Talk:UNRWA and Israel

Italy restores UNWRA funding

https://www.ansa.it/sito/notizie/mondo/2024/05/25/tajani-litalia-riparte-con-i-finanziamenti-allunrwa_a96697db-8037-4192-8d93-1a539fd4f67c.html

insertion of name

Keizers has repeatedly inserted a name which is not found in the source they are using for that name. They are then using that name as an excuse to perform WP:SYNTH, attaching information from sources that are not discussing the topic of this article (and could not be, as they predate the events chronicled here), and thus fail to show that the material is relevant for inclusion, with WP:DUE concerns. I recommend that they cease edit warring and pay attention to WP:BRD. If the material that they are trying to add is relevant to the topic of this page, it should be found in reliable third-party sources relevant to the topic of this page. As this is a matter of WP:BLP concern in the midst of a contentious topic, I am again removing the addition. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 19:44, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

The entire controversy is about Carrie Keller-Lynn being very close friends with Israeli army spokesperson Aliza Landes who effectively invented social media at the IDF back in 2008. I used a Middle East Eye report on the Al-Jazeera video-only report, and did notice that in the video the narrator says "(Keller-Lynn) seen here linked to one of the army's spokespersons", rather than naming Landes.

So, to immediately address the concerns around a source for the name Landes, I will restore the name with a RS that names Landes with the following text

According to Middle East Eye, X (formerly Twitter) users commented that Keller-Lynn is close friends with Aliza Landes, a former IDF spokesperson who helped expand the IDF's social media presence.

which I have gone ahead and made in light of your concerns.

As for the information on adding additional information about Landes' and Keller-Lynn's podcast together, etc. I think you are citing policy which doesn't exist, i.e. you are saying that the source for ANY point made in any article must be a source that is ABOUT the topic of the article, which is clearly absurd. For example if I am writing in the article about Los Angeles and say that the Pasadena Freeway was the first urban freeway, and my source is a text about freeways, you're saying that that's invalid because the source has to be about Los Angeles. I don't feel it's urgent to say more than "Aliza Landes, a former IDF spokesperson who helped expand the IDF's social media presence" so I don't feel the need to pursue more discussion on that. But I want to establish that your "rule about sources" doesn't exist.

Again I need to establish that providing a bit more of the women's relationship is not WP:SYNTH, it's in fact relevant to the section of the topic, which is a section about the controversy, and the controversy itself' is their relationship - the controversy itself is "synth" if you wish. I'm not writing about it because I personally noticed that they were friends and thought "oh, that's fishy".

In any case I've not put back information about their podcast partnership, because I'd like to put this to rest and I can see WP:UNDUE concerns in the sense of too much detail relevant to the topic. Simply making mention of what the controversy consists of is enough.Keizers (talk) 13:52, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

References

Things that are relevant are discussed in reliable sources on the topic, that's how we know they're relevant.

While I appreciate the pared down version, what you've now put in isn't reliably sourced claims about the individuals, but a statement about what people on social media are saying... which, while you have marked as such, should still at least raise a BLP eyebrow. And it puts into the article what random folks are saying about the father of a friend of one of the co-authors of an on-topic article, which at least seems to me to be rather afield from the topic of the article and this might better be summarized closer to the bone. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:00, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

@NatGertler: Are you aware of any WP policy that says that all sources supporting all points must be from sources that support the topic of the entire article? I would like to read it because in my 10+ years of writing I've never heard, come across, or written according to such a policy. (I'm not being sarcastic, I genuinely would like to review any such policy). I reviewed WP:V and it only says "The cited source must clearly support the material as presented in the article.". Material being the individual point supported. So, this is the reason why a reasonable amount of relevant information can be supplied to complete the understanding of who Landes is (social media, father Richard Landes inventing the term "Pallywood" which is a racist derogatory term), the relationship with Landes being the core definition of the controversy. I do just want to Wikilink to her father's page. Thanks for working with me on this, I appreciate it.Keizers (talk) 16:46, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

The relationship is not the "core definition" of the controversy; the WSJ publishing an article that appears to accept the dossier's claims at face value is. And yes, I understand that you want to link to the page of the father of a friend of one of the co-authors of the article, as that falls in line with various other things you have done. You have been choosing to pick and try to wedge items into the article based seemingly on non-RSes views of what is important. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:25, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 1 March 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: not moved. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:43, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

---

UNRWA October 7 controversy → Alleged UNRWA employee involvement in the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel – There seems to be some agreement that the current title doesn't cut it, but no agreement on what will. We have tried the meta/short version in the last RM so, all that's left is the long form descriptive title that had some agreement among editors. Selfstudier (talk) 19:20, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Support. Although at this point the allegations seem sufficiently settled I think arguments could be made for dropping the "allegations" portion entirely. Tdmurlock (talk) 20:02, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Latest on that is a statement yesterday from UNRWA to the effect that Israel has still not provided any evidence. Selfstudier (talk) 20:06, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Support: It's clumsy, but it's accurate (there is still allegation) and we need to move on from debating a title. Errantios (talk) 13:39, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Oppose Although descriptive, it is a bit wordy. Also worthy to note that that controversy is not only related to October 7; Israel's claims go beyond that with the alleged data center below UNRWA for example or that Hamas shoots rockets stored in its school or otherwise. Also its objections to handing Palestinian descendants refugee status. So maybe a wider scope and therefore title is important here. I would suggest something around: "2024 UNRWA controversy". Makeandtoss (talk) 13:48, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Oppose as per Makeandtoss and Alexis below (what's the rush with the RMs?). I recommend that we wait until the smoke obscuring the incidents settles down before giving it a proper title. GidiD (talk) 09:45, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Wait. Israeli allegations still remain unproven and available information changes week by week, including growing doubts re. tunnels under hospitals. Foremostly, I'm very uncomfortable with highlighting the term "employees". The accused people were not core staff members at UNRWA. The reality in Gaza is that UNRWA funds significant parts of public services (as agreed with donors), including primary and secondary education or parts of healthcare. Given the international sanctions on the Hamas administration, UNRWA has funded some school and hospital staff directly, "employing" them on paper. This was not regular employment at an employer as we understand it, since these people did not provide services to UNRWA but to the Gaza public administration. Still, Israeli propaganda has been presenting them as if UNRWA was responsible for their conduct, including in their free time. This is primarily a political case, and the proposed new title, although more specific, leaves even less room to discuss the controversy from all angles. — kashmīrī ^TALK 17:37, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. Word "controversy" already tells this is something very much debatable and disputable. No need in "alleged". Moreover, the controversy is not just about the "employee involvement", but about the organization and its role. My very best wishes (talk) 21:45, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

I should clarify it. As currently framed on this page (and in sources) this controversy is not just about UNRWA employees being directly involved in the attack, but also about them being Hamas members ("Israel alleges that ... 190 UNRWA employees were militants"). This is a significant part of the controversy. I understand that employees of a reputable UN organization should not be members of any organization designated as a terrorist one in a number of countries. My very best wishes (talk) 15:47, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

• Outside of the 7/10 attacks, there is no controversy about UNRWA role as far as I'm aware. There is Israeli government's unhappiness about UNRWA that no other country shares, however that's not any sort of controversy. — kashmīrī ^TALK 21:54, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Well, Jewish Policy Center in Washington DC says this (dated 2007). These are very serious accusations far beyond just Israel being "unhappy", but probably outside the subject of this page. But this source is too old. One can check, for example, this source which does cover the subject of this page and more. It says, for example that

The rule of the terrorist organisation over the Gaza Strip forces UNRWA to act under the authorization and supervision of Hamas in a way that extends Hamas’s influence over the agency”... This dynamic is evident in Hamas’s most senior appointments. For example, Suhail al-Hindi, who was elected to the Hamas Politburo in 2017 to sit alongside Yahya Sinwar, Hamas’s leader in Gaza and the author of the October 7 attack, was a headmaster at an UNRWA school and chairman of the UNRWA Gaza workers’ union. Hamas’ economy minister Jawad Abu Shamala, killed just three days after the October 7 massacre in an Israeli airstrike, had a similar pedigree. He “earmarked the funds for financing and directing terrorism inside and outside the Gaza Strip ... but previously worked as a teacher at an UNRWA school in Khan Yunis.

My very best wishes (talk) 22:19, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Here is Lazzarini, addressing the UNGA today:

"UNRWA is facing a deliberate and concerted campaign to undermine its operations, and ultimately end them. Operations that are mandated by this Assembly. Part of this campaign involves inundating donors with misinformation designed to foster distrust and tarnish the reputation of the Agency." Selfstudier (talk) 22:53, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

The 2nd (Telegraph) source is more or less "neutral". It also says: "Supporters of UNRWA, which has a workforce of 13,000 in Gaza, says it had no option but to work with Hamas in Gaza as the terror group is the elected government in the coastal enclave. They point out that Israel itself co-operated with the terrorist organisation, freeing Sinwar from prison to lead it and enabling millions of dollars in cash to flow into the enclave in recent years. From 2017, some $15 million were sent into Gaza in cash-filled suitcases – delivered by the Qataris through Israeli territory after months of negotiation with Israel. "

That seems to be true. My very best wishes (talk) 23:46, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Lots of things are reported, not all of them are true. We don't do "true", we just do RS, but we will not resolve this here. Selfstudier (talk) 23:51, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, one can say: "we just say what RS report on the subject", and I agree with this. However, it is also important to have an idea which claims are true/plausible and which are not not. Please see WP:GEVAL. My very best wishes (talk) 00:04, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

@My very best wishes: It's called mudslinging. No sane person would blame NBC for Trump's actions as a president.

You need to keep in mind that all schools in Gaza are UNRWA-funded. It takes a lot of malice to describe in such a way a person who left the career in school management and joined a lawfully operating political party.

Note that Hamas has only been designated as a terrorist organisation by a tiny minority of countries. Most of the world express no specific opinion about internal politics of Palestine. Administrative roles within Gaza administration, with or without party logo, are certainly viewed as ethically neutral by most of the world.

Of course, whenever Israel has an opportunity to sling mud at UNRWA, they won't pass it over. Even when it concerns a school director going into politics. — kashmīrī ^TALK 00:07, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Well, this is not me or Israel, but a Telegraph article consistently calls Hamas a "terror organization" rather than a "a lawfully operating political party" (see also quote starting from "Supporters of UNRWA, which has a workforce of 13,000 in Gaza, ..."). This is not surprising after the recent actions by Hamas in Israel. Yes, perhaps some sides of the conflict could consider the attack on Israel as a legitimate military action by "a lawfully operating political party". This is probably one of reasons for having "controversy" in the title of the page, which is the subject of this discussion. My very best wishes (talk) 00:35, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

@My very best wishes: Just to clarify: Hamas is a designated terrorist organisation in Israel, moreover a discussion on (il)legality of its attack within Israel is out of scope here. The article tries to blame an ex-school teacher for joining the Hamas party in Gaza. That's nothing wrong or illegal there, however it's being sold to the masses as a terrible sin.

Please don't quote the Telegraph to me, it's an agenda-driven conservative newspaper that employs some of the lowest manipulation techniques out there. — kashmīrī ^TALK 00:59, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

No, Telegraph is good per WP:RSP. And no, Hamas was designated a terror organization by several countries and EU [1], even before their recent massive attack on Israel. Yes, I agree, this and many other non-Israel RS definitely imply that to be a Hamas member is wrong. You say it is not. Whatever, but this is still definitely a "controversy". My very best wishes (talk) 14:43, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

to be a Hamas member is wrong Yeah sure. Wrong in which way? Morally? Do those countries want to teach morality to the Palestinians? Or maybe wrong legally? But those countries' internal laws don't apply in the Gaza Strip the last time I checked.

Hamas is proscribed only in 31 countries, i.e., less than 20% of the world. It's considered a lawful political and military movement everywhere else. Read Hamas#Terrorist_designation: According to Tobias Buck, Hamas is "listed as a terrorist organisation by Israel, the US and the EU, but few dare to treat it that way now" and in the Arab and Muslim world it has lost its pariah status and its emissaries are welcomed in capitals of Islamic countries.

Wikipedia is not (or should not be) a US encyclopaedia, we are expected to represent a worldwide view. — kashmīrī ^TALK 08:54, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

• As currently framed on this page (and in sources) this controversy is not just about UNRWA employees being directly involved in the attack, but also about them being Hamas members ("Israel alleges that ... 190 UNRWA employees were militants"). This is a significant part of the controversy. This is one of the reasons I voted "oppose". I understand that employees of a reputable UN organization should not be members of any organization designated as a terrorist one in a number of countries. My very best wishes (talk) 15:27, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

  This is an allegation to which let me quote the former head of UNRWA: Hamas as a political organization does not mean that every member is a militant and we do not do political vetting and exclude people from one persuasion as against another. We demand of our staff, whatever their political persuasion is, that they behave in accordance with UN standards and norms for neutrality (highlighting mine). Israel's attempts to conflate the entirety of Hamas with Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades is, in my view, an attempt to manipulate public opinion (again). Seeing how many of Israel's claims of the last 5 months have turned out not true makes me wonder why some editors still swallow them uncritically. — kashmīrī ^TALK 15:44, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

This quote only proves my point. The controversy is also about a number UNRWA employees being Hamas members, no matter if one considers them "militants"/"terrorists" or not. My very best wishes (talk) 15:52, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Not a controversy, merely accusations without evidence. Selfstudier (talk) 15:54, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Israel claimed to have evidence (some supporting audio files were publicly provided [2]), but whatever true or not, this is a part of the controversy based on the publications in multiple RS. And BTW, the Hamas tunnel under the agency is also a part of this controversy [3]. I assume that the tunnel is real. My very best wishes (talk) 18:12, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

There are miles of tunnels under the entirety of Gaza, there is probably "a tunnel" under every single building. Israel claims a lot of things and while they have a track record for fibbing, recently it is worse than ever. Now they are saying they don't have to or won't provide evidence, just a joke really. Selfstudier (talk) 18:29, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, the tunnels are everywhere. But it says that "UNRWA headquarters supplied the tunnels with electricity". Your ref says: “They think that we can give them intelligence information, knowing that some of their employees work for Hamas? Are you serious? Why don’t we invite Hamas to our headquarters and have them sit at our desk and have a look at all the information we have?” he asked. That seems to be the problem. But no, this is not a joke. My very best wishes (talk) 01:37, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

"It did not prove definitively that Hamas militants operated in the tunnels underneath the UNRWA facility, but it did show that at least a portion of the tunnel ran underneath the facility’s courtyard. The military claimed that the headquarters supplied the tunnels with electricity" (AP) Another claim from the IDF, let me see if I can find a source proving that the electricity claim is false too. Selfstudier (talk) 13:43, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Craig Murray tweets "The "Hamas tunnel under UNRWA" proclaimed by entire Western MSM is a cellar with solar power inverters, underground to be kept cool That is why it is linked to UNRWA with cables coming up through the floor. It is a power source. These green boxes clearly visible in IDF video." (pic of said equipment included matches pic in IDF vid). Now who should I believe? A retired diplomat or IDF? Hmmm. Selfstudier (talk) 14:29, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Aljazeera (which is not pro-Israel) tells a very different story [4]. But I agree, we do not know enough at this point. Hence the "controversy". My very best wishes (talk) 16:40, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Can't adduce controversy merely because the IDF/Israel says blah without evidence.(like al-Shifa, like Shireen Abu Akleh, etcetera). Selfstudier (talk) 16:56, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

As our page correctly says, "Controversy is a state of prolonged public dispute or debate, usually concerning a matter of conflicting opinion or point of view.". We do have it here. My very best wishes (talk) 17:55, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

What we have here is "no evidence". Selfstudier (talk) 17:58, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose Too wordy and premature. Also "alleged" is problematic as noted directly above. Coretheapple (talk) 22:44, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Oppose but, if the request succeeds, it should be switched from "Alleged UNRWA...." to "Allegations of UNRWA...", as this article is currently focused on the allegations themselves, which are quite sourcable, rather than the involvement, the sourcing of which is of obvious great concern. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 22:55, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. Let's wait until we have more clarity, see my comments below. Alaexis_¿question? 16:17, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

  Pity the page creator didn't follow that advice. Selfstudier (talk) 16:22, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose for now. The alternative also sounds too awkward. Also "alleged" is an issue as others have said. Hogo-2020 (talk) 07:26, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

What's the rush? The Guardian article that you've linked says that “OIOS staff are planning to visit Israel soon to obtain information from Israeli authorities that may be relevant to the investigation,” Dujarric said, adding that the investigators had described member state cooperation as “adequate”. Why not wait until we have more clarity one way or the other? It's not that the current title says that there definitely was involvement. Alaexis_¿question? 13:16, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

No rush, we had 2 inconclusive RMs and some agreement to move and some agreement that the present title is not ideal so another RM to resolve that, that's it. If you have a better alternative than doing nothing, let's hear it. Selfstudier (talk) 13:24, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

It's funny you should mention that, but I have been editing Wikipedia for some years. It occurred to me today that I have participated in more RMs over the past two months than in the preceding ten-plus years! Coretheapple (talk) 00:09, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree. There is WP:NODEADLINE. Coretheapple (talk) 22:46, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

the EU has restored funding of €82mm and added a further €62mm for 2024 and Canada has just announced restoration of its funding while also saying that Israel has not provided it with any evidence to support its allegations so it seems it is turning out that allegations is all we are looking at here.Selfstudier (talk) 13:03, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

UNRWA donors likely to resume funding soon, Norway says suggests this so-called controversy will soon be consigned to the dustbin of history. Selfstudier (talk) 19:20, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Amazing! — kashmīrī ^TALK 19:34, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

+ Sweden Selfstudier (talk) 11:07, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Spain is going to up its contribution by €20 mill. Selfstudier (talk) 11:11, 9 March 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.

"photo controversy"

I have just undone an attempt to recast the WSJ article controversy into being a "photo controversy". None of the sources used indicate that there is any controversy over the photo; they use it to reference a relationship. This isn't like V-J Day in Times Square where there is debate over whether it should be viewed a picture of a a celebration or an assault,, nor The dress where there was argument about the colors depicted in the image. The only place I know of where this photo has faced controversy is in the Wikipedia editing circles. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 17:04, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough, it's not a controversy "about" the photo, but about the conjunction of (a) the article basically repeating Israeli govt talking points and (b) the relationship between the article's author and Landes. The photo is a key element in establishing (b) as noted in RS. Keizers (talk) 20:52, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Irrespective of anything else, the photo is a copyrighted work. We cannot use the copy from Commmons because it is in line to be deleted from there as not having been released under a compatible license, and it cannot have a free use rationale applied while on Commons. - Bilby (talk) 21:14, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

@Bilby:, fixed, I uploaded it to Wikipedia with fair use rationale. The file is the same name but ending is "jpeg" for the Wikipedia version.Keizers (talk) 21:16, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

We should not use sources which don't mention the UNRWA controversy.

As for the photo itself, consider this photo for the sake of comparison. Muhammad Shehada is a senior staffer at Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor. Would it be right to add it everywhere where we reference Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor? Alaexis_¿question? 08:17, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

The proper use of the report and photo is to help Wikipedia editors judge the reliability of a particular source. It's not helpful IMO to import discussions about source reliability into mainspace. — kashmīrī ^TALK 08:41, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 6 March 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: WITHDRAWN as filed prematurely (closed by non-admin page mover) — kashmīrī ^TALK 23:29, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

---

UNRWA October 7 controversy → Israeli allegations against UNRWA – The proposed title appears to better reflect the article subject – allegations made specifically by the State of Israel against the UN agency.

The allegations refer to incidents being considered controversial. Howevere, controversial were neither the accusations themselves nor the agency's response, and so the current wording "UNRWA controversy" may be misleading.

As several reliable sources have confirmed, the accuser has to-date not been able to back up the allegations with credible evidence. The subject matter of our article has to remain, by necessity, allegations.

As a stop-gap measure, the new title may alternatively include a year disambiguator ("2023 Israeli allegations against UNRWA"), although I admit that the community may feel it's not currently needed.

As a matter of editorial policy, I believe that situations when X accuses Y of wrongdoing should not be titled "controversies", but instead allegations or accusations.

Along with renaming, I propose to merge here parts of the content at UNRWA, an article which, at more than 12,000 words, should probably be split anyway per WP:ARTICLESIZE. — kashmīrī ^TALK 22:54, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

While I agree the existing title is not ideal, we can't have two RM's going at the same time? Need to wait for the existing one to be closed first. Selfstudier (talk) 23:02, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Not sure about it, I see nothing in the guidelines. That one looks like it's going to be a no, so should I wait until it's formally closed in two days? — kashmīrī ^TALK 23:22, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm sure, I have been in this situation before, its because theoretically you could get conflicting results. Selfstudier (talk) 23:28, 6 March 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.

Fork at Wall Street Journal UNRWA article controversy

Just noting per the above heading, there is now a fork of this article at Wall Street Journal UNRWA article controversy. - Bilby (talk) 23:47, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. In a normal world, we wouldn't need to carry in debates on source reliability into mainspace. We'd simply ignore questionable publications. Maybe, in the long term, we could simply work out, at RSN, a consensus not to rely on the mentioned publication? — kashmīrī ^TALK 14:53, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

@Kashmiri: Which source are you referring to? The WSJ? The reason I wrote the controversy up as an article is not about whether it's a RS for use on Wiki, it's because it is a topic in and of itself, which is part of larger issues in the mainspace, such as media bias, journalistic integrity, Hasbara (narratives of foreign countries in other countries' media), etc. There are other examples such as the NYT story and the sum of this can likely be an article of itself (pro-Israel bias in US/Western media), which would be a drilldown from the topics mentioned. Keizers (talk) 15:09, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Ok, but any publication that is being challenged or retracted can be presented in a wider context of improper editorial controls, COI, plagiarism, and so on. Look at retractions of academic articles, Retraction Watch is a fascinating resource that digs into the mechanisms behind questionable academic publishing. However, does every such article need to feature on Wikipedia only because there were "larger issues"? — kashmīrī ^TALK 13:24, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Merge proposal: Wall Street Journal UNRWA article controversy

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was: speedy not merged. Nominator withdrew and no one* supports merger. Content at both articles has become similar during this discussion, by virtue of a non-contentious trim of the source article (the author of that content has been topic-banned in the meantime, and no one else sticks up for the content); in this discussion it is explained that the similarity was caused in a way that does not mean that retaining a redirect from a merger is needed to maintain attribution.

The source article was proposed for deletion after deletion was discussed in this merger discussion, and the opinions do not tend toward retaining the source article. The locus of the issue with the source article has clearly shifted away from something needing merging, so this discussion has become dislocated in a sense, and has exhausted its purpose.

Discussing content can be done outside this formal process.

AfD was mentioned. If someone deprods, an AfD can be started.

*I am noting that there is one non-struck "support" !vote, but it is a non-retention argument, it is not about copying something from there to here, and as such it is congruous with the page being deleted via PROD.—Alalch E. 00:16, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

---

I propose merging the recently-created Wall Street Journal UNRWA article controversy article into the UNRWA October 7 controversy article. According to independent and reliable secondary sources, the recently-created article does not yet appear to have encyclopedic support for a standalone article as a notable event, and merged content based on independent and reliable sources in the recently-created article do not appear to create article-size or weighting problems in the UNRWA October 7 controversy article. Beccaynr (talk) 16:03, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

• Support, as proposer, based on the article content when this proposal was made [5]. Oppose, as proposer, after further consideration, discussion, as well as review and editing of the source article and this article. I have added a PROD tag to the article. The proposed merge target section would be UNRWA_October_7_controversy#Wall_Street_Journal_article_criticism, and some of the expanded attributions for criticism now present in Wall Street Journal UNRWA article controversy could be selectively merged (i.e. to help clarify commentary source, etc.) although further attention to details may be needed as editing continues. This source article may also be an unacceptable WP:CFORK. For example,
  • Some content recently re-added to the WSJ UNRWA controversy article was previously discussed at Talk:UNRWA_October_7_controversy#Notability_of_Keller-Lynn's_authorship_of_the_WSJ_article,_her_relation_with_Landes,_and_removal_of_iTrek_photo in a section opened by Keizers on 06:00, 26 February 2024 (UTC), which included discussion of WP:BLP policy.
  • Some content recently re-added to the WSJ UNRWA controversy article was previously discussed at Talk:UNRWA_October_7_controversy#insertion_of_name in a section opened by NatGertler at 19:44, 29 February 2024 (UTC), which included a WP:BLP policy objection.
  • I participated in the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aliza Landes AfD on 06:52, 7 March 2024 [6] and then made various edits to the article, including to remove similar content according to WP:BLP, WP:BLPBALANCE, and WP:BLPUNDEL policy at 07:17, 7 March 2024 [7]
  • I removed similar content per WP:BLP/WP:BLPBALANCE/WP:BLPUNDEL on 16:40, 7 March 2024 from the UNRWA October 7 controversy article [8]. My removal also followed a removal of sources by Alaexis at 07:58, 7 March 2024 [9] with the edit summary "removed sources which say nothing about the UNRWA controversy; please don't add them back before reaching consensus"
  • I removed similar content per WP:BLP/WP:BLPBALANCE/WP:BLPUNDEL on 00:16, 8 March 2024 from the WSJ UNRWA article controversy article [10]
  • This content was restored with minimal change and no discussion nor consensus by Keizers at 16:23, 8 March 2024 [11] in the WSJ UNRWA article controversy article

Beccaynr (talk) 16:53, 8 March 2024 (UTC) updated to reflect substantial changes to article since proposal. A merge proposal may not be the appropriate forum at this time. Beccaynr (talk) 17:07, 8 March 2024 (UTC); comment updated to add past article talk discussions. Beccaynr (talk) 18:40, 8 March 2024 (UTC) update comment to change to Oppose Beccaynr (talk) 16:12, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

• Comment As a procedural note, I have also opened a discussion at Talk:Wall_Street_Journal_UNRWA_article_controversy#WP:BLPUNDEL to discuss recent additions to the WSJ UNRWA article controversy article by Keizers. Beccaynr (talk) 18:51, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

• Support. Once one wipes away the BLP problems, and material that is not about the topic of that page, one is left with little that isn't already on this page. No visible need for a separate page. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 19:02, 8 March 2024 (UTC) There is no longer material at other page that needs to be integrated here; just let PROD do its process. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 17:54, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

• Support This is one of two "article controversy" articles out there that are BLP and NPOV hornet's nests. The other is Screams Without Words. Both present BLP as well as NPOV issues. Coretheapple (talk) 19:14, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

I think a merger is the right tack. It does not appear this material is covered in detail on this page. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:18, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

As I further considered the proposed merge source and content in this article at UNRWA_October_7_controversy#Wall_Street_Journal_article_criticism, the non-redundant content to merge seems to be clarified and corrected attributions - as noted in the discussion below, I added those adjustments and could do it in this article; I have just not gotten to it yet. I am thinking a merge does not seem necessary and was considering removing my support, but also appreciate other perspectives. Beccaynr (talk) 04:41, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I've flipflopped and restored the prod, having reviewed the material and not seen much of substance that really needs to be brought to the parent. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:53, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

Any reason why the merge tags aren't up? I'm a bit confused, are we saying that the other article doesn't meet GNG or it is a BLP vio or what? Selfstudier (talk) 19:20, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Keizers removed the notability tag [12]; it is my mistake to have only added the merge tag to the article talk page, and I can fix that. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 19:31, 8 March 2024 (UTC) Also, the content that appears to be contrary to BLP policy was re-added to the article and expanded after this merge proposal began. Beccaynr (talk) 19:33, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

I reinstated the notability tag for the reasons given. Coretheapple (talk) 20:26, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Actually, given the BLP issues that have not been addressed (I reverted within the past 24 hours) in the WSJ article, I think according to WP:IAR, giving further publicity to similar content that has been removed from other articles, by placing a merge proposal notice banner on this article does not seem best for the encyclopedia at this time. My sense is when we are discussing potential BLP violations, we are not supposed to call unnecessary attention to the content during discussions. Perhaps we can extend the length of this discussion to accommodate a delay in fully publicizing it due to substantial good-faith BLP policy objections to content added to the article soon after the merge proposal began. Beccaynr (talk) 19:49, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

K, if insufficient grounds for AfD, best thing is to take it to the BLP noticeboard, no? If there are obvious vios they are not going to sit there for very long after that. Selfstudier (talk) 19:51, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

I think there are grounds for an AfD, per WP:EVENT, and now including other reasons for deletion such as WP:BLP and WP:NPOV and WP:NOT. BLPN is an option, but I only have so much time available; I happened across this topic via an AfD discussion, and this has become an unexpectedly time-consuming for me as similar issues seem to migrate from article to article; trying to figure out how to efficiently and effectively proceed is something I am trying to consider. Beccaynr (talk) 20:05, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

If AfD does not result in delete, it may still result in merge. Still, if the BLP vios are potentially serious, then BLP would be the way to go and wouldn't take that long. Selfstudier (talk) 20:08, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

I think there is fairly textbook poorly-sourced sensationalism that is seriously contrary to BLP policy, particularly because Aliza Landes appears to be 'an American-Israeli business executive in the cryptocurrency industry, who previously worked as a Chief Marketing Officer for Asia Times Online and before that, for the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) as a spokesperson and on the development of IDF social media content in 2009 and 2010.' The sourcing about her role with IDF social media when she was in her mid-20s, before she left the IDF, went to graduate school and then became a media executive, is fairly minimal - a 2012 interview-based source in Tablet Magazine, a 2012 Atlantic source quoting the Tablet source [13], an employer profile, and a Youtube link to a 2011 conference panel she participated in as a member of the IDF spokespersons unit [14], after leaving her role with the social media team.

So the recent opinion, commentary, social media, and low-quality sources, etc that publicize a 2009 photo as if it is damning guilt by association that undermines the WSJ article (is the photo/purported friendship supposed to imply Landes still works for the IDF? that Landes has influenced the WSJ report on behalf of the IDF?) seems to be the type of tabloid-style guilt-by-association sensationalism about living people that is not considered encyclopedic according to BLP and NOT policies. Beccaynr (talk) 20:46, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

• fyi, I have posted at BLPN: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Wall_Street_Journal_UNRWA_article_controversy
• As the editor who created the page and had been its sole supporter is now under a topic ban that prevents them from editing it, I suspect that a simple WP:PROD would make that article go away. While it does have some more depth about the specific criticisms, I am dubious that this is of long term interest; the existing mentions on this page with their proper references are likely sufficient. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 01:38, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  I was thinking that because I edited the source attribution that could have been merged (On the Al-Jazeera English current affairs programme The Listening Post, ... and In commentary for The Intercept, ...), there is no attribution needed to add it to this article, so a PROD could be a straightforward way to address these various issues. Beccaynr (talk) 01:49, 9 March 2024 (UTC) clarify/expand comment Beccaynr (talk) 01:58, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

• I have updated my !vote; based on the discussion here and developments with the articles, a merge does not appear necessary or appropriate at this time, and I did PROD the article, in part based on the apparent lack of content to merge. Beccaynr (talk) 16:12, 9 March 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.

Torture allegations

A good bit of the torture allegations were removed [15] with the edit summary that they are "already covered". This has left just two sentences in the article about the situation. It seems that this is still a developing story, but that the basis of Israel's claims (and thus the majority of this article) might have come from coerced testimony extracted under torture. I think this warrants much more substantial discussion (as covered by RS's) and its own dedicated section in the article. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 16:00, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

I am somewhat concerned about this article, tbh, it gives credence to what are nothing more than unconfirmed allegations, As F24 reported, referring to the claims as "allegations", "I don't think we need to give intelligence information," said Lior Haiat, a spokesperson for Israel’s foreign ministry. "This would reveal sources in the operation. We gave information to UNRWA about employees that worked for UNRWA that are members of Hamas."

So we have unsubstantiated claims by Israel, refusing to substantiate them, in addition to the torture story referred to above. Selfstudier (talk) 19:00, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Date format

Per MOS:DATEUNIFY, articles should maintain a consistent format of dates. However, most of the dates in the article are in day-month-year format, except for references to "October 7", used repeatedly and even in the title of the article. (And being that the central events are in Israel, it would be odd to rely on local preference, which left-to-right reads as year-month-day and all from the Hebrew calendar.) Not the biggest concern, I know, but I reckoned I'd just point it out as something to be sorted out eventually. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 06:39, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Edit request

Please modify the second paragraph in the introduction

Sources: https://www.israelhayom.com/2024/02/26/not-coincidental-drastic-drop-in-israeli-aid-that-goes-through-unrwa/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/2024/02/16/unrwa-video-oct-7-israel/

−

According to Israel, between 4 to 12…

+

According to Israel, at least 42…

77.137.69.182 (talk) 17:55, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Not done, the allegations were that 12 took part in Hamas attack on Israel. The 42 in IH source is attributed to an individual and reflects incorrectly a further Israeli allegation that 42 UNRWA employees were Hamas members, a different charge, equally evidence free, afaik. Selfstudier (talk) 18:33, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

We need a better source than that for a sensitive fact in a contentious article. This is an opinion piece. Just to be clear: I am referring to the Israel Hayom article only. I cannot penetrate the Washington Post paywall. Coretheapple (talk) 20:39, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Edit request: Language bias and Update casualty figures

I propose revising the language of the "2023 Hamas attacks on Israel" in the background section so that it is more neutral and to update the casualty figures to reflect the most recent data. Currently, the section describes actions against Israelis with active language ("massacring"), while the description of Palestinian casualties uses a passive voice, suggesting and indirectness and lack of agency of the perpetuator, and adds the phrase "as reported by the Gaza Health Ministry", which can cast doubt on the credibility of the casualty figures reported.

Also, the Palestinian casualty figure cited in the article is outdated. A more recent report by NPR from 2 weeks ago (https://www.npr.org/2024/02/29/1234159514/gaza-death-toll-30000-palestinians-israel-hamas-war) reports over 30,000 Palestinians without counting projected and excess deaths. Catofminerva (talk) 01:21, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Partially done, I edited the Palestinian casualties part. nableezy - 13:57, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Title

Is still not appropriate, apart from containing a random day and date which has no long term significance for an English speaking reader. It seems that rather than having anything to do with the Hamas attack on Israel and still unsubstantiated Israeli allegations this has simply morphed into just another of those funding/investigation crises that we have had in the past as can be seen in the UNRWA article.

So it would seem best either to merge this article back into the UNRWA article where it can be read in proper context or else to give this article a title that is more reflective of the actual situation. 2024 UNRWA funding controversy, perhaps. Selfstudier (talk) 13:20, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

To be fair, it has received extensive RS coverage, so it would warrant its standalone article. The controversy wasn't about UNRWA's funding, as this would imply it was receiving funding from Hamas or some other unwanted organization; so I would support "2024 UNRWA controversy". Makeandtoss (talk) 13:26, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

@Kashmiri: you were going to put up an RM -> Israeli allegations against UNRWA, what do you think? Selfstudier (talk) 15:16, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

@Selfstudier: Thanks, done. — kashmīrī ^TALK 16:50, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 29 March 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. The consensus was MOVE. The additional input can be discussed for merging! (non-admin closure) Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 18:13, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

---

UNRWA October 7 controversy → Israeli allegations against UNRWA

The title being proposed better reflects the article subject – i.e., the allegations made by the State of Israel specifically against UNRWA.

To recall, Israeli allegations concern incidents considered controversial (certain alarming activities that UNRWA staff allegedly engaged in outside of their employment). However, against the wording of the current title, neither UNRWA itself, nor the Israeli accusations, nor the agency's response can be termed controversial, and so, the term "UNRWA controversy" on "7 October" gets close to misleading.

As the article reads, the accuser has to-date not been able to back up the allegations with credible evidence. In this situation, the subject matter of our article has to be, by necessity, allegations. The new title may alternatively include a year disambiguator ("2023 Israeli allegations against UNRWA") as a stop-gap measure should the community feel such a need.

Beyond the scope of this article, I believe that a matter of editorial policy, situations when X accuses Y of wrongdoing should not normally be titled "controversies" by Wikipedia; instead, we should present them as allegations or accusations.

Along with renaming, I propose to merge here parts of the content at UNRWA, especially the part describing the Israeli criticism of the organisation, since at more than 12,000 words, UNRWA should probably be split anyway per WP:ARTICLESIZE. — kashmīrī ^TALK 16:50, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

• Support: per the above, and the extension of the allegations well beyond a specific date – both preceding and succeeding that of the current title. I agree that "controversy" is needlessly vague and non-descript in the context. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:05, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
• @Kashmiri 'Support: the current title is very vague, and virtually all recent coverage of the topic in RS has specifically highlighted the absence of supporting evidence so I think it is reasonable that the title reflects the true nature of the controversy. I would support adding a year to disambiguate (i.e. "2024 Israeli allegations against UNRWA") as this is not the first time Israel has made allegations against the organisation. Djehuty98 (talk) 20:43, 29 March 2024 (UTC)WP:ARBECR, non EC editors may only file edit requests
• Initial support but as per Djehuty98 above the proposed name would broaden the scope to beyond the 2024 allegations. I would support the specification: "2024 Israeli allegations against UNRWA". Makeandtoss (talk) 11:15, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

• Wait. A UN commission is now examining the allegations and they are going to present their findings by April 20 [16]. Let's wait and decide based on the commission's findings. Alaexis_¿question? 11:07, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

  It's precisely because an investigation is ongoing and nothing is confirmed that these count as allegations. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:45, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

• Support Israel lodges proposal with UN for dismantling of Palestinian relief agency and Israeli diplomats pre-emptively attack findings of Unrwa inquiries It is now becoming clear what the real motivation is and it is all to do with Israeli allegations against UNRWA in general and not merely some actions by a few employees on "October 7" (meaningless date which will have no long term significance for the average audience here). Persistent attempts to block change to a crap title need to stop. Selfstudier (talk) 11:30, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
• Weak support - while I think the proposed title is fairly weak as it doesn't say that the allegations are, it is better than the current title. However, fitting all the allegations made by Israel in the title would probably be excessive, so Israeli allegations against UNRWA is probably a good compromise, but I am open to re-wording this. I agree with a brief mention on the main UNRWA article, but given the topic area it may be best to have a separate discussion fot this issue.

As an addendum, can the closer please note that the main Wikipedia article for the attacks is 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel, not 7 October attacks, which is a redirect; see Talk:Sexual and gender-based violence in the 7 October attack on Israel for a similar discussion I raised on another article which uses "7 October" in its title, as well as WP:CONSISTENT. —GnocchiFan (talk) 14:22, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

• Support as there are (so far) no evidence that any of the allegations are true, Huldra (talk) 21:17, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

It's not true that "the accuser has to-date not been able to back up the allegations with credible evidence." The UN has created a commission to investigate the allegations and according to the interim report [17]

“ [The panel] has found that UNRWA has in place a significant number of mechanisms and procedures to ensure compliance with the Humanitarian Principle of neutrality, and the group has also identified critical areas that still need to be addressed ”

Very soon the results of the investigation would be available and then we'll discuss how to name the article. In the meantime, "controversy" is a neutral way of framing the issue. Alaexis_¿question? 11:12, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

@Alaexis I didn't say that the UN is not looking into the allegations or that nothing within UNRWA could be improved. I only wrote that Israel has to-date not been able to back up the allegations with credible evidence, which is precisely what the mainstream media are saying.[18] Besides, your response misses the point that the term "controversy" is misleading, and we should get rid of it irrespective of the outcome of any external enquiries. — kashmīrī ^TALK 11:19, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

There is *some* evidence that the NYT reporters were able to review [19].

The Colonna inquiry is likely to produce findings that have direct bearing on the topic, refuting or confirming the initial allegations. I don't understand what's the urgency to change the name now, considering WP:DEADLINE. Alaexis_¿question? 12:23, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

That's an essay but anyway note "View one: Don't rush to create articles" which was what was done here, with a crap title, so it should be changed. Selfstudier (talk) 12:33, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

The current name is indeed not ideal. I just see no reason not to wait a little bit to see whether these allegations remain largely unsubstantiated or are confirmed by the UN investigation. Alaexis_¿question? 18:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

The investigations, one of which was commissioned before the Israeli allegations, are not looking into only the Israeli allegations and in any case, there are additional Israeli (later) allegations that are not being looked into by Colonna. Imo, the title should not be driven by whatever allegations Israel makes anyway but that is an argument for a different day when editors might be more receptive to an "Israel and UNRWA" type title instead of simply trying to maintain a crap title. Selfstudier (talk) 18:47, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Israel and UNRWA would be more useful, given the longstanding beef. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:58, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

We do have UNRWA#Relations with Israel. Are you suggesting it should be split off to a separate article? — kashmīrī ^TALK 20:55, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

We already tried it. Selfstudier (talk) 20:58, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, however that proposal wasn't, technically, for a split-off of lenghty passages of UNRWA but for a significant refocus of the current article. Hopefully, as more and more information is being added to UNRWA, editors will be see the need to split off that large part focusing on relations with Israel. Let's see. — kashmīrī ^TALK 12:33, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

What you said there is false, it is true that the accuser has to-date not been able to back up the allegations with credible evidence. And many donors, with the notable but hardly surprising exception of the US, have made the decision to resume funding based on this interim report (which was commissioned before the Israeli allegations), with some of them also saying that Israel has not presented any evidence in support of its allegations.

Absolutely no need to wait for the Commission findings, this is just another blockading of the RM with a non policy reason. Selfstudier (talk) 11:20, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Moreover, some donor countries have recently expressly denied ever suspending UNRWA funding, contrary to earlier media reports, adding that Israel has indeed presented zero evidence.[20] — kashmīrī ^TALK 11:27, 1 April 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.

@Kashmiri: Since there were not any objections, which parts of UNRWA article should be merged? Selfstudier (talk) 11:40, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 April 2024

CHANGE X (present text):

....

On 19 February, Lazzarini stated Israel had not provided any evidence to support its claim.[14] In late February, a US intelligence report expressed "low confidence" about Israeli claims on UNRWA.[15] An UNRWA report from February 2024 stated that Israel subjected some of its employees to falsely admit Hamas links under "forced confession", including through the use of torture.[16][17]

...

TO

Y (suggested changes):

On 19 February, Lazzarini stated Israel had not provided any evidence to support its claim.[14]

(start suggested additional text)

UNRWA Commissioner-General Philippe Lazzarini, in an interview aired by Christiane Amanpour on February 28, 2024 (at timestamp 10:49)Podcast of CNN Interview stated that, according to his knowledge at the time of the interview, neither the UN Secretary General nor the UNRWA had received any evidence nor futher details regarding the oral allegations made by Israeli authorities to UNRWA against UNRWA workers allegedly involved in the Hamas attack on Israel, despite repeated requests by the UN Secretary General to the relevant Israeli authorities.

(end suggested additional text)

In late February, a US intelligence report expressed "low confidence" about Israeli claims on UNRWA.[15] An UNRWA report from February 2024 stated that Israel subjected some of its employees to falsely admit Hamas links under "forced confession", including through the use of torture.[16][17] Polar-skylark (talk) 18:39, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

This kind of already covered, might perhaps expand on the coverage when the above mentioned merge of material from UNRWA is carried out. Selfstudier (talk) 11:41, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Selfstudier

"On 19 February, Lazzarini stated Israel had not provided any evidence to support its claim".

The description is not up-to-date because the IDF has published video of those involved men and this is defined as evidence. https://www.maariv.co.il/news/military/Article-1081128

" US intelligence report expressed "low confidence" about Israeli claims on UNRWA"

When you read the content of the attached article (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/feb/22/us-intelligence-unrwa-hamas), it says: "indicating that it considered the accusations to be credible though it could not independently confirm their veracity ... "although the UNRWA does coordinate with Hamas in order to deliver aid and operate in the region, there was a lack of evidence to suggest it partnered with the group". That is, the description mentioned in the Wikipedia article is misleading Because this is the intention of the report.

The Guardian article also cites the Wall Street Journal. I mean, why not attach the article itself (https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/u-s-finds-claims-that-u-n-aid-agency-staff-took-part-in-hamas-attack- credible-957b747e)? 77.126.10.137 (talk) 15:58, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Lazzarini has reiterated to the UNSC on Wednesday 17 April "To this day, Israel has provided no evidence to back up those claims to either the head of UNRWA or to the UN secretary-general".

In any case, your edit request (if that's what it is supposed to be), is not going to be done. Selfstudier (talk) 16:29, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

ask to add

Exposed: UNRWA’s Rigged “Independent” Review - Criticism of conflicts of interest of the examining team

https://twitter.com/HillelNeuer/status/1780352672794546264

https://unwatch.org/exposed-unrwas-rigged-independent-review/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A0D:6FC0:EDA:E700:600F:1BF1:818D:A908 (talk) 15:36, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Not done. Unreliable sources. The report is due for publication on 22 April Selfstudier (talk) 15:46, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Besides, I doubt that UN Watch (incl. its Executive Director Hillel Neuer) can be considered a reliable source as regards the Israeli-Arab conflict. Reasons are in its article. — kashmīrī ^TALK 18:16, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Red herring in the opening paragraph

The reality about this topic is that: 1- Israel's main allegation against UNRWA is that it had overwhelming links with Hamas 2- the Review Group found Israel's allegations to be propagandistic nonsense. Giving this much weight to the issue of UNRWA neutrality in the opening paragraph is everything besides the two main points above. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:48, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Where did the report say that Israel's allegations were "propagandistic nonsense"? What the report did say is that UNRWA has neutrality issues - it makes no sense to exclude this, given that the mandate of this report was to "assess whether UNRWA is doing everything within its power to ensure neutrality" BilledMammal (talk) 13:56, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

It said lots of things, the "neutrality issues" are actually quite minor, despite obvious attempts to puff them up out of all proportion. We should get all the sources and see where the weight is, obviously Germany doesn't think that the neutrality issues amount to a hill of beans.

Guardian "The review revealed that Unrwa has established a significant number of mechanisms and procedures to ensure compliance with the humanitarian principles, with emphasis on the principle of neutrality and that it possesses a more developed approach to neutrality than other similar UN or NGO entities" Selfstudier (talk) 14:05, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

The NYT says the report also revealed that there were weaknesses in those processes. BilledMammal (talk) 14:11, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Oh, wow, if there's a POV violation, that is a big one. "the Review Group found Israel's allegations to be propagandistic nonsense." Really? Where exactly? Please show the quote. Galamore (talk) 14:27, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Per CNN which said it had a broader mandate to review neutrality; i.e. the allegations are part of the neutrality issues and not a separate issue. It goes on to say that:

“ 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." ”

Makeandtoss (talk) 14:06, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Colonna explicitly stated that those allegations are a seperate question, and noted that the lack of evidence presented so far does not mean there is no evidence. BilledMammal (talk) 14:11, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

@ElLuzDelSur: re-instating contested material despite clear objections and an ongoing talk page discussion is a violation of both WP:BRD and WP:BURDEN. Waiting for your self-revert. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:08, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

It’s appropriate to reinsert; it's a major NPOV issue to present just one side of the report. BilledMammal (talk) 14:13, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Let's put in the stuff about text books, that's another Israeli allegation "Three international assessments of PA textbooks in recent years have provided a nuanced picture," the report says. “Two identified presence of bias and antagonistic content, but did not provide evidence of antisemitic content. The third assessment, by the [German-based] Georg Eckert Institute, studied 156 PA textbooks and identified two examples that it found to display antisemitic motifs but noted that one of them had already been removed, the other has been altered." Selfstudier (talk) 14:21, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

How from ""Israel has yet to provide supporting evidence" did you arrive at "the Review Group found Israel's allegations to be propagandistic nonsense."? This is really problematic. How can we collaborate and assume good faith with this conduct? Please try a bit more. Galamore (talk) 14:30, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Lede structure proposal

Lede paragraphs should be structured as follows without regard to strict chronology:

1- Israel presented a series of allegations that UNRWA members were affiliated with militant groups; and that the Colonna Group concluded it was nonsense.

2- chronological flow beginning with Israel's first allegation and its expansions; and initial reactions relating to the cutting off of aid to the agency.

3- findings of ongoing/completed investigations.

4- the resumption of it after Colonna report. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:02, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

We should hear something shortly about the internal inquiry re the original allegations (the 12), might as well wait for that. Selfstudier (talk) 14:08, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

The Colonna Group did not conclude it was nonsense, it said Israel did not provide supporting evidence. Please stop the misrepresentation of sources. Galamore (talk) 14:32, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

@Galamore, saying that someone's claim has no ground in evidence, i.e., is unsubstantiated, is a diplomatic way of calling it bollocks. Editors are free to use shorthand on Talk. — kashmīrī ^TALK 16:15, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

No, saying that someone hasn't provided supporting evidence can also suggest they might, in the future. They didn't say it was unsubstantiated, but rather, they mentioned they haven't seen evidence so far. That's totally different. Galamore (talk) 17:58, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Semantics, no evidence from day 1 to now, that's all that matters. Ask Germany. Selfstudier (talk) 18:07, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't think this would be a fair summary. The Colonna commission was tasked with checking the neutrality of UNRWA, not the allegations that UNRWA personnel participated in the attack. There is a separate investigation into that, performed by the Office of Internal Oversight Services.

Colonna herself said that it is not surprising that Israel did not provide evidence of its allegations to the refugee agency “because it doesn’t owe this evidence during the investigation to UNRWA but to the OIOS.” Alaexis_¿question? 20:37, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

No evidence provided to that one either, in fact Israel specifically refused to provide any. Selfstudier (talk) 14:08, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

This article is not about the Colonna report. This article is about Israeli allegations that UNRWA is overwhelmingly linked to militant groups. AKA red herring. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:26, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

What I am hoping is that this article can turn into a more general UNRWA and Israel type of article once this particular set of allegations are dealt with, in other words a spinout from the main page. Selfstudier (talk) 11:17, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

It can be, but this particular set of allegations would still remain the main and most controversial ones that have lede to funding cuts. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:22, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Copy of material from parent article

Material from parent not needed there in case anything of use here.

Start copy.

The allegations that twelve UNRWA employees had been involved with the 7 October attacks were based on accusations that came from the interrogations of militants, from CCTV video footage, from cell phone tracking data and from documents recovered from dead militants. Israel provided video footage of what it claimed was an UNRWA employee removing the dead body of an Israeli man who had been shot on the Be'eri massacre and driving off with it.

On the same day, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken announced that the United States Department of State would be temporarily pausing funding to UNRWA so that the allegations of UNRWA employees participating in the 7 October massacre could be thoroughly investigated. UN Secretary-General António Guterres pleged to conduct an "urgent and comprehensive independent review of UNRWA". The European Union later stated it was extremely concerned by the allegations, and may take further steps "based on the result of the full and comprehensive investigation".

Several other major donors (United States, Germany, Canada, Italy, United Kingdom, Netherlands, Switzerland, Australia, France) also suspended funding. Ireland and Norway both said they would continue funding the agency, with Ireland saying that the UNRWA's work to "provide lifesaving assistance" had come at "at incredible personal cost", noting the number of UNRWA workers that had been killed in the war was over 100. Norway's diplomatic office said that while the Israeli allegations were "deeply disturbing, and, if true, completely unacceptable" that "we need to distinguish between what individuals may have done, and what UNRWA stands for."

Donor states have suspended funding at a time when the people of Gaza are facing a humanitarian disaster and famine due to fighting and Israel's blockade of the Gaza Strip. Jordanian Foreign Minister Ayman Safadi stated the people of Gaza "should’t be collectively punished upon allegations against 12 persons out of its 13,000 staff. UNRWA acted responsibly and began an investigation. We urge countries that suspended funds to reverse decision." Agnès Callamard, the secretary general of Amnesty International, stated the world's richest countries had made a "heartless decision... to punish the most vulnerable population on earth because of the alleged crimes of 12 people".

The Palestine Liberation Organization called on the funding cuts to be "immediately" reversed, saying that the decision "entails great political and humanitarian relief risks".

In March 2024, Israeli survivors of the 7 October massacres and relatives of hostages filed a lawsuit with a U.S. court against a major UNRWA donor, claiming its contributions indirectly supported the attacks.

After receiving criticism from human rights groups for suspending funds to UNRWA, Canada said it would resume funding, with its next instalment due in April 2024. Pro-Israel lobby groups had pressured the government to maintain the funding freeze. Sweden and the European Union also resumed funding in March 2024.

End copy. Selfstudier (talk) 13:40, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Another bit, start copy.

On 26 January 2024, the UNRWA announced it was investigating allegations, presented to it by Israel a few days before, of the involvement of 12 of its employees in Hamas's 7 October attacks on Israel. UNRWA's major donors, including the United States, Germany, Japan, Italy, the United Kingdom and France, subsequently suspended funding. However, other EU countries increased their contributions to UNRWA: Portugal pledged 1 million euros, Spain pledged 3.5 million euros, and Ireland pledged 20 million euros. The Irish Minister for Foreign Affairs Micheál Martin justified the increase of funding stating "in Gaza, we are bearing witness to a humanitarian catastrophe. People are in dire need of the most basic lifesaving provisions" and continued that "UNRWA is the backbone of the humanitarian response" to this. In the same breath, Martin criticised the suspension of aid by other countries due to "Israel’s disinformation campaign" and pointed out that “the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to enable the provision of urgently needed basic services and humanitarian assistance to address the adverse conditions of life faced by Palestinians in the Gaza strip”.

End copy.

References

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://en.wikipedia.org/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 [21]. 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)

“ Germany has said it will restore cooperation and funding to Unrwa operations in the Gaza Strip after an independent review said Israel had not provided evidence to back up claims that hundreds of employees of the UN agency for Palestinians were members of terrorist organisations.

”

[22] 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[23], 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

[24] [25]

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" [26] 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)

I will support this title PeleYoetz (talk) 07:29, 7 August 2024 (UTC)