Talk:UNRWA and Israel/Archive 1

Update the map

The map at the top of the page needs to be updated. 47.187.222.98 (talk) 23:52, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Germany should also be dark green.47.187.222.98 (talk) 05:55, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Done, thank you. BilledMammal (talk) 06:07, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Japan should also be dark green. 2601:981:4302:3240:D0EC:5AA8:9967:D5BB (talk) 21:22, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Done, thank you. BilledMammal (talk) 21:27, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Austria should be light green 47.187.222.98 (talk) 16:51, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Done, thank you. BilledMammal (talk) 20:09, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

New Zealand should also be light green. 47.187.222.98 (talk) 23:39, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Done, thank you. BilledMammal (talk) 08:06, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Sweden should also be dark green. 47.187.222.98 (talk) 22:17, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Done, thank you. BilledMammal (talk) 00:04, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Page title

The allegations go beyond employees participating in the October 7 attack - and I suspect, although without sources, that the reason so many nations have suspended funding is because of these broader allegations, as participation by a small number of employees, while concerning, doesn't appear to warrant this level and breadth of response. I think we should rename the article to better reflect these allegations; perhaps "UNRWA-Hamas relation controversy"? BilledMammal (talk) 11:52, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Do you envision this article being on specifically the allegations regarding its involvement in October 7, or its entire relationship with Hamas? Because there is UNRWA#Relationship with Hamas which covers the UNRWA-Hamas relationship controversy in general, and your proposed title would be fitting for a hypothetical separate article on the entire UNRWA-Hamas relation, but not for this article. The current title is the best one for the current subject. JM (talk) 15:21, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

I think it should be on the allegations that lead to the funding suspension and the UN investigation. I think we can define that as involvement in the Israel-Hamas war broadly, rather than just the October 7 attacks - my interpretation is that this is already the scope. BilledMammal (talk) 15:26, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Reading additional sources, it isn't clear to me whether there are general allegations that facilities were used, or that there are narrow accusations that facilities were used as part of the attacks - these additional sources are solely saying this in the context of the attacks.

Considering this I think the previous title was fine; we can look at a broader title if allegations of participation in the broader conflict emerge. BilledMammal (talk) 15:55, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

I've reverted the undiscussed move. BilledMammal (talk) 16:41, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

@ElijahPepe: I think that's a worse title than the current one; it's not concise, and it doesn't represent the topic as well. BilledMammal (talk) 15:32, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Your unsourced views shouldn’t have anything to do with the page title. As it stands there are allegations against 12 employees who have either been fired or are dead. The title should be changed as currently it says UNRWA itself is alleged to have done what nobody has alleged, rather than employees of UNRWA. nableezy - 15:32, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

To be clear, there are sources that allegations go beyond the 12 employees - in particular, there are allegations that UNRWA facilities were used for "terrorist purposes", and that UNRWA facilities and vehicles were used in the October 7 attacks.

Note that the title when I opened this section was UNRWA October 7 controversy; ElijahPepe recently moved it. BilledMammal (talk) 15:35, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, the widely-RS-reported allegations publicized by Israel and the UN go well beyond these "12 employees". JM (talk) 15:37, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes there are long running allegations about UNRWA from Israel, almost all of them unproven assertions, but none of that has to do with this specific case of unproven allegations. Which is what this article is about. nableezy - 15:59, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

This "specific case of unproven allegations" includes allegations that UNRWA facilities and vehicles were used in the October 7 attacks. From the sources I linked:

Details about the Israeli allegations have not been made clear, but reports in the Israeli media suggest UNRWA vehicles and facilities may have been used for the attack in which Hamas gunmen killed around 1,300 people, mostly civilians, and took another 240 hostage.

The Israeli military said in a statement Saturday 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.” It did not elaborate on what that involvement entailed.

BilledMammal (talk) 16:03, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

That has all sorts of qualifications, and regardless that has nothing to do with your suggested title. Which would portray a contested view as though it were fact when it remains a series of unproven allegations. nableezy - 16:25, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

There is already a section on the UNRWA page called UNRWA#Relationship with Hamas. So I don't see any evidence of problems regarding "portraying a contested view as though it were fact" in this scenario. Regardless, BM has said that they support the original consise title of this article, not the one they put forward before, so your point is moot anyway. In any case, I don't know what these "qualifications" are. JM (talk) 16:36, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

That section is largely about friction between the two. The qualifications in the quote are "reports in Israeli media suggest" and "It did not elaborate what that involvement entailed." Qualifications, like many English words, has several meanings that depend on the context in which it is used. Here it is used as a statement or assertion that makes another less absolute. nableezy - 16:40, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

What's the controversy? The allegations, the blatant attempt to bury the ICJ news cycle, or the suspension of funding? The current title is ambiguous about the topic. Israel has made a bunch of unproven allegations, apparently based largely on interrogations (a.k.a. inadmissable testimony), and hawkish Western nations have obliged Israel with its smoke and mirrors by making a big song and dance about it and cutting vital aid in advance of any proper investigation. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:05, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Seems controversial:

One is accused of kidnapping a woman. Another is said to have handed out ammunition. A third was described as taking part in the massacre at a kibbutz where 97 people died. And all were said to be employees of the United Nations aid agency that schools, shelters and feeds hundreds of thousands of Palestinians in the Gaza Strip...The accusations are what prompted eight countries, including the United States, to suspend some aid payment to the UNRWA [1]

The dossier said that Israeli intelligence officers had established the movements of six of the men inside Israel on Oct. 7 based on their phones; others had been monitored while making phone calls inside Gaza during which, the Israelis say, they discussed their involvement in the Hamas attack. Three others got text messages ordering them to report to muster points on Oct. 7, and one was told to bring rocket-propelled grenades stored at his home, according to the dossier. [2]

Longhornsg (talk) 05:38, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

This is just another of those UNRWA blowups that occur every so often, after a while, it will blow over just like the rest, funding will be restored, justice seen to be done, etcetera. Nothing to get too excited about. Selfstudier (talk) 11:08, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Is there another instance of 10+ major powers suspending funding, or allegations of at least 190 staff participating in a massacre? JM (talk) 10:48, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

That also didn’t happen now so … nableezy - 11:35, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Israel accuses 190 UN staff of being 'hardened' militants - Reuters JM (talk) 11:50, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

that is an accusation of people being part of militant organizations, not that they participated in the attack. That remains at 12, of which a handful are alleged to have participated in any killings. nableezy - 12:03, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

An Israeli official told Reuters the 190 mentioned in the dossier were "hardened fighters, killers" not sure what else "killers" implies in the context of Hamas and other Palestinian terrorist organizations other than participating in some sort of massacre, but regardless, I can't think of another time when at least 190 UNRWA workers were accused of being terrorists and at least 15 countries withdrew funding. JM (talk) 12:07, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

That’s a series of personal suppositions. No, the 190 accusation is about people being active members of the various militant organizations. The claim on involvement on 7 October attacks is about 12 people. I have no interest in discussing personal opinions, your source does not support what you have claimed. nableezy - 12:13, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Well, I stand by the idea that it's implicit in the word "killers" that these people have killed, presumably in massacres at some point. A small contention, considering I've already shown that there are indeed 190 workers that have been accused of being terrorists and 15 countries that have withdrawn funding. JM (talk) 12:42, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

190 people are accused of being so called hardened members of militant organizations. You can stand by whatever you like, but your source does not support your initial statement and what you think is implicit is not relevant for the article. Is there anything related to the title or content of the article here? Again, not interested in personal opinions on who is a "terrorist" or what you presume that implies. nableezy - 12:48, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Again, I stand by my previous comment, and if it's irrelevant to the article then you didn't need to contest it in the first place. There is no need for further replies. Someone uninvolved should close this. JM (talk) 12:54, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Somebody making false statements of fact on an encyclopedia talk page should be corrected so others don’t take for granted that the false statement is actually true. nableezy - 12:58, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it was false. Regardless, you're still off-topic in doing so. Again, someone uninvolved should close this. JM (talk) 12:59, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Nowhere does the source say 190 employees of the UNRWA are accused of participating in any massacre. That remains completely made up. nableezy - 13:25, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

I've said all that I need to say for this already. Perhaps WP:LASTWORD is relevant here. I would really appreciate it if someone could come close this already. JM (talk) 13:43, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Unrelated to article improvement. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:18, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This comment is a pretty clear violation of the CTOP policy and should be struck almost entirely. This is not a forum for your theories on the motivations of various parties or the validity of the claims, especially not with such a strong POV. JM (talk) 17:06, 28 January 2024 (UTC) The opening comment of this section has and I suspect, although without sources. CTOP isn’t a cudgel you can use to shout down views you dislike while protecting views you like. nableezy - 17:42, 28 January 2024 (UTC) I think that there is an enormous difference between speculating on whether the suspension of funds is because of this specifically or because of many other things, versus... Just re-read the comment, because I would have to quote the whole thing. I mean really, the POV and forum-ness of alleging a "blatant attempt to bury the ICJ news cycle", claiming interrogations are inadmissible (absolutely not true, by the way), and the entire last clause about "hawkish western nations" and "smoke and mirrors" and "song and dance"...literally not at all even tangentially related to this discussion. So I really don't think you should equate those two comments, you must be able to see the huge difference there. And I would also say that claiming I'm using the CTOP restrictions as "a cudgel" "to shout down views [I] dislike while protecting views [I] like" is also a CTOP vio in my opinion. JM (talk) 17:51, 28 January 2024 (UTC) Here’s a source for the news cycle part, Journalist and rights advocate Daniel Denvir pointed out that hours after the ICJ said South Africa's claim that Israel is committing genocidal acts in Gaza is "plausible," the news was dwarfed at the Times by its coverage of the UNRWA allegations. If you feel my comment is a violation of an arbitration decision feel free to report it to AE. But an article talk page is for discussing an article, so here please try to keep on topic and discuss the article. nableezy - 18:05, 28 January 2024 (UTC) 1) That's one guy and the source is Common Dreams, 2) It still has nothing to do with the page title. All you're doing by providing that article reporting a fringe POV is apparently trying to show that Iskandar's claims are not baseless... which still has nothing to do with the article, is still forum and POV. Which you are apparently also engaging in by doing that, so I don't know why you're telling me to "keep on topic and discuss the article" in response to me criticizing a forum and POV comment for not doing that. Now I'm not completely certain about the rules, but I'm pretty sure editors can call other editors out for breaking the rules. If you want to discuss the article instead of the off-topic comments, then stop making off-topic comments and claiming I'm being disingenuous out of nowhere. JM (talk) 18:15, 28 January 2024 (UTC) I’m very clearly saying this is a page for discussing an article and if you have a problem with a user bring it up in an appropriate place. Yes I also pointed out that you immediately claimed a violation for foruming with unsourced views while ignoring that this section was started with foruming with unsourced views, and perhaps I shouldn’t have risen to the bait. But can you please stop discussing anything other than the topic of this article here? Thanks in advance. nableezy - 18:22, 28 January 2024 (UTC) You are continuing to do the thing you accuse me of, and now you accuse me of baiting (a.k.a bad faith)...I'm not sure why you do this. It would be great if you just stopped. All I did was call out a rulebreaking comment, as people often do, and you started an argument over it with a bad faith allegation in response. Just stop it. JM (talk) 18:25, 28 January 2024 (UTC) Is there a reason you are insisting on retaining a series of comments that have nothing to do with the article here? I’m not going to engage with you further, but you should self revert. nableezy - 19:03, 28 January 2024 (UTC) I'm not going to self-revert, because I reverted an involved close that didn't even include the original forum/POV reply I called out. JM (talk) 19:07, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Statement by Sharren Haskel

I'm not convinced that her statement is useful; she isn't a particularly important politician, and it only repeats what the previous paragraph says with the addition of "remove the mask", which would need clarification - and when clarified, merely repeats the belief that UNRWA is a tool of Hamas. BilledMammal (talk) 14:40, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree. I don't see how this quote improves this article. ManOnTheMoon92 (talk) 18:11, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 28 January 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 - There is no consensus in favour of the original proposed move in this discussion. This discussion is possibly just on the edge of a weak consensus forming in favour of moving per se, but concerns about accuracy for any of the particular names proposed makes plumping for any of them as the result of a consensus difficult due to the accuracy/conciseness/NPOV concerns raised by the opposers and the weak/partial nature of some of the support !votes. This close is absolutely without prejudice to a further RM being opened directed to a particular name, particularly one addressing the concerns about WP:CONCISE titles. I did consider a re-list, but discussion has slowed in the past week and a fresh discussion around a specific name appears a better way to proceed. (non-admin closure) FOARP (talk) 15:15, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

---

UNRWA October 7 controversy → Alleged UNRWA involvement in the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel. POV title with irrelevant date. Article was moved to this title by another editor but reverted as undiscussed. Selfstudier (talk) 18:12, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

I oppose this, would support it if employees followed UNRWA though. Nobody has alleged UNRWA was involved in anything. nableezy - 18:23, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Existing title has "UNRWA" in it, alternative? Selfstudier (talk) 18:26, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

I just said the alternative, add employees to the title. Like Alleged UNRWA employee involvement in the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel or Allegations of UNRWA employee involvement in the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel nableezy - 18:32, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

I am fine with that variant. Selfstudier (talk) 18:39, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

That would still misrepresent the topic; the allegation is that UNRWA employees, facilities, and vehicles took part in the attack. BilledMammal (talk) 18:28, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

The only thing the IDF has said is " with evidence pointing to the use of UNRWA facilities for terrorist purposes", they have not said those facilities were used in the attack. nableezy - 18:31, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

A senior Israeli official said the Shin Bet and Israeli military intelligence provided information that pointed to the active participation of UNRWA staffers and the use of the agency's vehicles and facilities during the Oct. 7 Hamas attack.

in Axios, as well as the various sources above and in the article.

The specifics of the allegations remain unclear, but we shouldn't choose a title that contradicts our sources. BilledMammal (talk) 18:35, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

I hadn’t seen that source, but I think it would still fit in employees as obviously the people allegedly using the vehicles and facilities are the same dozen people being discussed in all the other sources. nableezy - 18:56, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Possibly - but it's also possible that it was non-employees using the vehicles and facilities. Until we have sources that provide this information we can't presume. BilledMammal (talk) 19:00, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Whether or not that’s true is besides the point, the sources have been focused on the allegations against these dozen employees. So too should the title. nableezy - 19:43, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Oppose As far as I can tell no allegations have been made that UNRWA is involved in the attacks; just that its employees, facilities, and vehicles where. The difference between the two is unclear, but we shouldn't say that there are allegations against UNRWA directly until we have sources supporting that claim.

I also believe that the current title better reflects the scope of the article, as the topic is notable for two equally prominent reasons - the allegations, and the suspension of funding by UNRWA's major donors. I also don't see how the title is POV; there is a controversy related to UNRWA in regards to the October 7 attacks. BilledMammal (talk) 18:27, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

The heart of the allegations is that numerous UNRWA employees were involved. I get that this may not amount to UNRWA as an entity being involved, but from the standpoint of the title I don't think that is objectionable. Coretheapple (talk) 19:31, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

• Weak support I don't think that either the proposed title or the current one is optimal, but the proposed one seems more informative and useful. Coretheapple (talk) 19:27, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Support Although it is not concise, it is clear and consistent. JM (talk) 19:29, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

• Support something along the lines of Nableezy's proposals, though I'd also prefer the original proposal to the current unclear title. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:23, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
• Per Elli, I support changing this title to either something resembling Nableezy's proposals, but barring that, the proposed title. Both "alleged" and "employees" are crucial title words for context regarding this topic. --Pinchme123 (talk) 21:43, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Support, or there could be something like Alleged UNRWA October 7 involvement. Kirill C1 (talk) 21:48, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Partial support I support changing the current title, but I think the proposed title is too long. I would shorten it to "Alleged UNRWA in the Israel-Hamas War."

The phrase "October 7" doesn't highlight the main topic--the controversy about UNRWA allegedly providing support to Hamas, including preparation for the attack and the ongoing war. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 00:36, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose, the current title isn't perfect but the proposed one makes it seem like the UNRWA itself, as an organisation is involved, which is not the case. Alaexis_¿question? 09:59, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support changing the name. I prefer nableezy’s first option "Alleged UNRWA employee involvement in the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel", with "the" removed (removal not essential, just trying to shorten). It’s long but explains the exact allegation. Although I understand BilledMammals point about vehicles etc. being used by non-UNRWA militants, it might just be me, but my reading was that the allegation was that specific UNWRA employees participated and used UNRWA vehicles etc to do so. It’s NPOV to say "Alleged" now, but if investigations support (or not) the allegations this may have to be changed in future. Second choice as per later editors is to replace "2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel" with "7 October" to shorten, but I’m not sure that the majority of potential readers know the date = the attack as well as we do. Ayenaee (talk) 10:50, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose the proposed title states that the agency was involved, whereas the accusations to data over 12 low level employees. Babakathy (talk) 15:55, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

• Support changing the name. Over 10 members of this United Nations organization were already convinced helping islamic terrorists in Israel genocide. So involvment was already proven and over time exposure of UN members support for terrorism may only grow. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 00:32, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose - The current title is more succinct and more neutral. Both things you need in a wiki article title. Save the details for the intro paragraph. Irtapil (talk) 10:39, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Also, nobody calls it the "2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel" that bizarrely long title manages to contain everything EXCEPT what it is actually called "7 October". Irtapil (talk) 10:39, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

I'd support a move of that page as well, but we should be consistent in our naming; moving that page should be discussed there, not here. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:50, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

It is now being discussed at that page and it is unlikely to be moved. Selfstudier (talk) 12:38, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose - I selected this title because I believed it was concise and neutral. The suggested title is overly lengthy, and the phrase '2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel' lacks clarity and is not commonly used outside of Wikipedia. Nevertheless, I am open to renaming the article to "Alleged UNRWA October 7 involvement", as proposed by User:BilboBeggins. ManOnTheMoon92 (talk) 11:43, 30 January 2024 (UTC)blocked sock

  '2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel' lacks clarity and is not commonly used outside of Wikipedia Since 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel is an article title, it obviously doesn't lack clarity, as a descriptive title one would not expect it to be commonly used outside WP. Selfstudier (talk) 18:21, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose - the allegation regarding October 7 is that 12 out of 13,000 UNRWA employees in Gaza went rogue, a very long way from involvement of UNRWA as such. The present title is objective. Errantios (talk) 23:52, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose Proposed title makes it sound like people are accusing UNRWA as an organisation of being involved, rather than some people who were UNRWA employees. Number 57 16:06, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
• Support "employees" variant as many have said, the proposal works if the word employees is added after UNRWA. Onceinawhile (talk) 14:46, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose as proposed. UNRWA October 7 controversy is a concise title and a better link. Ben Azura (talk) 19:38, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Support as more usefully descriptive and aligned/consistent with the consensus titles of parent content. Iskandar323 (talk) 01:05, 12 February 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.

When did Israel provide UNRWA with the allegations?

The sources appear to say that Israel provided UNRWA with this evidence, who then took action based on it on 26 January. However, it is unclear when Israel provided this evidence; an article in Israel Hayon implies that Israel provided it a while ago, but doesn't explicitly state this.

Looking elsewhere, I can't find any source that makes an explicit statement on when the evidence was provided - can anyone else been able to find one? BilledMammal (talk) 18:31, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

For months, American intelligence agencies have been aware of vague allegations that some among UNRWA’s 13,000 employees may have been working with Hamas or even potentially involved in the Oct. 7 terror attack. It was only this week, American officials said, that the United Nations and Israel shared detailed, specific intelligence with the State Department and White House, including the names of the individuals who were fired. American officials said the tough U.S. statement and action to withhold funding from the aid agency was not a result of any formal review of the Israeli intelligence by American spy agencies. There's this, still not quite what we want. Selfstudier (talk) 18:58, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

UNRWA has long denied Israel’s claims that it fuels anti-Israeli incitement in Gaza. But it took a sharply different approach to the more serious accusations, just days after Israel presented them to the agency. and this I guess. Selfstudier (talk) 19:02, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

That second source is very useful; it is vague but it starts to establish a timeline. It's also helpful with {{Three Israeli defence officials said military intelligence officers have collected an enormous trove of information after October 7, and in the past two weeks they matched it with a second cache of intelligence that solidified an assessment that the UNRWA employees had been involved in the attack}}, which gives context to the Israel Hayom source I previously added. I've added it to the article until we get a more specific source.

"This week", from the first source, is quite vague; it could be that they were provided with the information on the 26th, which would align with this Irish Times source, which says The affair began after Israel Defence Forces intelligence chief Aharon Haliva met with senior US officials and revealed information that ostensibly indicted UNRWA workers from Gaza. Hours later the Biden administration announced it was suspending its funding of UNRWA pending an investigation, and at least nine other countries took similar action.

I think we should include this information in the article, but I'm not sure where and how yet.

Regarding the second, that's also vague, but it establishes a timeline - Israel presented the information "days" before. I think we can use that in the article, pending more specific information.

Thank you, that was very helpful. BilledMammal (talk) 19:26, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

UNRWA donors have long been critical of UNRWA's ties with Hamas

For additional perspective, please consider adding the following to the article:

According to the pro-Israeli watchdog organization UN Watch, UNRWA has long been critized by donor countries for allowing its staff to openly glorify or incite to terrorism. Most of UNRWA's major donors have designated Hamas a terrorist organization and recognize only the Palestinian Authority as the legitimate representative of the Palestinian people. Under EU law, it is illegal to donate aid directly to any group listed as a terrorist organization, including Hamas, which controls all hospitals and schools within the Gaza Strip.

94.252.84.96 (talk) 12:00, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Seems more appropriate for the main UNRWA article, which I think already has material on this, we only need a wikilink here at most. Selfstudier (talk) 12:09, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

On the topic of elsewhere on Wikipedia, are we missing a 2021 Palestinian election?

It has been bugging me for ages, who should be "the legitimate representative of the Palestinian people"? The government elected in 2006 isn't a very democratic option, but the president elected in 2005 is worse? The election Hamas won in 2006 was all of Palestine and pretty decisive … did they win an election and then lose the West Bank in a minor Civil War?

Was there an election in 2021? I've stumbled upon things about the campaign, but not had time to follow it up. Where did that cover? Did it even go ahead? Even if it was aborted, it probably needs some coverage here (as in on Wiki, and linked here if it comes up).

Irtapil (talk) 10:28, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

This seems non sequitur. Selfstudier (talk) 14:17, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

References

A[n] UNRWA spokesman, etc.

UNRWA says "UNRWA, pronounced /ˈʌnrə/ UN-rə". So I guess it should be "an UNRWA spokesman". Unless people are spelling out in their heads? Moscow Mule (talk) 00:51, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Or better yet, go back to the original source and quote a human. Sources that say things like "an UNRWA spokesman" are usually not the best option, keep it if you can't find the original, but quoting a human is always better. Irtapil (talk) 10:11, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

True. But that doesn't help for cases like "a UNRWA teacher" or "a UNRWA school" (not here -- at least not at present -- but both currently found on UNRWA). Moscow Mule (talk) 22:07, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Important information to include in edit summaries for "self reverts"

I notice this is a new page in the contentious topic category, so the WP:1RR applies.

If somebody asks you to do a "self revert" to correct an alleged violation of the WP:1RR make sure you explain this clearly in this edit summary. This will make it easier to resolve any future disputes. Key info:

• say it is a self revert
• say who asked you to do it
• say which edit you are reverting (time stamp or version number)

If you use the "undo" button, leave what is there automatically and just add (for example, if I asked you to do a "self revert") "self revert requested by [[user:irtapil]]" to the start.

Irtapil (talk) 06:07, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

What is this article actually referring to?

Is this talking about links to the Al-Qassam Brigades? Or discrediting an aid body for it's unavoidable work with local authorities?

Hamas are like Sinn Fein and Al Qassam are like the IRA, very roughly, or if you want a less democratic analogy, Hamas are the Communist Party of China and Al Qassam are the People's Liberation Army.

Islamic Jihad are a bit different they are more of a pure militant group, but lumping them together with Hamas seems even weirder. The best analogy I've got for that is Hamas are Zelenskyy's Government, Al Qassam are the regular army, and Islamic Jihad's Saraya Al Quds are the Azov Battalion? (but now I need to explain Saraya Al-Quds?)

Irtapil (talk) 11:58, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM Selfstudier (talk) 12:08, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

@Selfstudier I'm talking about the wiki article.

I'm saying the article needs to be specific about who it is referring to there's a problem with it and I don't know which.

• It needs to explain that Hamas are the government of Gaza and aid agencies interacting with them is unavoidable.

OR

• It needs to be specific about the accused people being connected to the military / militant wing.

The long analogies were because whoever wrote the page seemed unlikely to understand what I meant without them? "Is this talking about links to the Al-Qassam Brigades? Or discrediting an aid body for it's unavoidable work with local authorities? Islamic Jihad are a bit different they are more of a pure militant group, but lumping them together with Hamas seems even weirder." The problem is the article conflating all three entities, so it seemed necessary to explain the difference?

Irtapil (talk) 13:06, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Edit the article if you think something is wrong. There are enough editors around this page to sort things out. Selfstudier (talk) 13:19, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

But i wasn't sure which to edit it towards? I'll try making a start on option 1 and they can provide some better sources if its option 2? Irtapil (talk) 15:16, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand second sentence? Irtapil (talk) 15:18, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Undue section

The section, Past UNRWA-Hamas Controversies, is overkill, all that is needed is a summary of past problems (plenty of sources doing that) and a link to the main UNRWA page where those are discussed properly. Selfstudier (talk) 13:29, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

I think it's important to show the issues relating to Hamas-UNRWA relationship aren't new.

The section shows the following topics which supply background relating to the matter discussed in the article:

1. UNRWA is threatened by Hamas to comply (repeated retracted statements and changes of policies)

2. UNRWA facilities are used as staging grounds for Hamas military actions (rockets, tunnels)

3. UNRWA staff is infiltrated by Hamas (unions)

4. Misuse of UNRWA supplies by Hamas

5. Previous pressure by donating states on UNRWA

And these are only the instances that I've added that made the cut, these issues sometimes go further back as the nineties (textbooks) FoodforLLMs (talk) 14:37, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Sure but you don't need a list, just some summary sources like Israel Has History of Friction With U.N. Agency for Palestinians and a wikilink back to the relevant section in the main article, otherwise it looks like cherrypicking. Selfstudier (talk) 14:40, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

No, you dont get to frame things based on what you personally think. Sources used in this article must be related to the topic of this article, see WP:SYNTH. I removed the section entirely as a synth violation. If sources related to this article bring up other issues that can be included, but you cannot just determine what you think is important, any more than I can include past instances of Israel attempting to malign UNRWA to counter that. nableezy - 15:00, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

This is a background section and adds relevant history, I believe I am not combining different sources to imply what I think important. What I do is combine different sources on the topic of "History of relations between Hamas and UNRWA". If these cast a negative light it is because the relations were problematic historically.

If you think there are sources that may cast a positive light at cooperation between Hamas and UNRWA, please add those and these may create a more neutral stance instead of reverting this outright.

I am reverting this back, let's finish discussing before doing anything drastic :) FoodforLLMs (talk) 19:13, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

WP:ONUS. Take it out and then discuss it. Selfstudier (talk) 19:19, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Sure, in your opinion, should an article about a controversy between Hamas and UNRWA include history about related controversies? Isn't that what a reader needs for background? FoodforLLMs (talk) 19:31, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

I already answered this above. Selfstudier (talk) 10:10, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Again, you may not include material that is unrelated to the topic of this article without sources directly connecting it to this article. And per WP:ONUS, the onus is on those seeking to include disputed content. Kindly self-revert and seek consensus for inclusion. nableezy - 19:20, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

I am self reverting, but can you please describe how the history of previous controversies between Hamas and UNRWA is unrelated to an article about the latest Hamas and UNRWA controversy?

How does describing a Hamas landslide victory at employee union election is unrelated to an article about Hamas members among UNRWA employees? FoodforLLMs (talk) 19:29, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

The only stuff that is relevant is the stuff that other sources call relevant. Other things that are irrelevant and cited to sources not mentioning this topic should also be removed. nableezy - 20:41, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Quick Name Change (PLO)

Under Palestine Response, the "Palestinian Liberation Organization" should be the "Palestine Liberation Organization."

A minor change, and I assume the mixup is over the difference between the P in PLO being Palestine, while the P in PA is Palestinian.ItsRainingCatsAndDogsAndMen (talk) 14:11, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Done. Selfstudier (talk) 14:14, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

US position

Although I have restored it, This diff with edit summary "..Undue [for the lead].Various perspectives exist on this matter" seems strange.

This is the material:

US officials say that funding will depend on a credible investigation and acknowledge that there is no real alternative to UNRWA. White House National Security Council spokesman John Kirby said "Let’s not impugn the good work of a whole agency because of the potential bad action here of a small number".

I would like to understand why the position of the number one donor to UNRWA is considered undue? Or what are the "various perspectives [that] exist on this matter"

References

Selfstudier (talk) 15:48, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Scahill and Stephens

Alaexis why is the Intercept piece Scahill's opinion? Bret Stephen's view has not been given any coverage that I can see, it is a personal opinion that has no weight for inclusion in an encyclopedia article. Scahill's piece is however not an opinion piece, it is an analysis from a reliable source. Not a personal opinion labeled as opinion. Kindly self-revert your edit and seek consensus for the inclusion of Stephens. nableezy - 15:26, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

What policy makes this distinction relevant? The last revert's edit summary was Rv irrelevant opinion from a non expert. Why is Jeremy Scahill an expert and Bret Stephen isn't?

In case there is no consensus to add this content (and it's not just Stephen), we shouldn't include similarly thinly sourced opinions. Scahill asserts the connection between the accusations and the ICJ proceeding without providing any evidence for it. Alaexis_¿question? 20:43, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Well because it The Intercept, not just Scahill. Bret Stephens has been a columnist and editorial writer his entire career, he is only useful for opinions. Scahill however is an investigative journalist who has published extensively on the Middle East. WP:NEWSORG lays out the difference. nableezy - 21:09, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Bret Stephen’s is a Pulitzer winning commentator with a focus on foreign affairs. The section is “Reactions - Media analysis”, which is what his column is. Drsmoo (talk) 01:49, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Pulitzer Prizes have nothing to do with any expertise on a topic, it is a personal opinion by a non expert without weight for inclusion. nableezy - 11:19, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

He has far stronger credentials as an expert than Scahill. There is no argument in which is commentary is not notable. Drsmoo (talk) 12:13, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

He has far stronger credentials as an expert than Scahill According to whom? Selfstudier (talk) 12:18, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

According to Pulitzer, The Jerusalem Post where he was editor in chief, The Wall Street Journal, and The New York Times, and his many other awards and accolades. Please substantiate your claim that his opinion is irrelevant and he’s a non-expert. Drsmoo (talk) 12:26, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

None of those say that He has far stronger credentials as an expert than Scahill, that's just your opinion. Furthermore, the comparison is Intercept/Scahill versus Stephens opinion, no contest. Selfstudier (talk) 12:29, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Stephens is more of an expert and more notable. As is The NY Times. You have not attempted to substantiate your edit summary, in which you removed a notable expert. Please substantiate your allegation, which is the root of this discussion. Drsmoo (talk) 12:52, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

He is not a "notable expert", he is an opinion writer. Selfstudier (talk) 12:55, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Please explain the actual basis for your edit summary that he’s an “irrelevant non expert”. We can also discuss on the reliable sources noticeboard. Drsmoo (talk) 13:02, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

See you there. Selfstudier (talk) 13:06, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Before then, could you TRY to substantiate your allegation? Drsmoo (talk) 13:55, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

You are aware that the Stephens material was added by a now blocked sock, I suppose? As part of an entirely POV article creation by that same editor. So anyone could have reverted it for that reason alone.

And then to make a specious argument that it is comparable to the Intercept/Scahill material, I mean, really. Selfstudier (talk) 14:01, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

No substantiation then Drsmoo (talk) 14:07, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Best sort out your own argument first. Selfstudier (talk) 14:09, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

extended discussion on the suitability of Stephens as a source and a tangent from that
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
............oh goody. I can't wait to perve on the discussion there when it gets to his beliefs about the genetic superiority of his own ethnic group . Dumb goyim beware:)Nishidani (talk) 13:10, 14 February 2024 (UTC) @Nishidani Your comment is unacceptable in multiple ways including as a BLP violation. Please strike it as soon as you see this message. Drsmoo (talk) 13:55, 14 February 2024 (UTC) "Many, including at least one fellow New York Times contributor, called for Stephens to be dismissed over the column. "Speaking as both an Ashkenazi Jew and a NYT contributor, I don’t think eugenicists should be op-ed columnists," wrote Jody Rosen." per https://www.timesofisrael.com/nyt-cuts-dubious-study-from-op-ed-seemingly-arguing-jewish-genetic-superiority/ Well, what can one say? Selfstudier (talk) 14:05, 14 February 2024 (UTC) @Nishidani Just to make sure you don't miss this message. To be specific, your comment "Dumb goyim beware" is unacceptable. This is my second and final warning for you to remove it. Drsmoo (talk) 14:40, 14 February 2024 (UTC) Was that aimed at me? Good job I have a thick skin :) Selfstudier (talk) 14:10, 14 February 2024 (UTC) That is clearly a tongue-in-cheek reference to Stephens being accused of eugenics and "claiming that Ashkenazi Jews are more intelligent than other people". Which of course would be brought up if you wanted to go to RSN to establish Mr Stephens as some sort of expert. nableezy - 14:46, 14 February 2024 (UTC) So, if I want a writer to not be cited in Wikipedia, all I have to do is wrongly accuse him of eugenicist ideas? The Guardian link (which even contains the word "seemingly" in the title) explicitly says that Stephens explicitly ascribes the success of Ashkenazi Jews to cultural reasons, not genetic ones. Please drop the red herring. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:14, 14 February 2024 (UTC) No? And who said he was wrongly accused? And if you accuse somebody of that nobody will care, nor should they, but when reliable sources do so then thats a different topic. Like, for example, the Columbia Journalism Review. And no, he did not ascribe it to cultural reasons lol, he cited a racist article advancing the idea that it was genetics that was responsible. That was later removed after the backlash to the NYT printing a piece that nakedly advanced eugenics. That isnt a red herring when somebody is pretending like Stephens is some established expert whose personal opinions should be included in an encyclopedia article. Bret Stephens is not an expert in anything besides having an opinion, and as such he should not be cited unless some reliable source gives his opinion weight. None of that is a red herring, and you can drop the self-righteous tone. nableezy - 15:26, 14 February 2024 (UTC) he cited a racist article Well, you linked to an article that cited that article. If your logic were valid, the author of that article would be a eugenicist for citing it, and you would be a eugenicist yourself for linking that one. This whole eugenics nonsense is still a red herring. It has nothing to do with reliability. I am out of this Talk page, it is too unreasonable and toxic. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:50, 15 February 2024 (UTC) Except they aren’t citing the article? Nor am I? They are showing that Stephens promoted that racist article by uncritically citing it and agreeing with its conclusions. nableezy - 16:53, 15 February 2024 (UTC) @NishidaniDid Bret Stephen’s use the phrase “Dumb goyim”? Or were you pretending to be him when you wrote it? Or pretending to be someone else? The phrase is frequently seen on antisemitic hate sites, and was in Mein Kampf, so it is disgusting to see it posted on Wikipedia. Drsmoo (talk) 16:57, 14 February 2024 (UTC) He did not put that in quotes. If you want to report something I will be pointing to this comment as a blatant personal attack comparing an editors comment to Mein Kampf and implying antisemitism (oh and its also used by people such as Michael Rapaport, supposed champion for Israel, on social media, eg here, unironically). Please stop abusing the purpose of this talk page. Thanks in advance. nableezy - 16:59, 14 February 2024 (UTC) Good job finding a guy on Twitter amongst all the hate sites. I’m not implying anything. Nishidani used an antisemitic phrase. Drsmoo (talk) 17:08, 14 February 2024 (UTC) Feel free to report it but watch out for the boomerang as I will certainly be raising your outright personal attacks. This is an article talk page meant for discussing the article, and your personalization of a dispute is disruptive to that purpose. nableezy - 17:10, 14 February 2024 (UTC) Uh? Explain me how that works please? Selfstudier (talk) 17:11, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

We dont cite any opinion pieces for their personal views here, and I see no reason has been given as to why this individual opinion that nobody seems to care about to discuss in an actual reliable source so as to give it some weight should be the one we use. Nobody is disputing that Stephens is reliable for his own opinion, so Idk why you would go to RSN unless you are trying to establish that Stephens is a subject matter expert, and if you want to do that feel free. But this is an issue of weight, and Stephens' opinion has none. nableezy - 14:34, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Seconded. starship.paint (RUN) 15:25, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

New RM

I like 2023-2024 UNRWA controversy or similar, any other ideas? Selfstudier (talk) 15:32, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Still prefer "Alleged UNRWA employee involvement in the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel". Makes the title far more clear about what the controversy actually is while remaining neutral. Elli (talk | contribs) 16:52, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

I like that too, just trying to address the closer comment re conciseness. Selfstudier (talk) 16:56, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Don't think conciseness was actually the main sticking point; much of the opposition in the previous discussion was over the proposed title implying that UNRWA itself was involved with the attack (and the alternative proposals weren't addressed by many !voters). Elli (talk | contribs) 17:43, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I think conciseness is the main point raised in the RM discussion that it's possible to overcome. Since it's part of WP:CRITERIA, it's possibly going to be a more persuasive point as well. FOARP (talk) 22:43, 14 February 2024

I agree with Elli. The present title "UNRWA October 7 controversy" is concise, precisely informative and objective. Let's leave it. Errantios (talk) 23:37, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

That's not what I proposed doing? Elli (talk | contribs) 23:38, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

I also agree with Elli, let's keep the current title as is. Just kidding, that's not what Elli said.

What about the facilities/equipment aspect of this allegation? It's not just employees? Levivich (talk) 03:26, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

This article seems to mostly be scoped around the alleged employee participation in the attacks -- so I'd rather keep this focused on that, and rename accordingly, and then maybe cover the allegations of the agency having supported Hamas more generally at an institutional level somewhere else instead of conflating them. Not an expert in the reporting/sourcing/allegations though so I don't have a very strong opinion; I just do not like the current title as it is not descriptive/clear enough. Elli (talk | contribs) 03:53, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Hum, well we can do an RM with a choice I guess, between the short and long versions. Selfstudier (talk) 13:42, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't particularly like the "UNRWA controversy" wording (not just the current month-day order), as objectively speaking UNRWA has never been particularly controversial, however hardly anything better comes to mind. 2023–2024 allegations against UNRWA?

Also, I'm mindful that in a couple of years, the whole 2023 funding epizode will appear as a relatively minor, historical detail in the organisation's profile, and editors will probably decide to merge it into the main UNRWA article. — kashmīrī ^TALK 14:37, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm in the same boat, I don't really like either the current title or the proposed longer versions, but I think my problem is that I have a hard time wrapping my mind around "allegations against certain unrwa employees" as being a notable topic of a stand alone article. I think UNRWA has been controversial for some time in the eyes of Israel. In my head the topic is called "Israel and UNRWA" and these latest allegations are just that: the latest allegations. (Which may or may not be true, I have no idea.) Levivich (talk) 15:55, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

In the UNRWA article, there is a subsection "Alleged staff participation in the Hamas-led attack on Israel" and showing this article as a spinout. The broader theme in the UNRWA article is "Relations with Israel" which would be your "Israel and UNRWA". Selfstudier (talk) 16:26, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

UNRWA has been controversial for some time in the eyes of Israel I think UNRWA has rather been a thorn in the eye for Israel. Let's remember that Israel's overarching policy goal is to unite all of "Israelite" land[3], and the living conditions imposed on Gaza were aimed at forcing the Palestinian population to leave; as is the ongoing invasion, just in a more brutal way (Egypt has to-date refused to give shelter to Palestinians en masse, and the planned onslaught on Rafah is aimed at forcing it to change its stance). UNRWA working hard to improve the living conditions in Gaza, with the support and money of the international community, has long been a pain in the neck – but IMO not "controversial" in the slightest. — kashmīrī ^TALK 17:35, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Extra UNRWA donations

Spain, Portugal and Ireland have all pledged to fund an extra €3.5m, €1m and €20m respectively to the UNRWA in response to massive cuts from other countries. Should it be in the article? Lough Swilly (talk) 09:39, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

References

Done. Errantios (talk) 22:56, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 18 February 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. (closed by non-admin page mover) – Hilst [talk] 00:17, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

---

UNRWA October 7 controversy → Israel and UNRWA – Per #UNRWA discussion above and if this RM achieves consensus, merge UNRWA#Relations with Israel and UNRWA#Alleged staff participation in the Hamas-led attack on Israel to here. Selfstudier (talk) 13:39, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

• It seems clear from the latest RS, Israel is trying to undo UNRWA, but few options remain for Gaza aid and UNRWA chief says Israel waging campaign to ‘destroy’ Palestinian refugee aid agency, for example, that this not just about alleged staff involvement in the Hamas attack but a more broadly based issue. Selfstudier (talk) 13:44, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Support: Recent events clearly form part of a long-running concerted effort to throw mud at UNRWA in the hope that some of it will stick. The coverage of the same has unearthed much of this topic, which appears to go back years. In light of this, a fullsome article on this relationship –up to and including recent events – only makes sense. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:04, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Oppose (present in UNRWA article): This is covered in the article UNRWA, specifically in the section (UNRWA) Relations with Israel. There is a lot of content there. It could be added to. Now, that content could be spun off into a separate article, but then it wouldn't be there together with other important information such as the definition of UNRWA, mandate (and Israel's criticism about it), the relationship with the Palestinian Authority and Hamas. I do think a separate article about the October 7 allegations is warranted due to the level of detail the article goes into, which is far too deep for an article (or section in the main UNRWA article) that covers the whole relationship between Israel and UNRWA. As you point out, this is a story that spans 3/4 of a century. Keizers (talk) 14:59, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Oppose, agreeing with Keizers. Errantios (talk) 21:45, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Oppose. This article is about the alleged involvement of UNRWA employees in the October 7 attack and in Hamas activities in general, so the proposed name is not an improvement. Alaexis_¿question? 21:48, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Oppose: Article deals with a specific controversy involving UNRWA, not other issues related to Israel or the conflict before the current war. –BanyanClimber(talk) 22:16, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose: per above, this is above a specific notable event not a general article about the relationship.  // Timothy :: talk  22:22, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
• Comment Lots of opposition but very little in the way of constructive alternatives following the inconclusive RM. Will we need another after this? Selfstudier (talk) 23:27, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose: proposed merge destination is both vague and redundant Tdmurlock (talk) 23:39, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Support as the title of an actually notable topic, whereas having an article entirely about these allegations against a dozen employees or so is, in my view, WP:RECENTISM/NOTNEWS (and I'm inclined to AfD it). Levivich (talk) 00:02, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Support: While initially I intended to oppose and already typed a lengthy justification, my second thought has been that such a fundamental restructuring might actually be very helpful. First, we will be getting rid of the appearance of bias linked to singling out only one most recent event from the long history of Israel–UNRWA relations. Then, splitting the article off would remove space constraints currently in the UNRWA article and allow to develop the topic as sources permit. Thirdly, and very importantly, the proposed title is absolutely neutral, impartial, and POV-free, which will let us have a stable article; even as I'd like to propose a competing title as more search friendly: Relations between Israel and UNRWA. — kashmīrī ^TALK 03:53, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

• Support this as a re-scoping, though I'd prefer to also have an article on the October 7 allegations-- if we're only going to have one article, it should be on the overall relationship. Elli (talk | contribs) 06:49, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose: per above. This article is about a specific event, the involvement of UNRWA employees in the 7 October attack, and not about the relationship between UNRWA and Israel. This is a notable event that led many countries to stop their financial support to UNRWA and led to a UN investigation of the matter. GidiD (talk) 07:55, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose: Does not describe the article. Coretheapple (talk) 17:31, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose, agreeing with Keizers, as above, etc, does not describe the article. Drsruli (talk) 20:55, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

• Comment. The current title is poor because the page is not about October 7, but UNRWA as an organization in general. The accusations, investigations and consequences are not limited by the events on October 7. The new/suggested title is not ideal, but might be an improvement as UNRWA and Israel - in this order because it is primarily about UNRWA. Still, the suggested title is also debatable. Yet another title might be along the lines of UNRWA-Hamas relations. No doubts they had a lot of relations before the war as a part of their everyday business. But that would increase the scope of the page and frankly just be a different page. Not sure. My very best wishes (talk) 17:27, 23 February 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.

US intel assessment

U.S. Finds Some Israeli Claims on U.N. Staff Likely, Others Not

US intelligence has ‘low confidence’ in some of Israel’s UNRWA claims, report says

US finds some Israeli claims on UNRWA-Hamas links unlikely

Of interest, in the WSJ "There is a specific section that mentions how Israeli bias serves to mischaracterize much of their assessments on Unrwa and says this has resulted in distortions," one person familiar with the report said.

Also the contradiction with Blinken's "highly, highly credible" and that "The Office of the Director of National Intelligence—which includes the National Intelligence Council—the State Department and the White House declined to comment." Selfstudier (talk) 17:24, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Section on article neutrality

I deleted a section which had a header indicating that it was about doubts regarding the neutrality of the WSJ article, for multiple reasons. One is that it had zero mention of anyone expressing doubts about the neutrality of the WSJ article, nor did it have any mention of the topic of the page, the UNRWA October 7 controversy. Beyond that, without even raising the question of whether "Literary Hub", which describes itself as "\a site readers can rely on for smart, engaged, entertaining writing about all things books", is an RS for the material being covered, some of the material using it as reference is not stated in Lit Hub's voice nor the essayists voice but are claims he attributes to third parties. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:18, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

I trimmed the entire "Wall Street Journal" section, which was overlong with regard to the allegations and the criticism, in my opinion. Also I don't think we need the names of the journalists who wrote it, as they are not especially notable. One has an article about her but its fate is dubious. Coretheapple (talk) 23:34, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

I also tried to make a section header more neutral, but the section itself is of excessive length, such as to suggest a possible WP:COPYVIO issue. This article really needs to be tagged and examined top to bottom for neutrality. Coretheapple (talk) 00:07, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

@Coretheapple I don't think that removing the names of WSJ article authors is helpful. Primo, it wasn't "WSJ reporting" but two journalists writing for WSJ under own names. Secundo, the gist of the controversy was specifically around one of the named authors. Besides, Al Jazeera did not really dispute the WSJ account but questioned authors' credibility. The section needs further work IMO. — kashmīrī ^TALK 01:26, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

It was WSJ reporting, just as the section above is New York Times teporting. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 02:32, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Use of self-published source

Keizers has attempted to restore the inclusion of a photo in the article, and has added content using a self-published source as justification. As this material concerns the living persons pictured in the photo, this is not allowable under WP:BLPSPS. I have used my revert for the day; I ask that others review this inclusion. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 19:24, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Interviews are normally an acceptable source. The photo is simply UNDUE in this article. — kashmīrī ^TALK 19:56, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

I was talking about the use of an X/Twitter from someone behind the Intercept. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:01, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

@Kashmiri: that's your assumption or conclusion, please see the new section I added explaining why the relationship (and this particular article) is actually quite notable and widely covered: a close friend and business partner of the woman who created social media for the IDF, who seems to have emigrated to Israel and served in the IDF as well, suddenly appears as a correspondent for the WSJ, publishes basically exactly what the Israeli state provided, not even identifying it as from the Israeli state until the 4th paragraph, and as part of the headline states the "10% of UNRWA has ties to terrorist groups" not once defining or question what defines such a "tie". The obfuscation of the source, the near verbatim repetition of the accusations, the lack of any kind of questioning or fact-checking. And this, this triggered the near immediate removal of nearly half a billion dollars worth of funding from UNRWA, the agency that coordinates the distribution of most aid in Gaza, at a time when 2+million people there are suffering severe lack of clean water and food. Keizers (talk) 06:00, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

@NatGertler: I would encourage you to look at policies in more detail.

WP:BLPSPS states that self-published sources should not be used for material about the person in question. In this case the SPS was used to establish something that happened on the Internet, i.e. that the photo was widely circulated'. look at WP:USESPS and you will see that "Acceptable use of self-published works" includes when the "author is an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications". Scahill is a founding journalist from The Intercept, a reliable source, covering Israel's wars in Gaza there. He is absolutely an RS that the photo was widely circulated'. I think we need to talk about this whole topic in general so I will start another section.Keizers (talk) 06:00, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Notability of Keller-Lynn's authorship of the WSJ article, her relation with Landes, and removal of iTrek photo

Quite a few people seem to think it odd that I added information about these topics to this article and have tried to revert removal of it, giving reasons why. And some of the reasons given have appeared to me to be "finding excuses to remove the information" based on attempts to apply Wikipedia policies beyond their scope. So let's talk about it here.

The topic of the article's authorship being problematic has been widely covered: Al Jazeera, TRT World, Middle East Eye, Mondoweiss, Forum (Brazil). Some of those sources require attribution because they may be considered biased in some cases, but there is no rules against not using them, as WP:CONTEXTMATTERS.

Now, why is this topic actually important as opposed to being some attempted random hit job on a journalist in Israel?

• The author is a very close friend and business partner, i.e. co-producer of two series of podcasts, with Aliza Landes, the woman who pretty much created social media for the IDF
• The author suddenly appears as a correspondent for the WSJ
• The article itself basically is written in the voice of the Israeli state:
  • The headline: "Intelligence Reveals Details of U.N. Agency Staff’s Links to Oct. 7 Attack", the verb "reveals" is a word that is used for facts. She chose not to use a word like "asserts", or "claims". She did not include the word "alleged".
  • Under the headline: "Around 10% of Palestinian aid agency’s 12,000 staff in Gaza have links to militants, according to intelligence dossier". So here is an accusation that 10% of staff, 1,200 people have "links to militants" but the definition of links is not mentioned, the author does not say she tried to find out what it meant, nothing. Yet, the assertion is apparently important enough to come right under the headline in the Journal!!.
  • Only at the end of the fourth paragraph is it acknowledged that the intelligence dossier came from the Israeli State. To me, this is clear obfuscation of the srouce. When would a newspaper ever normally publish the key findings of "an" intelligence dossier and only halfway through happen to mention that it came from a foreign country?
  • A whole section in paragraphs 2 & 3 states lengthy accusations by the Israeli State as facts in the "voice" of the Journal: "Two helped kidnap Israelis. Two others were tracked to sites where scores of Israeli civilians were shot and killed. Others coordinated logistics for the assault, including procuring weapons. Of the 12 Unrwa employees with links to the attacks, seven were primary or secondary school teachers, including two math teachers, two Arabic language teachers and one primary school teacher."
  • Nowhere in the article is there any questioning about how valid the information might be since it comes from the Israeli State, for obvious reasons since Israel is conducting a war in Gaza, but also because a simple fact is (whatever side you're on) UNRWA is a pain to Israel because its presence reflects the status of all Palestinians in Gaza as refugees, which also means that the right of return to their properties that in Israel's view, it definitively confiscated from them in 1948, is theoretically still an open issue.

No matter what side one empathizes with, it's quite obvious that the article is seriously flawed and basically channels the Israeli state. The obfuscation of the source, the near verbatim repetition of the accusations, the lack of any kind of questioning or fact-checking.

Yet, the article precipitated the near immediate freezing of nearly half a billion dollars worth of funding from UNRWA, the agency that coordinates the distribution of most aid in Gaza, at a time when 2+ million people there are suffering severe lack of clean water and food. The planet's highest court agreed that it was plausible that people in Gaza could be in danger of acts of genocide due to those factors, amongst others.

So yes, this controversy really was about something weighty which may show undue influence of a foreign government to speak through our media of record, as well as the unreliability (in such cases) of our most trusted sources, its about a half a billion dollars, the possible downfall of a UN agency, and a possible major deterioration in the lives of Palestinians.

The third part of the story is the story of how people started realizing what was going on. It started with Twitter posts of people who found the picture of Keller-Lynn and Landes on iTrek. The circulation of the photo itself was widespread and clearly an important factor in the problem becoming well known and then covered widely by the large media with global reach I described above.Keizers (talk) 06:00, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

That's a lot of talk to support the inclusion of something which is not a statement nor demonstration that the article was inaccurate, and you've been blowing off sourcing requirements to try to support it. Despite what you said in the above section, yes, WP:BLPSPS applies. The statement "a photo of the person was widely circulated" is not actually different from "the person was in a photo that was widely circulated", they say the same thing and are both statements about a person who still appears to be living, so yes, WP:BLPSPS applies. Even if that were not the case, WP:SPS would apply, and your explanation above (Scahill is a founding journalist from The Intercept, a reliable source, covering Israel's wars in Gaza there. He is absolutely an RS that the photo was widely circulated'.) fails heavily, because even if we accept the source as an expert on wars in Gaza, the picture is not a war in Gaza, It's not even a picture of the war in Gaza. It is not a relevant expertise. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 06:55, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

No need to be condescending ("that's a lot of talk") - it is apparent that some people commenting did not understand why the topic was notable and I like to be complete, no WP policy against that. In any case, you refer to BLP, I am talking about including the information in *this* article, not the article which is a bio of her which seems like it will be deleted. *This* article is not a bio. It is about the UNRWA controversy. And stating that a person was in a certain photo, is clearly a simple fact (should I add all the sources that published the photo?) Secondly as for the statement the photo was widely circulated, you seem to be pushing against Scahill as an expert on this specific topic, sorry but why not? He doesn't just cover actual bombing, he also covers [4] background to the war including communications aspects, PR/propaganda campaigns, etc.Keizers (talk) 14:26, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

The BLP rules do not only apply to articles on living individuals. WP:BLP starts "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page" and WP:BLPSPS starts "Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and social network posts—as sources of material about a living person"... so it's the "information", the "material" that matters, and not what article it's appearing in. We do not need a "why not" for a person to be an expert, we need a "why", and the fact that he as articles about war and such in a newspaper that he is an editor of does not make him an expert on the topic of the internet circulation of photographs, so again, even if the BLP matter was not relevant (it is), the SPS matter kills that reference.

As for "a lot of talk", yes, your message has a lot of pointless filler. "The author suddenly appears as a correspondent for the WSJ" -- in what way would that happen that is not "sudden"? She was a correspondent on similar topics for another source, she apparently switched employers. To the degree that one can fade in, she did, as many of her stories she's been just co-author of, including the one at hand, despite your attempts to paint it otherwise. "The headline [...] She did not include the word "alleged"." A work with co-authors and you assume she wrote the headline? Odds are neither of the listed authors did; headlines are generally written by the editing staff. "To me, this is clear obfuscation of the srouce." ... which would be relevant if we were doing an article on your opinion of the matter. And so on. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:12, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Keller-Lynn's authorship of a contentious matter deserves an airing of some sort, I don't actually care that much about the photo, I would prefer sourced text myself. If the point of the photo is that she was an IDF reservist and the other is her friend, then text to that effect may be warranted if appropriately sourced. Selfstudier (talk) 10:10, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

The AJ photos of KL are at 7:33 on, https://www.aljazeera.com/program/the-listening-post/2024/2/3/israel-vs-unrwa-deflection-and-deception Selfstudier (talk) 16:22, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Synthesis

The Wall Street Journal section currently has Landes launched IDF's social media presence in 2008. One photo was from an iTrek interview where the two women are hugging, and in which interview Keller-Lynn expounded on her close friendship with Landes, their co-production of a podcast series, and in which Keller-Lynn said Landes was her "best publicist".

References

This uses as the main source for the statements two source that predate the topic of this article, and we should not be basing statements directly on them for WP:OR reasons, nor trying to suggest things about the current situation for WP:SYNTH reasons. (They would make acceptable second references for statements about those particular items sourced to material directly about the subject of this article.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 17:25, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

I added the Al-Jazeera report as a source to substantiate that it showed the photo, one of which clearly showed "iTrek", and the other, the women hugging. I disagree with you that we cannot clearly explain simple fact about who Landes is beyond "army spokesperson". I added a source which supports her having produced a podcast with Keller-Lynn. If you want to go ahead and remove other statements from the iTrek interview that "Landes was her best publicist" or expounding on their close friendship, I mean, go ahead and do so.

I reject your insinuation of WP:SYNTH in this case. I am simply giving airtime to the controversy (after we give 5x as much airtime to Israeli accusations). I did not add anything that would "accuse" Keller-Lynn or "imply" any malfeasance beyond the juncture of facts which is, in and of itself the controversy that RS have reported:

The controversy IS:

• that Keller-Lynn was a new contributor to the Journal
• the article was obviously not balanced/fact-checked not even questioning what the word "links" meant and often times spoke in the voice of the Israeli State,
• that that same new author is both ex-IDF (potential conflict on interest) and is best friends and ex business partner with the founder of IDF social media.

Please indicate what substantial thing I "synthed" here and I will remove it.Keizers (talk) 22:14, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

I disagree with you that we cannot clearly explain simple fact about who Landes is beyond "army spokesperson". You disagree with a statement that you made up for me? I cannot say that that has much impact on me.

When one uses a source that says "Bob was friends with Mary" and a different source not discussing Bob that says "Mary invented the upside-down boilermaker" to create the point that "Bob became friends with the person who invented the u-db", then one is synthesizing a point that one is not finding in sources. When you are using a source that is not referring to the issue of the page (cannot, in this case, as they predate the subject of this article), then you are inventing the relevance of that yourself. Getting by that is not hard -- just find a relevant reliable source citing the information and you can cite that and include the source they are citing as a second source.

As for your list of "the controversy is", at least the first two items sound more like your concerns than the concerns you've been sourcing. We are not here to document what seems obvious to you, and I doubt you have actual internal knowledge of what the WSJ article looked like when submitted and what processes it went through. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 01:06, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

...and now I see that you've added sources that don't necessarily support the statements. I don't see anything in the Lit Hub source quoting the "best publicist" line... and then there's the problem that LitHub, being a site readers can rely on for smart, engaged, entertaining writing about all things books, is of dubious reliability for this topic, which is not about anything books. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 01:17, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

@Keizers: Look, there is no need to do it this way, use the AJ video I linked above instead of the prior sources, I haven't looked into this in depth but I am fairly sure that there is sufficient material available to say what you want without using old sources. Selfstudier (talk) 17:37, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the link to the original Al-Jazeera post.Keizers (talk) 22:14, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

TRT World

A recent edit added material from TRT World regarding the Journal article. Per WP:RSP, TRT World is "not reliable for subjects with which the Turkish government could be construed to have a conflict of interest". The Turkish government is a staunch supporter of Hamas. This paragraph should be removed, barring a reliable third party covering TRT World's reaction (in which case we would need to adjust it based on that third party.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 17:54, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

That's a bit of a reach, I think they are OK with attribution for UNRWA related material not directly related to Hamas. Selfstudier (talk) 18:05, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

The cited material is about Israel's treatment of Hamas and about a dossier on UNRWA's links to Hamas. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 18:46, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

I removed the unnecessary reference to Hamas in the article so that the material attributed to TRT only relates to UNRWA and Israel. Selfstudier (talk) 18:53, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

The Turkish government holds that Israel is a war criminal. Really, anything in this area should be outside the use of TRT World. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 19:03, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

So then we cant use any Israeli source for anything about Hamas? nableezy - 19:04, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

We should be avoiding sourcing solely from Israeli government documents for statement about Hamas. We should instead be citing reliable news sources which are apt to give context and select for us what is due for coverage, and have the government source as a second source. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 21:55, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

That has nothing to do with the material in the article. Selfstudier (talk) 19:17, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Selfstudier, Selfstudier, material from the Israeli government has nothing to do with material in the article? I believe there are entire sections where I have personally summarized the accusations in the Israeli intelligence dossierKeizers (talk) 21:36, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

I am responding to Nat Gertler. Selfstudier (talk) 23:10, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Quite a few RS colored green on WP:RSP still have disclaimers that under certain conditions, they may be biased - these include such trusted sources as The Guardian and the ADL (cough cough). Unfortunately there are not clear guidelines to follow in these cases, but I do see repeated suggestions to (simply) attribute the content to the source explicity in the text (in addition to the <ref> of course). That it what I did. Keizers (talk) 21:36, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

"Biased" is different from "not reliable", in Wikipedia context. See WP:BIASED. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 21:58, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Since WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, could you clarify what points about the TRT response are unreliable? The points being supported are about what TRT's reaction to the Journal article was. Obviously they are a RS for what their reaction was. I know your reply will be "but that's original research!" Well, the reactions of Sky News and Financial Times are also supported by Sky News and Financial Times as the sources, why did you not address that? I seem to remember a phrase - oh yes: "original research - we bend the rule - except when the source - is Istanbul". If you remove the TRT points, then please be consistent and remove the parts about the UK media supported by OR. Personally I find it quite pedantic, but that's just my opinion.Keizers (talk) 22:46, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

They are not an RS for their reaction being WP:DUE. That's what having a reliable third-party source would provide. I do not believe that unreliable sources should be treated the same as reliable ones. If you are disturbed by dealing with folks who want sourcing and other policies to be followed, then you may want to find areas of editing that aren't contentious topics or biographies of living persons. -- Nat Gertler (talk) Nat Gertler (talk) 00:37, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

TRT World is a regime's propaganda arm. That is not true for any of the papers you are using for whataboutism. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:09, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

@Hob Gadling: Insane Astonishing that you call it a "regime". I'm not a fan of Erdogan because he manipulates Twitter and the media, but the elections are free (Google it). Everyone within the territory that Turkey controls is (or can become) a citizen. 100%. And vote, and have the same civil rights. So, that's a "regime". Compare that to a certain "democracy" where - now get this Hob - really, you're not going to believe this - only 66% of the people in the territory under its control are citizens. (By "control" I mean borders, freedom of movement for people and goods, control of the water and population register, etc.) They officially annexed half of their capital city 57 years ago, and people in that half can virtually never obtain citizenship, even when they're born there, and their parent's parents going back thousands of years. The real (unofficial) reason is - that they are not members of the national religion. And 33% of the people - whose DNA also goes back at least 10,000 years in that territory - live in another area - a sort of collection of 227 Indian reservations - land under the country's control for 57 years, and they can NEVER get citizenship, and if they want to move between the 227 parts of the reservation, they have to ask the government for permission! They are under martial law, the army can occupy their houses, grab their kids and torture them without charge, and right now the country is starving and denying water to about half of them on the biggest reservation, forcing them into a concentration camp-type situation where they live in tents. Would you call that an apartheid regime or a democracy? Asking for a friend, Hob.Keizers (talk) 21:41, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Going after folks on the basis of your assumptions of what they believe and will say is not actually a productive strategy. I recommend you reconsider that post, and strike it through if you then deem that appropriate. (Certainly suggesting that it is "insane" that someone used a term that can be found in many common sources is inappropriate.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 22:03, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Done.Keizers (talk) 18:56, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

About your first sentence: Read regime and insanity. About the rest: Read WP:NOTFORUM. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:46, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Point taken Keizers (talk) 18:56, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Reliable Sources Noticeboard discussion

I have raised issues regarding this page at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Sources_regarding_UNRWA_October_7_controversy -- Nat Gertler (talk) 22:07, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Edit request

Please modify the second paragraph in the introduction, replacing “According to Israel, between 4 to 12…”

to: “According to Israel, at least 42…”

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/ 77.137.77.101 (talk) 14:15, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Typo

In the footage section, there is an issue, where "put a body of aמ Israeli into" is used (instead of an). I suppose it's just someone who pressed the wrong modifier key.

Could someone with the right permission correct this? Marius851000 (talk) 12:40, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Done. Selfstudier (talk) 19:02, 11 March 2024 (UTC)