Misplaced Pages

Talk:UNRWA and Israel: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 09:34, 12 August 2024 editMakeandtoss (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, IP block exemptions31,209 edits →Requested move 7 August 2024← Previous edit Revision as of 17:21, 12 August 2024 edit undoUnspokenPassion (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users832 edits →Requested move 7 August 2024: ReplyTag: ReplyNext edit →
Line 128: Line 128:
:'''Weak Support'''... also "Relations between Israel and UNRWA" also seems useful and descriptive ] (]) 20:38, 9 August 2024 (UTC) :'''Weak Support'''... also "Relations between Israel and UNRWA" also seems useful and descriptive ] (]) 20:38, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
:'''Support''' - "UNRWA and Israel" or "Israel–UNRWA relations"; either title is fine; this scope seems more encyclopedic. Why focus on the specific instance of these particular allegations (current scope) when we are missing the parent article that discusses the broader relations and history between the two entities. "Write the parent first," I'd say. ] (]) 17:17, 11 August 2024 (UTC) :'''Support''' - "UNRWA and Israel" or "Israel–UNRWA relations"; either title is fine; this scope seems more encyclopedic. Why focus on the specific instance of these particular allegations (current scope) when we are missing the parent article that discusses the broader relations and history between the two entities. "Write the parent first," I'd say. ] (]) 17:17, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
:'''Oppose'''. The article has a clear focus and scope, and I don't see a strong reason to change it. ] (]) 17:21, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Revision as of 17:21, 12 August 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the UNRWA and Israel article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 30 days 
This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconIsrael Palestine Collaboration
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of the WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration, a collaborative, bipartisan effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. For guidelines and a participants list see the project page. See also {{Palestine-Israel enforcement}}, the ArbCom-authorized discretionary sanctions, the log of blocks and bans, and Working group on ethnic and cultural edit wars. You can discuss the project at its talk page.Israel Palestine CollaborationWikipedia:WikiProject Israel Palestine CollaborationTemplate:WikiProject Israel Palestine CollaborationIsrael Palestine Collaboration
WikiProject iconPolitics Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconSociology Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconIsrael
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Project Israel To Do:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
WikiProject iconPalestine Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Misplaced Pages. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconInternational relations: United Nations Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject United Nations.
Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. Parts of this article relate to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing the parts of the page related to the contentious topic:

  • You must be logged-in to an extended confirmed account (granted automatically to accounts with 500 edits and an age of 30 days)
  • You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on this article (except in limited circumstances)

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

If it is unclear which parts of the page are related to this contentious topic, the content in question should be marked within the wiki text by an invisible comment. If no comment is present, please ask an administrator for assistance. If in doubt it is better to assume that the content is covered.

This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.

Discussions:

Text and/or other creative content from this version of UNRWA October 7 controversy was copied or moved into Wall Street Journal UNRWA article controversy on 7 March 2024. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.
Archiving icon
Archives

1, 2, 3


This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

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

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  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, 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 Misplaced Pages shouldn't write about them. — kashmīrī  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

This leaves the US as the only country in the world keeping the suspension in place. — kashmīrī  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 /C\ 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 /C\ 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" 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 /C\ 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)
UNRWA employees ==!== UNRWA. Only half of one of Israel's allegations were proven, which doesn't change anything. Makeandtoss (talk) 08:54, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
They weren't actually "proven", all the RS say "may". See comment below. Selfstudier (talk) 09:51, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
I will support this title PeleYoetz (talk) 07:29, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
The current title is the result of a move from UNRWA October 7 controversy back in March, as relative newcomers to the page, perhaps you are not aware of that. The matter is now concluded with the vast majority of evidence free allegations by Israel dismissed for lack of evidence. Only the original 9 members that were dismissed already back in February are confirmed as dismissed and their guilt is not absolutely confirmed, only "may". Therefore the Israeli allegations turned out to be of little consequence after everything and all donors have restored their funding with the exception of the USA. Selfstudier (talk) 09:18, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 7 August 2024

The request to rename this article to UNRWA and Israel has been carried out.
If the page title has consensus, be sure to close this discussion using {{subst:RM top|'''page moved'''.}} and {{subst:RM bottom}} and remove the {{Requested move/dated|…}} tag, or replace it with the {{subst:Requested move/end|…}} tag.

Israeli allegations against UNRWA → UNRWA and Israel – This request follows previous lengthy discussions and a rough consensus as to whether there should be a separate page covering the relationship between Israel and UNRWA. This entails a spin out of relevant material from the main UNRWA article, already in hand, to be added to this article. The change in scope is simply that all of Israel relations with UNRWA, which take up much unnecessary space at the main page, will be covered here rather than merely the recently concluded spat. Selfstudier (talk) 08:56, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Strong support to UNRWA and Israel to keep scope as broad as possible, and strong oppose to Israel-UNRWA relations which imply equal footing. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:44, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
@Makeandtoss, so you must hate this title ;) — kashmīrī  11:48, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
I don’t feel strongly about that title but in that case seems a situation of diplomatic relations: “Though it possesses no territory, the order is often considered a sovereign entity under international law.” Something that could not be said about UNRWA, a UN organization. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:51, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Relations/relationship between UNRWA and Israel: . Undoubtedly an encyclopaedic topic. — kashmīrī  14:55, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Besides, UN agencies (as well as country head) are normally extended diplomatic protocol, including diplomatic immunity for staff (usually country heads) and premises (country HQs), diplomatic accreditation for staff, etc. This is all regulated in UN documents. I see nothing improper with an analysis of the relationship between a UN agency and its host country. — kashmīrī  14:59, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
The main argument is to avoid giving UNRWA and Israel equal footing with the phrasing of "relations." One is a UN organization, the other is a state. Of course relations is a normal word that can be found in RS to describe the interactions and history between the two, but to avoid the connotation of equivalency "Israel and UNRWA" is a much more appropriate choice. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:33, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
Strong oppose since this article is about a very specific topic - the involvement of UNRWA employees in Hamas' October 7 attacks on Israel. I don't see any reason to change the scope. I'd support the move to UNRWA involvement in the October 7 attacks as suggested above, or even better due to recent confirmation, something like the old name, maybe UNRWA October 7 controversy HaOfa (talk) 14:34, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
the involvement of UNRWA employees in Hamas' October 7 attacks on Israel False. It includes the Colonna inquiry for example, a separate inquiry set up by the UNRWA secretary general. Selfstudier (talk) 14:51, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
I asked at your talk page but you said I should ask here instead, what is it that brings you and PeleYoetz, suddenly to this article, never having edited the article previously or participated in any talk page discussions? Selfstudier (talk) 14:55, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
It's in the news all over in Israel. Any more questions? You don't sound like you're assuming good faith HaOfa (talk) 15:29, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
It seems a reasonable question to ask, and you have not really answered it, perhaps PeleYoetz can shed some light? Selfstudier (talk) 15:50, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Weak Support... also "Relations between Israel and UNRWA" also seems useful and descriptive Bluethricecreamman (talk) 20:38, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
Support - "UNRWA and Israel" or "Israel–UNRWA relations"; either title is fine; this scope seems more encyclopedic. Why focus on the specific instance of these particular allegations (current scope) when we are missing the parent article that discusses the broader relations and history between the two entities. "Write the parent first," I'd say. Levivich (talk) 17:17, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Oppose. The article has a clear focus and scope, and I don't see a strong reason to change it. UnspokenPassion (talk) 17:21, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
Categories: