinians are still acting on those aspirations.

The rest was taken over by military force, and through numerous massacres, displacements and ethnic cleansing.

It was surrendered by the Palestinian leaders because they had started a war and had lost.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
The Palestinian's started a war to steal the land purchased legally by the Jewish immigrants. It doesn't matter if it was 7%, 15%, or 3%. Then, the Jewish immigrants fought back. The Palestinians list the war and surrendered their land.
The rest of the world knows a different history.
Zionists' is remarkably similar to Holocaust denial,
ie, belief in a fabricated history to serve a purpose.
 

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
The Palestinian's started a war to steal the land purchased legally by the Jewish immigrants
That's also not true. It started with the declaration of the establishment of Israel, and the partitioning of Mandatory Palestine by the UN in May 1948, which included a significant amount of land owned by Palestinians that was not previously sold to Israelis, and Israeli military forces had already begun occupying land outside of that partition plan for over month before the partitioning by the UN and the dissolution of the British mandate in the same month. Military operations to occupy Mandatory Palestine were in planning since 1947, and executed a month before the mandate in April 1948:


It is utterly false to claim that the war started because Arabs attacked land that was legally purchased from them by Israelis. That is simply not the case. It is, at best, a dramatic over-simplification verging on propaganda.
 
Last edited:

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
The Palestinian's started a war to steal the land purchased legally by the Jewish immigrants.

It started with the declaration of the establishment of Israel, and the partitioning of Mandatory Palestine by the UN in May 1948,

The Palestinians started a war with the jewish immigrants long before 1948. The partitioning was the UN's reaction to the ongoing unjust Palestinian violence against the jewish immigrants who were legally purchasing land. Maybe read up on the Peel commision? 1936? In 1936, the zionist congress voted not to partition. However, after over a decade, yes, they accepted the UN's partition and declared their independence. The Palestinians did not accept it; They wanted ALL the land including what was legally sold to the jewish immigrants. From the river to the sea means annihilating the jewish people and stealing their land.

Jewish immigrants also surrendered land during the partition, btw. It wasn't a one-sided zionist land-grab. Israel trades land for peace. Their priority is peace. Palestine has different priorities.
 
Last edited:

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
The rest of the world knows a different history.
Zionists' is remarkably similar to Holocaust denial,
ie, belief in a fabricated history to serve a purpose.

"... the rest of the world ... "

Yes, those who disagree have a different version of history. "The rest of the world" which is anti-zionist is a minority not unlike flat-earthers. The difference between zionism and holocaust denial is that zionism is strongly supported by evidence. Holocaust denial is not.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
"... the rest of the world ... "

Yes, those who disagree have a different version of history. "The rest of the world" which is anti-zionist is a minority not unlike flat-earthers.
Just this morning on NPR, I heard an interview with a
Palestinian girl, Alma, who was buried under rubble
from an Israeli bomb for several hours. After her
rescue, she then found her 18 month old brother,
whom the IDF had just decapitated.
The article went on to say that Israeli news doesn't
cover such things. Only brave IDF soldiers fighting
Hamas. Israeli media employ propaganda & ignorance
to ease tolerance genocide & mass starvation.
The difference between zionism and holocaust denial is that zionism is strongly supported by evidence. Holocaust denial is not.

Zionism is an agenda, as was Manifest Destiny.
Agendas exist because of desire, not evidence.
Israel desires Gaza & removal of Palestinians.
Now, there is evidence for that.
 

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
The Palestinians started a war with the jewish immigrants long before 1948.
This is false. Civil unrest is not a war. Protests are not a war. Sporadic violence is not a war.

The partitioning was the UN's reaction to the ongoing unjust Palestinian violence against the jewish immigrants who were legally purchasing land.
Also an oversimplification. It wasn't exclusively against the Jewish purchase of land, but against the British mandate for Palestine.


I don't support the reactionary violence against Jewish Palestinians or Israeli settlers, but I also don't support your lop-siding of history in order to paint Palestinians as a) the sole agitators and b) attempt to justify the continuing annexation and colonialism of the state of Israel.

In 1936, the zionist congress voted not to partition.
No, they voted against a specific partition plan. There is a difference between rejecting a plan because you are against partition and rejecting a plan because you view the partition as particularly unfavourable to you. The moderate voices within the Zionist Congress argued in favour of the plan with the argument that it would provide "a stepping stone to further expansion and the eventual takeover of all of Palestine".

SOURCE:

However, after over a decade, yes, they accepted the UN's partition and declared their independence. The Palestinians did not accept it; They wanted ALL the land including what was legally sold to the jewish immigrants.
They never supported partition, and nor should they have to. Israeli settlers wouldn't accept their land being taken by force without their input, either.

From the river to the sea means annihilating the jewish people and stealing their land.
Depends on who you speak to. I've heard Netanyahu himself use that phrase, so it's obviously not only got the one implication.

Jewish immigrants also surrendered land during the partition, btw. It wasn't a one-sided zionist land-grab.
Can you provide me with any examples of land that was given to the Arabs (that wasn't also subsequently annexed by Israel)?

Israel trades land for peace. Their priority is peace. Palestine has different priorities.
Seems to me that if you REALLY want peace, you wouldn't illegally militarily occupy land that doesn't belong to you.
 
Last edited:

libre

Skylark
Staff member
Premium Member
Without knowing precisely the reasons which produced cutting off the funding, how are you able to judge whether or not it's irresponsible?
As per the CBC article from earlier in the thread, the Canadian cut of the funding was not based on the evaluation of any evidence.
They themselves did not know 'precisely the reasons' for this decision, and could not muster a dutiful response to Canadian outrage after doing such. After reviewing the evidence at a later time, Canada reinstated funding. They denied funding for a considerable and crucial period of time and later decided it was the wrong call.

Do we agree that there is good strong evidence against these 12 or not?
Correct me if I am mistaken, but the information required to evaluate the evidence against all 12 is not available to the public at this time.

If you mean to ask 'Do we agree that Israel has good strong evidence against these 12 that they are keeping from the public at this time for intelligence and case-building purposes?' my answer is that I simply cannot verify any details of the evidence, so any answer I could provide would simply be a reflection of my trust in Israel rather than a matter of record or quality of the evidence itself. I do think it is important to demarcate that which is known and publicly verifiable and that which is alleged by a party in this conflict that one might choose to trust for one reason or another.

I did see the video you shared which is being reported as Faisal Ali Mussalem Al Naami which seems quite damning.

On the other hand, if you were to ask me if it would be surprising that Hamas had operatives in UNRWA and other humanitarian organizations that participated in Oct 7th, I would say no. I'm doubtful that any sizable organization could function in Gaza without some hamas members or sympathizers being involved.
 
Last edited:

libre

Skylark
Staff member
Premium Member
If there is good strong evidence, then the executives made a good choice cutting off funding.
I don't understand why the actions of 0.04% of UNRWA employees should be used at this time to justify a change which affects hundreds of thousands at such a crucial time.

the humanitarian aid has increased dramatically as a direct consequence of removing UNRWA from the distribution tasks.
Could you provide your source on this? It conflicts with the impression that what I had read in the Guardian and CBC had left me with.
 

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
I don't understand why the actions of 0.04% of UNRWA employees should be used at this time to justify a change which affects hundreds of thousands at such a crucial time.

This is the most recent example of over a decade of involvement and support for terrorism in direct opposition to their UN mandate.
 

libre

Skylark
Staff member
Premium Member
I transcribed this from the Guardian weekly's 'Global report' section. Some of the details were discussed prior.

Evidence of Unrwa staff's terrorist links 'not provided'
Israel has yet to provide supporting evidence of its claims that employees of the UN relief agency Unrwa are members of terrorist organizations, an independent review lead by the former French foreign minister Catharine Colonna has said.

The Colonna report, which was commissioned by the UN in the wake of Israeli allegations, found that Unrwa had regularly supplied Israel with lists of its employees for vetting, and that "the Israeli government has not informed Unrwa of any concerns relating to any Unrwa staff based on these staff lists since 2011".
 
Top