Israel has yet to provide evidence of Unrwa staff terrorist links, Colonna report says

[Eugene]

Source: The Guardian

Israel has yet to provide evidence of Unrwa staff terrorist links, Colonna report says

Exclusive: Review finds government has yet to substantiate claims UN relief agency staff have ties to Hamas or Islamic Jihad

Julian Borger in New York
Mon 22 Apr 2024 11.26 BST
Last modified on Mon 22 Apr 2024 11.36 BST

Israel “has yet to provide supporting evidence” of its claims that employees of the UN relief agency Unrwa are members of terrorist organisations, an independent review led by the former French foreign minister Catherine Colonna has said.

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

Israeli allegations of the involvement of Unrwa staff in the 7 October Hamas attack on Israel led major donors in January to cut their funding to the agency, the main channel of humanitarian support not only to Palestinians in Gaza, but to Palestinian refugee communities across the region.

-snip-

Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/22/israel-unrwa-staff-terrorist-links-yet-to-provide-evidence-colonna-report

[Beastly Boy]

1. Were UNRWA employees members of any terrirost oganization?

The Colonna report: "Absolutely no evidence of that".

Were UNRWA employees involved in the Oct. 7 attack on Israeli settlements?

The Colonna report: "No comment".

I can imagine a job interview at UNRWA:

UNRWA: "Are you a terrorist?" - Interviewee: "No".
UNRWA: "Were you complicit in any terrorist attack in the past six months?" - Interviewee: "None of your business"
UNRWA: "OK, you are hired!"

[snot]

2. Israel claimed they had evidence.

The burden's on Israel to share it, not on UNRWA to show it can't exist.

Meanwhile, people are dying because of UNRWA's ejection.

[Beastly Boy]

3. Evidence of what?

No one questions the fact of UNRWA employed people who are affiliated with Hamas. Not even UNRWA.

The report says Israel didn't provide evidence of UNRWA employees taking part in terrorist acts.

Are you saying that you have to commit a terrorist act to get fired by UNRWA?That's an absurdly low bar, isn't it? Makes you suspicious of the ethical standards of the organization that does that... Ok, maybe not you, but it makes ME question them.

[Eko]

5. UNRWA said they were?

Hmm, I looked for that but couldn't find it. Can you please share where you got that information?
Thanks.

[Beastly Boy]

6. Yo should read what you are responding to, not read something into it that is not there.

Of course UNRWA will never say they employed Hamas operatives, silly!

Let's see if you can tell the difference between this

No one questions the fact of UNRWA employed people who are affiliated with Hamas. Not even UNRWA.

and this

UNRWA said they were?
Hmm, I looked for that but couldn't find it.

Still wondering why you can't find what UNRWA never questioned?

Ask your good friend, Mr. Fallacy. Strawman Fallacy. He knows why.

[Eko]

7. So how do you know UNRWA thinks this?

[Beastly Boy]

8. Ask Mr. Fallacy. Strawman Fallacy. He knows.

Me, I have no idea what UNRWA thinks. I only know what they are not questioning.

[Eko]

9. How do you know they never questioned it?

Also, this is your statement correct?" No one questions the fact of UNRWA employed people who are affiliated with Hamas. Not even UNRWA." Are you saying that UNRWA does not question it because they know there are no people employed that are affiliated with Hamas or are you saying that they are not questioning it because they know there are or are you stating something else entirely? If I am presenting a strawman fallacy please explain what you meant by that statement and if it is just your opinion or you have some information backing it up.
Thanks

[Beastly Boy]

10. Why can't you find it if they did?

[Eko]

11. If they did what?

Once again.
Are you saying that UNRWA does not question it because they know there are no people employed that are affiliated with Hamas or are you saying that they are not questioning it because they know there are or are you stating something else entirely?

[Beastly Boy]

12. Whatever you po0sted in Post 9

I am not following your train of thought anyway. Not since I referred you to Mr. Fallacy for answers.

[Eko]

13. Post 9 has three different options to what you might have meant.

Can explain what you meant?

[Beastly Boy]

14. Pick the option that doesn't contain "because" in it.

That is the only one in which you address what I said rather than speculate about the reasons why I said it.

Happy Passover!

[Eko]

15. So it is just your opinion.

Thanks!

[Beastly Boy]

16. I dunno...

Is it your opinion that you could find nothing on UNRWA questioning the affiliation of their employees with Hamas or mine?

[Eko]

17. Yes, I could find nothing so that makes it my opinion.

But the claim was yours not mine. I asked if it was just your opinion or if you had something to back it up and you have just evaded and evaded the question. I have no problem stating something is my opinion, not sure why you do.

[Eko]

19. You misunderstand.

Me finding nothing is indeed an opinion in regards to if the statement is true. Just because I didn't find anything doesn't make it true or false. It just means I did not find anything. That is basic logic. Yes, I did not find anything. That is a fact. My finding nothing does not prove a fact just as you said you cant prove a negative. I was going to point out that your statement "No one questions the fact of UNRWA employed people who are affiliated with Hamas. Not even UNRWA. " is just filled with not being able to prove a negative but I wanted you to explain your statement first. The fact that you wouldn't shows that you knew it was trying to prove a negative in the first place. "So of course, no sane person would attempt back up a negative' which is why you didn't when repeatedly asked about your statement.

[Eko]

4. delete