The UN agency Unrwa’s commissioner general, Philippe Lazzarini, has told the Financial Times that Israel has yet to present any evidence to it over its accusations that around a dozen Unrwa staff had been involved in the 7 October attacks against Israel.
The allegations, made last month, resulted in a number of countries halting funding to the organisation Lazzarini said that he is still taking the allegations seriously and that an investigation is ongoing.
The Financial Times also stated that it had seen the intelligence assessment which provided no evidence for the claims, which include an accusation that a staff member kidnapped a woman.
Good fabrications take time.
They’ve supposedly shown the evidence to NYT and Sky News already which published headline articles with it.
The Financial Times was now also allowed to see it but they weren’t quite sure where the actual evidence was which is very telling.
Initially it seemed perfectly possible for 4/13.000 people to be involved in the attack. But I thought israel already showed UNRWA the evidence. The current scenario of israeli “evidence” not begin delivered is getting eerily familiar.
A reminder that a month before the accusations an israeli
politicianlobbyist was openly calling for the destruction of UNRWA on video in the israeli parliamentThat woman in the video, Noga Arbell, is actually a low level public policy researcher at a conservative NGO think tank speaking at a public hearing. She doesn’t even appear on KPF’s staff page, despite it listing other researchers. Not only are they non-governmental, they don’t receive or accept government funds. She is not an Israeli politician. She was never an Israeli politician. Years ago, she was a low-level staffer at the Foreign Ministry. The only time she’s appeared in the press in that role she was complaining about budget cuts six years ago. She’s described in the article as the “deputy chair of the Foreign Ministry’s workers committee”, a position so important I can find no other mention of it.
But why let the truth get in the way of a good story, right?
The NYT did not claim to see the evidence. They reported on the leaked dossier that the US government received from Israel:
Here you are again stacking lies upon lies to construct a narrative.
Archive
First of all the Sky news claim is still true you conveniently ignored it.
> Sky News has been shown Israeli documents which make a string of allegations against the UN agency, including claims it is “assisting Hamas with securing humanitarian aid that is transferred to the Gaza Strip”.
For Noga I am unsure of her personal past, the articlese indicate she was a former foreign government employee. That speech however was made in front of the Knessset along with several others that tried to convincec israel to attack UNRWA
The headline of the article you linked indicates that NYT was presented evidence from their headline.
You are correct it’s mentioned further down in the paywalled article in a part that is not readable without subscription. So NYT is writing spectacular headlines about presented “evidence” which has not been presented. I thought that the leaked dossier was about the evidence? Maybe I’m not reading that correctly then
What NYT did is bad framing of a narrative with plausible deniability. You can score brownie points there if you want so you get 1/3.
Your Sky News claim is false too!
From the article:
And last but not least:
The article is very clear about what they’ve seen, what is accused, and what Israel claims.
The NYT headline is “Details Emerge on U.N. Workers Accused of Aiding Hamas Raid” and the section I posted is the second and third paragraph. Your argument that you’re right so long as you ignore both the headline and the content of the article is some weak shit.
Then why did you post calling her an “Israeli politician”? If you don’t know who she is, why would you post it at all? How is that not an indication that you’re not doing enough to make sure it’s the truth? Obfuscating someone’s identity to make it seem like they’re someone significant is insanely dishonest. That’s why the fever swamp you pulled it from called her a “former Israeli official.” The reality makes it impossible to imply that she speaks for the Israeli government. And that’s what you’ve done several times.
If Wilson C Beaver of the Heritage Foundation - who is featured on their staff page - speaks before Congress, is he speaking for the government? For all Americans? That would be a very stupid claim. Lots of people say stupid shit before Congress. That’s what this is. She is someone speaking to them and you’re telling people she’s speaking for them. It’s a lie.
For Noga you can be right that she is a lobbyst not a politician I will change that. As she was speaking in the Knesset I assumed she was a politician but she is a lobbyist.
That’s like saying “Sky News has seen evidence but they didn’t confirm the evidence was true!” you’re going real hard on semantics here.
Let’s say you even get Sky News just for good faith. Wow that’s 3/3 corrections my narrative is completely changed!
So let’s see how the story changed after all these amazingly important factual corrections:
~ One month ago multiple lobbyists went in front of the israeli Parliament to convince israel to destroy UNRWA,
~ 25 days later israel declared UNRWA terrorists and launched a massive Hasbara compaign against them directly after the ICJ ruling
NYT and Sky News publish sensationalist nothing-burgers on it with clickbait headlines.
No public evidence has been provided anywhere for israel’s accusations
Boy that nararative really changed I’m totally not convinced that this was a planned smear campaign to destroy UNRWA anymore!
They’re reporting what Israel is saying.
“It’s raining outside.”
“Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson says it’s raining outside.”
I’m saying those sentences present claims by two different people. You’re saying they’re identical. You’re wrong.
Bragging about not changing your conclusion is a self-own. You’re just admitting to being a conspiracy theorist. The failure of the supporting facts not changing the conclusion proves you weren’t using them to reach that conclusion to begin with. The supporting facts shouldn’t be set dressing. It’s dishonest to start with the conclusion then work backwards to find anything to plausibly support it while ignoring contradictory evidence.
You’re alleging a conspiracy that began with that hearing. There is no evidence of a conspiracy. The only “evidence” you have is that one thing happened after another – between two branches of government without evidence of communication let alone collusion. Correlation isn’t causation. Israel hates UNRWA. They have always hated them and they talk about it constantly. Throw a dart at a calendar and you’ll find some Israeli official talking about defunding or replacing UNRWA. At any time that dossier was released there was always going to be some official, some report, or some hearing talking about it relatively recently. That doesn’t make it a conspiracy. A leaked Foreign Ministry report said that Israel wanted to remove UNRWA after the war just days before that hearing.
The only reason we even know about the contents of the dossier is the NYT. That article broke the story. The idea that they shouldn’t report on the contents of a document being used by world leaders to suspend funding to a critically important organization providing aid to millions of Palestinians is laughable. We’re better off not knowing? Give me a break.