Talk:UNRWA/Archive 1

Ver 1:
Israeli officials have regularly accused UNRWA of operating outside its charter by supporting the Palestinian paramilitary organizations including Hamas. UNRWA always denies such charges, maintaining in reply that Israel's hostility is due to the frequent complaints made by UNRWA against Israeli behaviour. In a representative incident, in May 2004 a video was broadcast showing armed militants being transported in a UNRWA ambulance. UNRWA replied that the militants forced the driver to take them.

Ver 2:
UNRWA has been accused by Israeli officials in sponsering terrorism and inciting children to commit violent attacks. Israeli officials said that UNRWA facalities (such as school and ambulances) are used as shelter to terrorists.

A recent outrage burst when Defence Minister Shaul Mofaz said that UNRWA's ambulances were used by Palestinian militants in order to smuggle some of the remain of IDF soldiers killed in Zaitoun neigbourhood in Gaza on May 11, 2004.  Israeli intelligence officers also claim that Reuters news agency have a video tape documenting UNRWA ambulance transferring armed militants. (Report (in Hebrew), Special Information Bulletin at Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center at the Center for Special Studies (in English))

On May 24, 2004 Israeli Channel 10 aired photos of armed terrorsts boarding a UN ambulance. The photos were taken on May 11 in Zaitoun neigbourhood of Gaza. 

Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg

Conflict
There seem to be a revertion-war between the two versions. It should be tried to merge them.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=United_Nations_Relief_and_Works_Agency_for_Palestine_Refugees_in_the_Near_East&action=history.

Merger version 1
Israeli officials have regularly accused UNRWA of operating outside its charter by supporting the Palestinian terrorist organizations including Hamas. They said that UNRWA facalities (such as school and ambulances) are used as shelter to terrorists, and that UNRWA schools teaches children to hate Jews and encpurage them to commit violent attacks against them. UNRWA always denies such charges, maintaining in reply that Israel's hostility is due to the frequent complaints made by UNRWA against Israeli behaviour.



In a representative incident, in May 2004 a video was broadcast showing armed militants being transported in a UNRWA ambulance. Israel's Defence Minister Shaul Mofaz said that UNRWA's ambulances were used by Palestinian militants in order to smuggle some of the remain of IDF soldiers killed in Zaitoun neigbourhood in Gaza on May 11, 2004. UNRWA replied that the militants forced the driver to take them.

MathKnight 14:11, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Ambulance Photograph
What objection is there to the ambulance photograph. The ambulance is clearly labelled UN. At least one individual can be seen to be carrying a rifle. The source is a respected news agency.


 * This incident is adequately described in the text. In fact more than adequate because it is a very minor incident in the long history of UNWRA. --Zero 15:34, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * This is the tactics repeatedly used here by the self-appointed NPOV police. Step 1: remove the factual evidence, quotes, references as "a very minor incident", or "Zionist propaganda". Step 2: add "NPOV" sources such as http://www.freemedia.at/intifada.htm, spruce with Jewish names such as Finkelstein, Chomsky for "balance". Step 3: butcher the text because there is no evidence (see step 1). If you don't believe me, check out Media coverage of Israel and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the correpsonding discussion.  &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;Talk 21:49, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * Silly me! I thought I was trying to make this look like an encyclopedia article and not like a toilet door.  --Zero 09:44, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * Let's not make this more political than it is already. As an alternative, I am removing the refs to the body parts from the disputed text. Pls. see if this works and explain here if/why not. Removing the link makes Israel's claims look baseless and makes it look as if bad mean Israel harassing innocent UNWRA for fun. Is that your intention?  &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;Talk 08:15, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * You didn't even bother mentioning UNRWA's explanation. Shows just how non-political you are.  Now, if I was here as a political activist like you, I would start listing all the (very many!) formal protests made by UNRWA, supported by almost every aid agency working in WB&G and almost every human rights organization working in WB&G, about the IDF shooting at UNRWA ambulances, in some cases destroying them, wounding and sometimes killing UNRWA medical personnel in the performance of their duties, obstruction of ambulances carrying sick people sometimes leading to the death of the patient, blockage of UNRWA food shipments leading to widespread malnutrition amongst Gazan children, and ... I could go on.  There are lots of incidents that are well documented, some with photos and maybe I could find a video too.  If you want to go down that path, fine, I can find much more material than you because much more exists.  Alternatively you can stop with the brief summary in one paragraph that is already highly biased in Israel's favor. --Zero 10:11, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Isn't the image copyvio?


 * Anyway, that's beside the point. IMHO, while the points in the current paragraph are important, it lacks information on the other side of the argument. The UN does regularly accuse Israel of such things, as much as I think that it's rubbish. Thus, if this is to be an NPOV article, it should probably reflect these accusations as well.


 * Israel and the UNRWA have often found themselves in conflict during the intifada. UNRWA has often accused Israel of interfering with its humanitarian work. In April 2004, UNRWA Commissioner Hansen claimed that Israel had imposed restrictions on the movement of UNRWA staff, forcing them to temporarily suspend emergency food deliveries in the Gaza strip. He also raised concerns about UNRWA being charged fees for transporting goods through Israeli checkpoints. On occasions, they have also made more serious allegations, such as accusing Israel of shooting at ambulances. In most cases, Israel has denied these, or claimed that they were necessary for reasons of security.

On the other hand, Israeli officials have often alleged that, whether knowingly or not, UNRWA has supported Palestinian terrorist organizations, such as Hamas. UNRWA facilities, such as schools and ambulances are used by terrorists for the purposes of training and shelter. They have claimed that this provides justification for their restrictions on UNRWA. However, while there have been documented incidences of ambulances being used by militants, there has been no evidence that this was condoned, implicitly or otherwise, by UNRWA itself.


 * Would this perhaps be more acceptable to both of you? Ambivalenthysteria 06:24, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Thanks for stepping in, AH. IMHO, a video qualifies for little more than just an "allegation". It is an evidence, so often asked for in controversial cases. Has anyone express doubts of its validity? Even the UN does not deny it. Reuters is not known to be a part of int'l Zionist conspiracy. With all the negative activity around articles concerning Israel, it is not the 1st time that uncomfortable evidence is being removed. I can provide the diffs by the same group of users, always to discredit Israel. My counteroffer: if there are _serious_ objections for the video to be included in the text, then move it to extlinks. The thumbized picture also belongs to the article, along with the UN's claims about the driver being forced/bribed/hijacked or whatever else they claim.  &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;Talk 08:54, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I see your point. It needs to be mentioned that there is documented evidence, but the UN's explanation for it should be in there as well. I just can't think of how to word it at the moment. Ambivalenthysteria 08:59, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * What point? This is a conflict that has been going for more than 50 years and there have been dozens of incidents far more serious than this one.  Do you think UNRWA simply invents the charges it makes?  Anyway, there are plenty of incidents with independent witnesses, photographs, etc.  RK just wants this here because he is a activist for whom UNRWA is one of the enemy and any opportunity to bash them is a good opportunity.  The fact that UNRWA has saved the lives of thousands holds no interest to him.  Not because balance would dictate it be here.  What it is anyway?  Israel says yes you did, and UNRWA replies no we didn't.  There is NO documented evidence that the ambulance driver willingly broke UNRWA rules by carrying armed men, and if there was it would be evidence against the ambulance driver and not against UNRWA.  Or is RK claiming to know that the driver was acting with UNRWA approval? --Zero 13:16, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Blech. I've reworded. Any better? Ambivalenthysteria 13:28, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm willing to accept your present wording, though I don't know that there is reason to single out Peter Hansen in particular. Israel has accused many UNRWA officials of bias over the years so it might be better to say that. --Zero 15:45, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Reworded again. Ambivalenthysteria 15:51, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Let's not change the topic. "The fact that UNRWA has saved the lives of thousands" is not what is being discussed here. Israel is being blamed for unjustly imposing restrictions, and harassing the staff. In return Israel claims that it must interfere for security reasons. My colleagues here are attempting to remove the evidence, because removing both the video AND the photo are necessary for these claims to lose ground. It does not matter "the driver was acting with UNRWA approval" or not. Finally, Zero, I don't see any RK in this discussion. Do you?  &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;Talk 07:18, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Lately, the video link is broken, so I think we should keep the image and provide a link to it. MathKnight 14:15, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I've reworded, again. Any better, Humus sapiens? Ambivalenthysteria 08:10, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * For the record, my use of "RK" instead of "Humus sapiens" above was not intentional. As for the new version, I'm not completely happy but I can live with it.  --Zero 08:51, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Ver 3
During the intifada, Israel and UNRWA have found themselves in conflict many times. UNRWA has often accused Israel of interfering with its humanitarian work. In April 2004, UNRWA Commissioner Hansen claimed that Israel had imposed restrictions on the movement of UNRWA staff, forcing them to temporarily suspend emergency food deliveries in the Gaza strip. He also raised concerns about UNRWA being charged fees for transporting goods through Israeli checkpoints. On occasions, they have also made more serious allegations, such as accusing Israel of shooting at ambulances. In most cases, Israel has denied these, or claimed that they were necessary for reasons of security.

On the other hand, Israeli officials have often alleged that, whether knowingly or not, UNRWA has supported Palestinian terrorist organizations, such as Hamas. UNRWA facilities, such as schools and ambulances are used by terrorists for the purposes of training and shelter. They have claimed that this provides justification for their restrictions on UNRWA. However, while there have been documented incidences of ambulances being used by militants, there has been no evidence that this was condoned, implicitly or otherwise, by UNRWA itself.


 * If this is the consensus, it should at least say that restrictions are temporary. I'd still prefer Ver 5, maybe because I tweaked it. The diffs are minor anyway.  &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;Talk 02:05, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * The restrictions have become more or less severe according to the circumstances of the time (which government was in power, whether there was an attack recently, etc). Merely calling them temporary will not do.  Also, the structure in this version is that Israeli's denial is noted in the first paragraph but UNRWA's denial is not noted in the second paragraph.  I can agree to the above version (one caveat below) if the last sentence is extended with ", and UNRWA called the claims "baseless" ."  That makes one link for each side, but I'd still prefer no links at all.  The Links section of the article is only about a centimeter lower on the page. --11:08, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * The "caveat" I mentioned: the UNRWA and Israel have had regular conflicts ever since UNRWA was established.  So "during the intifada" ought to be something like "Since the establishment of UNRWA". --Zero 11:08, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Ver 4
During the hostilities, UNRWA has often accused Israel of interfering with its humanitarian work. In April 2004, UNRWA Commissioner Hansen claimed that Israel had imposed restrictions on the movement of UNRWA staff, forcing them to temporarily suspend emergency food deliveries in the Gaza strip. He also raised concerns about UNRWA being charged fees for transporting goods through Israeli checkpoints. On occasions, Israel was accused of shooting at ambulances.

In some cases Israel has denied these claims, in others insisted that the measures were necessary to take for security reasons. Israeli officials have often claimed that, whether knowingly or not, UNRWA has supported Palestinian terrorist organizations such as Hamas, and UNRWA facilities — such as schools and ambulances — are used by terrorists for training and shelter, thus justifying the temporary restrictions. While there have been, there has been no evidence that this was officially condoned, implicitly or otherwise, by UNRWA.

How's this? &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;Talk 18:19, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I think it is o.k. MathKnight 20:14, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I have two concerns about this. Firstly, the way the link is formatted seems ugly. The image is a citation, and it should be in that format, as MathKnight added it last night. Secondly, I don't think it flows as well as the previous version. Thirdly, I suspect it's going to raise an objection from Zero as well, due to changes to the second paragraph that affect its NPOV – the adding of "officially" (which implies that it was still condoned off-the-record – which I have seen no evidence of, and no one has provided), and the changing of "They have claimed that this provides justification" to "thus justifying", which once again implies that we're making a value judgement. Ambivalenthysteria 00:31, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree with Ambivalenthysteria on all points. As for the link, there is already a link on this issue in the links section of the article where links belong and I am not proposing to remove it.  Why is an extra link needed in the middle of the paragraph?  In case a link in the middle of the paragraph is accepted: (1) it is not acceptable to use the link mechanism as a device to highlight part of the text, (2) UNRWA's official response should be linked in the paragraph as well, (3) a link concerning evidence against Israel, and one with Israel's reply, should also be allowed in the previous paragraph.  My preference is for no links in these paragraphs at all, and a small selection of the most important links in the links section of the article. --Zero 00:57, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Off topic strictly speaking, but here is something that would be all over Wikipedia if it involved the Palestinian side rather than the Israeli side. An IDF soldier told the press that his unit used ambulances to get troops closer to the action: (This is not a great site, but I know the Haaretz story is genuine as I received it from someone I know.)  A brief version of the Maariv story is here. --Zero 00:57, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Ver 5
During the hostilities, UNRWA has often accused Israel of interfering with its humanitarian work. In April 2004, UNRWA Commissioner Hansen claimed that Israel had imposed restrictions on the movement of UNRWA staff, forcing them to temporarily suspend emergency food deliveries in the Gaza strip. He also raised concerns about UNRWA being charged fees for transporting goods through Israeli checkpoints. On occasions, Israel was accused of shooting at ambulances.

In some cases Israel has denied these claims, in others insisted that the measures were necessary to take for security reasons. Israeli officials have often claimed that, whether knowingly or not, UNRWA has supported Palestinian terrorist organizations such as Hamas, and UNRWA facilities — such as schools and ambulances — are used by terrorists for training and shelter. Israel have claimed that this provides justification for temporary restrictions. While there have been documented incidences of ambulances being used by militants, there has been no evidence that this was condoned, implicitly or otherwise, by UNRWA.


 * IMHO this text flows better and is more logical, but I'm not a native speaker, so feel free to improve it. One para for accusations, another for justifications. I still insist on a link to the photo anywhere, because the next editor will remove the text as unsubstantiated. (OTR, IDF accusations don't belong here, and HAMAS is not known for its respect of ambulances or schoolbuses)  &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;Talk 01:25, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't quite understand the difference between Version 3 and Version 5. They seem to be exactly the same, except the latter doesn't flow quite as well. The citation of the picture seems quite reasonable, as long as it appears like – . Ambivalenthysteria 01:28, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I think we should change "UNRWA has supported Palestinian terrorist" to "UNRWA has aided Palestinian terrorist". It is more accurate. And again, the photo must be included. MathKnight 11:18, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hamas is Terrorist not Militant

 * I'm new here and don't know how to use this code, how can i learn.

By the way I edit a single word saying that Hamas is a militant group. But does a militant group murder hundreds of civilians???

Ver 6.2
Israel and UNRWA have found themselves in conflict many times since the agency's establishment. UNRWA have often accused Israel of interfering with its humanitarian work. In April 2004, UNRWA Commissioner Hansen claimed that Israel had imposed restrictions on the movement of agency staff, forcing them to temporarily suspend emergency food deliveries in the Gaza strip. He also raised concerns about UNRWA being charged fees for transporting goods through Israeli checkpoints. In addition, UNRWA have accused Israel several times of shooting at ambulances. In some cases, Israel has denied these, in others claimed that the measures were necessary for reasons of security.

On the other hand, Israeli officials have often alleged that, whether knowingly or not, UNRWA have aided Palestinian terrorist organizations, such as Hamas. Accordingly, Israel claims that UNRWA facilities, such as schools and ambulances are used by terrorists for the purposes of training and shelter. They have claimed that this provides justification for their restrictions on UNRWA. While there have been documented incidences of ambulances being used by militants, there has been no evidence that this was condoned by UNRWA, implicitly or otherwise, and UNRWA have called the claims "baseless".

To avoid confusion, I'm moving this back down here. Minor rewording, per Zero's latest requests. Ambivalenthysteria 13:43, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Minor tweaks:


 * 1) avoid the impression that Israel denied then justified the same items
 * 2) removed "also made more serious allegations, such as" – if there are more serious, list them. Also, who says what is more serious?
 * 3) removed loaded "however".
 * 4) The last sentence: got rid of both "themselves" and "itself", they seem useless. Objections?   &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;Talk 19:03, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Fine with me. I just tried to get rid of a little bit of jerky wording as well. I've unprotected the page itself for now. Shall we move this into the article? Ambivalenthysteria 07:03, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Ok, but choose between "UNRWA has" and "UNRWA have". I think the first. --Zero 08:25, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * I changed it to "have", as some of the phrases don't make much sense with "has".


 * Anyway, I've gone ahead and moved it into the article. Ambivalenthysteria 09:45, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Ambivalenthysteria, thanks for your mediation. --Zero 11:14, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Lying by omission
Peter Hansen Commission General of UNRWA has states that the claims that UNRWA ambulances were used to transport these bodily remains "baseless". In a May 13, 2004 statement UNRWA admitted that its ambulances are used to transport "armed fighters" against UNRWA policy.

Please do not remove this. It is directly from paragraph 5 of the UNRWA press release linked to immediately above. Might be better to quote that press release. Please do so, if you would like. However, Peter Hansen admits that the ambulances are used as transport.....lets not deny this and make him look like a liar. It is not fair to the man. Lance6Wins 10:50, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

UNRWA: "an incident in which an ambulance driver’s life was threatened by armed men who demanded that he transport them, along with their wounded comrade, to hospital." OneVoice aka Lance6Wins: "UNRWA admitted that its ambulances are used to transport "armed fighters" against UNRWA policy". A perfect example of intentional deception of Wikipedia readers by selective removal of details. It isn't Peter Hansen who stands accused of lying here. --Zero 11:31, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Lance6Wins, please be more careful with your grammar when making additions to articles. Regardless of the NPOV of that particular section, I had a lot of trouble understanding what it was supposed to mean, and even if it hadn't been reverted, it would've needed a rewrite/copyedit. Ambi 11:59, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Oh my, it really is horribly written! I am sorry if the writing is not clear and would appreciate help in clarifying it. I have tried to use material from the UN press release rather than my own words. Would you be willing to help me? I would like the section to make it clear how ambulances are used by armed groups, what is agreed happened and what is disputed. As I read the press release Peter Hansen agrees that armed groups are using ambulances as transport vehicles (in addition to evacuation of wounded) but denies that ambulances were used to remove Israeli remains. Here is the paragraph from the article which I would like your help rewriting:


 * On the other hand, Israeli officials have often alleged that, whether knowingly or not, UNRWA have aided Palestinian terrorist organizations, such as Hamas. Accordingly, Israel claims that UNRWA facilities, such as schools and ambulances are used by terrorists for the purposes of training and shelter. They have claimed that this provides justification for their restrictions on UNRWA. While there have been documented incidences of ambulances being used by militants as battlefield transportation and possibly bodily remains of dismembered Israeli soldiers . Peter Hansen Commission General of UNRWA has states that the claims that UNRWA ambulances were used to transport these bodily remains "baseless" . In a May 13, 2004 statement UNRWA admitted that its ambulances are used to transport "armed fighters" against UNRWA policy.

I believe the bolded section of the paragraph is the area that is under discussion, thought I might be wrong. Perhaps that part might read:


 * While there have been documented incidences of ambulances being used by militants as battlefield transport and possibly to seize the bodily remains of dismembered Israeli soldiers . Peter Hansen Commission(or?) General of UNRWA states that claims that UNRWA ambulances were used to transport these bodily remains are "baseless" . In a May 13, 2004 statement UNRWA admitted that its ambulances are used to transport "armed fighters" against UNRWA policy.Lance6Wins 13:19, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * In another issue statement they made, they said that the driver was forced to do it by gun threats. MathKnight 13:23, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm about to head off to bed, but I've got to say that I think the way it currently reads (While there have been documented incidences of ambulances being used by militants...) is the most neutral way of putting it. The article doesn't deny that they have been used, but your version implies that the practice is widespread and tolerated by UNRWA – which, AFAIK, there is no evidence of. My feelings towards Palestine are well known, but regardless of our personal opinions, neutrality is a must. Ambi 13:28, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"ambulances being used by militants" there are legitimate uses and illegitmate uses. The text does not make it clear that what is under discussion is the illegitmate use of ambulance as transport for the purpose of combat as opposed the legimate use of ambulances to evacuate the wounded and the dead. The ambiguity does not serve the interests of reader, it seems.


 * The use is refering to illegitimate use for purpose of combat. MathKnight 14:40, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

We can add "over the objections of UNRWA" to make it clear that UNRWA policy forbids the use of ambulances as transport for the purpose of combat. Lance6Wins 13:45, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * But that's what it does now. Ambi 22:18, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Amounting evidence
With the amount of video evidence, IMHO we should bring at least one picture back to the article, unless there is a serious objection. I didn't do it by now only because there was a discussion (see above), but I don't think this position is neutral anymore. &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;Talk 08:04, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I support in returning the picture and I still don't understand why it was removed from first place. MathKnight 09:45, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Is there a resistance to adding the image? Should we have a vote on it? MathKnight 14:50, 7 May 2005 (UTC)


 * This image has been discussed already and is unsuitable. – Viajero 16:36, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Since then things have changed. Why so you think the image is unsuitable? MathKnight 16:39, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

example of commonplace incident alleged by UNRWA
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=11338&Cr=Palestin&Cr1=

couldnt possibly be from Arab terrorists hoping to create an international incident. the inaccuracy of the fire, no injuries or dead, is consistent with untrained personnel.

UN recants claim that IDF shot at convoy


 * A gunfight between Israeli troops and Palestinian gunmen briefly disrupted the delivery to the town of Beit Hanun in the Gaza Strip.


 * The 25-minute gunfight broke out as the convoy, which included 12 trucks carrying flour, rice, milk, canned goods and medical supplies, entered the town of Beit Hanun, witnesses said.


 * An UNRWA official in the convoy said the shooting was random and that aid workers had taken cover in a nearby building until the gunfire died down. The official said the convoy had not been targeted.

Sounds just like the reporting on Jenin...fabrications later downplayed.
 * We don't know what happened at Jenin – other than that Israel prevented the UN going in and having a look.
 * We have one report from people who stuck around long enough to visit the camp :
 * The Jenin Inquiry, a group of 12 internationals from the US, Britain, Ireland, Canada, and Norway
 * ......... bodies were still being recovered from under the rubble as late as early August.
 * ......... People saw tanks and bulldozers run over bodies repeatedly in the process of bulldozing homes and moving around, sifting bodies into pieces and scattering them in the rubble. This has made it difficult to identify exactly how many have been killed.
 * ........ members of Jenin Inquiry viewed many such partially decomposed bodies and severed, decomposing body parts in homes and in the streets of the camp.
 * PalestineRemembered 19:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Everyone ruled out this fable of Palestinians, one in many. This one didn't stuck. Time Magazine ruled out Palestinian allegations of massacre, writing that:

A Time investigation concludes that there was no wanton massacre in Jenin, no deliberate slaughter of Palestinians by Israeli soldiers. But the 12 days of fighting took a severe toll on the camp. The HRW report found "no evidence to sustain claims of massacres or large-scale extrajudicial executions by the IDF"Later inquiries by human rights groups and the UN commission did not find evidence of massacres by Israeli forces in Jenin. Amoruso 02:16, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I notice your failure to address the point I was making, it is likely that the death toll in Jenin was far, far higher than the 52 or 70 or so we were told. Any estimate not updated 3 months after the assault (Aug 2002) is simply wrong.
 * I've said nothing about the IDF carrying out a massacre. But I note that the Boston massacre was 5 dead as a result of military action solely against members of an "aggressive crowd". Anyone claiming that Jenin was not a massacre (we have credible testimony of a man in a wheel-chair being shot dead, many others of civilians being killed, and a bulldozer driver who described how he worked) must be using a different dictionary from the rest of us.
 * May I ask why your contributions on talk pages are consistently so badly formatted, making any form of sensible response unnecessarily difficult?
 * PalestineRemembered 13:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Why do you persist in repeating this long debunked nonsense? Amnesty itself reported that "Stories of bodies buried in secret places or carried away in refrigerated vans spread. After the IDF temporarily withdrew from Jenin refugee camp on 17 April, UNRWA set up teams to use the census lists to account for all the Palestinians (some 14,000) believed to be resident of the camp on 3 April 2002. Within five weeks all but one of the residents was accounted for."

Isarig 16:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Current RV War
Lets work together to find a reasonable solution. Please discuss changes here before making them. --יהושועEric 18:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Question claim
It would exceedingly surprising if this sentence (especially the last part) is accurate and properly reported: In response, UNRWA acknowledged that the books contained statements such as "Treachery and disloyalty are character traits of the Jews and one should be aware of them," but insisted that this phrase was not offensive because it described actual "historical events." In fact I'd bet my grandmother that it is not accurately reported. UNRWA is not so stupid as to say anything like that. The citation given is "Weekly Standard, June 3, 2002". Why should we believe what this "neoconservative political magazine" which "favors subjectivity over objectivity" (Weekly Standard) claims? Not only that, but serious problems with this paragraph are clearly visible: It quotes an alleged sentence from a textbook about treachery of Jews and then says, "UNRWA staff participated in the design and development of the Palestinian curriculum" but it doesn't tell us that the Palestinian curriculum UNRWA helped develop is the one that replaced the curriculum that contained books like that. We can't allow this. --Zero 11:58, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Zero, I respect you as an editor who has familiarity with much of the sourcing for the ME entries, and I think that you are often neutral. However while I'm not sure what you find damning about the WS being a "neoconservative political magazine" (the quote "favors subjectivity over objectivity" you provided doesn't exist on the page, but is your interpretation of a half-serious interview from one contributor to the publication), WP:RS is indeed the adopted standard, and it borders on the unfair when we presume that such sources are maliciously misleading unless proven innocent. It happens to be that in this case I was quite successful in finding online sourcing relatively quickly, but there is no inherent responsibility to dig for primary sources in order to keep information sourced to secondary sources in an entry, and I would appreciate if you would rethink your position on the issue. As for the passage content, this is the piece being quoted from, which is a reply to Paul McCann of UNRWA's letter to the paper. While the Treachery line doesn't appear directly in the table of UNRWA's list of justifications provided by the Center for Monitoring the Impact of Peace, you give too much credit to UNRWA, since they do give that and other similar responses to equally disturbing passages (and it seems probable that the Treachery quote preceded the line in question or was otherwise somehow involved, since it also appears in B'nai B'rith Foundation, The Portrayal of Israel and Jews in School Textbooks of the Palestinian Authority (Washington, DC: B'nai Brith, n.d.)). Cheers,  Tewfik Talk 23:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Look, this is not acceptable. Show us a RELIABLE source for the claim that the UNRWA ever said anything like "this phrase was not offensive because it described actual "historical events.""  It's a lie and a blindingly obvious one.  I also proved in my comment above that the article in question is unreliable.  It's trash, we don't use trash here. --Zerotalk 01:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No, you look. You are subjecting WP to potentially project-ending lawsuits by repeatedly calling sourced texts "lies" without a shred of proof. Cease this immediately. Isarig 02:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Zero, I get the feeling that you may have skimmed over my comments, since you otherwise would have seen that I've presented full sourcing. While I don't know about legal issues, it truly doesn't make your argument stronger to call the sources trashy. Cheers,  Tewfik Talk 02:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I read your sources and all you have is that someone called David Tell made a slanderous charge but is too gutless to quote his source directly or even to give us a precise citation so we can look it up ourselves. In the context of replying to an UNRWA letter, this failure to support the charge suggests very strongly that it cannot be supported.  And your other source does not contain anything remotely like this.  Please note that I'm not arguing that no line like "Treachery and disloyalty are character traits of the Jews" ever appeared in a book used by Palestinian schools.  It is well-known that similar things appeared in the Egyptian books that used to be used.  However, there are no such things in the textbooks developed by the Palestinian Authority with (some) support from UNRWA.  Those who say otherwise are liars.  Not only is UNRWA not responsible for the Egyptian books, but UNRWA played a major role in replacing them.  But the enemies of UNRWA like this David Tell, whoever he is, is not going to tell us the facts when lies are more useful.  I repeat: where did UNRWA say that the statement "Treachery and disloyalty are character traits of the Jews" describes historical event?  Where can we even read a direct quote of such a claim by UNRWA?  The charge is an exceedingly offensive lie and nothing else.  --Zerotalk 13:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * David Tell is a Journalsit & editor of a reliable source called The Weekly standard, who made the claim you dislike. It i snot up to you to conduct original research, to comment on the quality of his arguments, or speculate on why he argued the way he did. Calling a journalist a "liar", or "gutless" and saying he made a "a slanderous charge" are all very serious violations of WP:BLP. This is your absolute last warning: cease this immediately. Isarig 14:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The reason I question whether you read what I wrote is because you seem not to acknowledge this line: While the Treachery line doesn't appear directly in the table of UNRWA's list of justifications.....they do give that and other similar responses to equally disturbing passages (and it seems probable that the Treachery quote preceded the line in question or was otherwise somehow involved, since it also appears in B'nai B'rith Foundation...) Given that, I don't think it is fair or productive to label this journalist with any of the disparaging terms that you've used. Furthermore, not that it is necessary, but I want to ensure that you realise the CMIP list is a discussion of the new UNRWA books, and not the old Egyptian or Jordanian curriculum. I suggest that if this still doesn't sit well with you, that you bring some countering sources. If you can explicitly show that Treachery line didn't appear, then we can substitute one of the other equally disturbing passages. I'm unclear on what other parts of the passage you dispute, but by all means you can try to disprove them as well. Cheers,  Tewfik Talk 17:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Having studied some of this journalist's writings, I believe that my description of him was far too generous, and to call him a reliable source is a joke. A question to you: does the B'nai B'rith Foundation source say that UNRWA justified this "Treachery" statement? What reference do they give?  That is what this dispute is about. And I disagree with you that the (highly biased and dubious) list of UNRWA responses that you found contains anything remotely like this.  Where can we see what UNRWA actually responded?  These snippets from well-funded propaganda houses cannot be trusted. Also, don't you think that CMIP would give this one grand-stand prominence if it actually existed?  They would be shouting it from the rooftops. --Zerotalk 14:13, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Calling journalists you don;t like "liars", and their writing "blood libel" is a serious violation of WP:BLP. Since you seem unable to stop this egregious behavior, we'll have some administrator take a look at this. Isarig 14:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Calling Israel robbers and locusts, and the UNRWA justification that "Jaffa and Lod were Arab towns" is not comparable? Even if you disagreed only with this one example, there is no reason that you continue removing the entire passage. Do you challenge some other part of it?  Tewfik Talk 16:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Unrwa.gif
Image:Unrwa.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

UNRWA and Palestinian Curriculum
I strongly think that this section cannot be let as it is now. It is exceedingly long, and its conclusions show that in the end it is a non-issue. Whatever contentious parts of the curriculum may have existed, it seems that the issue has been resolved since 2004, and that the few problems remaining are commonplaces of schoolbooks (which are always influenced by national, "official" history – check out the Israeli textbooks ;). I will therefore cut the parts of this section that don't bring much to the comprehension of what this issue may have been in the past.Trouvaille (talk) 23:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Criticism Bias?
I added several citations and references to that section and i feel that since several of the references were made by public officials that it is not a bias section. since it is a critisism section of the article, it is not going to be a positive statements about the UN group. Therefore I feel that the Bias templete should be taken off the critism article or at least added to the praise section of the article.Dflav1138 (talk) 21:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Recent report
In sharply worded report, former legal advisor to UN agency says group must redefine oxymoronic labeling of Palestinians with Jordanian, Lebanese citizenship as refugees. YnetNews. Hope someone picks up the glove.  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  23:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Clean bill up of health
I recently removed a paragraph detailing the supposed "clean bill of health" offered by the US government, but the report said no such thing. All it did was recognize the errors made by UNWRA and corrected other mishaps. That was it, nothing close to "You're free to go, you're innocent."

So please don't revert it thanks! Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:58, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * and are both still engaged in an edit war.  Please cease and continue the discussion here instead.  --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 11:44, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I've removed the offending line. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 13:05, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks (for this). The edit summary led me to conclude incorrectly that you were still warring. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 15:20, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Uhh yeah I updated it again, one sentence was off. Didn't meant edit war, wasn't even paying attention LOL.  apologies Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:59, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

NPOV
I put a "neutrality disputed" tag on here then took it off, replaced with an "unbalanced" tag on the criticisms section. The problem is one of proportional weight, mostly. It's verifiable, relevant, and notable that UNRWA has been accused of nasty things by Israel and Israel-allied NGOs. It's also verifiable, relevant, and notable that the rest of the world thinks these claims are entirely unfounded, specious political grandstanding. The UN document added in reference 2 gives a good idea of the world's reaction to the Israeli claims.

In addition, UNRWA has received an enormous amount of praise for its work, and it would be best to convert the "criticism" section into a "responses" section, where the criticism would be presented in rough proportion to the praise. I would call that at something like 1:20 if we abided by WP:NPOV, but since this is an Israel-related page NPOV doesn't matter, and I would settle for something like 1:3.

Finally, there's no reason to have a section on UNRWA relations with Israel only, since most of UNRWA's work is in the diaspora. What are its relations with Lebanon? Jordan? Syria? The P.A.? Donor countries? The rest of the U.N.? The UNHCR? I know that the random partisan blogs and such make it easier to find information about Israel and terror allegations, but an encyclopedia should reflect the real world rather than Googledom.

It looks like it will be a rather large task to get this article up to snuff, and I would welcome assistance. &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 21:32, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the part citing an article by Brackam, because it is incorrect – UNHCR routinely employs local employees. See: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=%22local+staff%22+site%3Aunhcr.org&btnG=Search http://www.unhcr.org/publ/PUBL/3b6959d84.html As for the fact that local employees of URNWA are more numerous than UNRHCR, it is explained by the large scope and longer terms of its operations. I also added the legal reasons for having a specific refugee agency for the Palestinians, and a "Praise" section duely referenced. Trouvaille (talk) 22:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC) Feb 22, 2008


 * Okay, getting back to work here, as the article has degenerated even further. I mean "some argue" that UNRWA is bad, in the lede, cited to a reprint of a Washington Times op-ed? A minor correction to a report (okay, Israel shelled crowds of civilians just outside an UNRWA facility, rather than inside, so what?) becomes boosted into some kind of scandal, evidence of UNRWA's anti-Israel motives which make it untrustworthy, etc, etc. This is unacceptable. &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 19:37, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It is relevant that the school itself wasn't hit, but now it is worded as if the IDF didn't kill more than 40 people in the attack. Erik Warmelink (talk) 01:12, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Point one: The anomalous status of Palestinian refugees and of UNRWA is a result of historical contingency, not some imagined antisemitic double standard. The original intention of UNRWA was to abate the immediate humanitarian situation, then help Palestinians integrate into their new host countries. Palestinian refugees generally refused integration, as did host countries and donors, which is why UNRWA eventually gave up on integrating them. It is correct to call this a political decision rather than a strictly humanitarian one, but the alternative – pressing for integration – would also be a political decision rather than a strictly humanitarian one, so cries of UNRWA's politicization are fairly silly.
 * What this means for the article: The anomalous situation of Palestinian refugees should be mentioned, but not at every turn, not in the second paragraph of the lede, and not in a fashion which boosts the Israeli government's view of UNRWA over other views. &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 20:05, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * At long last, have you no sense of decency? Category:Antisemitism? Christ. It never ends. &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 20:20, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Also the criticism isn't even really the Israeli government view, it's the view of Israeli right-wing politicians (see the 2008 Knesset committee, and the official reaction.) The official Israeli gov't position is we support UNRWA but we're concerned over some of its activities. &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 20:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * "Fire of the Torah" isn't a reliable source for anything but what religious extremists think, and their attacks on UNRWA don't belong in this article any more than Pat Robertson's speculation about links between abortion and cyclonic storms belong in Hurricane Katrina. Benny Elon's criticisms do have some relevance, but they need to be contextualized. Cough cough, populist demagoguery, cough cough. &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 21:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Who causes refugees to stay refugees?
Is it the organisation which which supports them or the state which refuses thier right of return? Erik Warmelink (talk) 13:55, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The organization doesn't support the "right of return" persay, especially when the "right of return" has yet to be explicitly defined politically. UNRWA original charter was to contain the humanitarian situation and serve the Palestinian refugees. All Arab/Muslim countries with the exception of Israel and Jordan refuse Palestinians citizenship based on the pretense that they must return to their "homeland" (Israel). Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * UNWRA, like all non-racist organizations, supports the right of return of refugees per se. Vandalising refugee camps costs money and only provokes retaliations by the survivors of innocent victims (and gives others, who are not so innocent, an excuse for further attacks). Erik Warmelink (talk) 23:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * According to the, no they do not support the right of return. They can't, the UN cannot take political positions other than to mediate negotiations, treaties, etc... People working within the UNRWA probably do support the right of return, seeing as how 80% of them are Palestinians, many of whom are Hamas followers, but no the UNRWA does not have an official position in that respect. Please provide a source if you disagree. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * UNRWA per se has no position on return, as you claim, but not for the reason you claim. The "normal" UN refugee agency, UNHCR, is duty bound to support return of refugees in accordance with international law, whether that's perceived as a "political position" or not. UNRWA's mandate, uniquely, does not include pressing for the same right of return which refugees generally are entitled to. Somehow, this seems to escape Israeli advocates when they launch one of their regular PR campaigns against UNRWA's "double standards."
 * Anyway, this whole discussion seems to be a political argument with no relation to improving the article. (This kind of response is predictable when, as in this case, an article is hijacked to promote a political agenda, especially one as nasty and cynical as the anti-UNRWA campaigns are.) Maybe we should just delete the thread (I've already had to delete some exceptionally offensive comments by a participant.) &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 06:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If you wouldn't remove remarks by Wikifan12345 like "until then they get to rot in camps. lol.", it would be easier to judge their edits. Erik Warmelink (talk) 12:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Haha whatever, just trying to answer a question. He posed a valid question and I responded accordingly, no need to spin this into a forum rant. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * And you did answer my question. Erik Warmelink (talk) 01:23, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what is the question. UNRWA's definitions of refugees seem to defy common sense and prior UN agreements which defined that status of UNHCR. Some argue that if UNRWA's definitions were upheld post-WWII we would now have close to 30 million Germans demanding to return to their ancestral homes in Poland. UNRWA is a recipe for perpetual war. The road to hell, and good intentions...Ynahmias (talk) 04:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It certainly can be confusing. If you find an RS that explicitly refers to this level of criticism we might be able to craft it into the article. What is most troubling is that the UN had an extremely general qualification for refugee status following the war. Any Arab who lived in Palestine for a minimum of 2 years would be considered a refugee – meaning Arabs who weren't even native to Palestine would be given refugee status. Wtf? It seems by virtue of being a Palestinian in the ME makes you a refugee. ~50% of all Palestinian refugees are citizens of Jordan, and they are entitled to education, medical, and social benefits...yet they continue to be classified as refugees. Truly bizarre. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:08, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Sirs, UNRWA's establishment predated the establishment of UNHCR. The legal definition of a refugee, accepted universally, is one who is outside of the country of his nationality and owing to a well-founded fear of persecution is unable to return. UNRWA has no political role and nothing to say about final settlements in the Near East. UNRWA provides basic humanitarian aid. It employs a set of criteria to define who is eligible to receive that aid. Those criteria (2 years prior residence, etc) have nothing whatsoever to do with demanding return. It may be true that "some argue" what you claimed that "some argue," but if that is so, it is because "some" are misinformed or mendacious.
 * It seems obvious that neither of you have a clear understanding of the issues you are discussing here. I would remind you that skimming disreputable and highly partisan websites is hardly a way to inform oneself on any contentious issue. (I assume that is where you're getting these confused ideas from?) And finally, the last thing this article needs is yet more unsubstantiated, mendacious claims of UNRWA's terrorist ties and secret antisemitic agendas. Actually, it needs a hell of a lot less of them, as it is currently little more than a hobby-horse for political demagoguery. 69.159.86.148 (talk) 22:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, UNRWA is perfect and any criticisms of it is "politically demagoguery." Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Your resort to an obvious straw man is a tacit admission that your position is not tenable. 74.14.70.54 (talk) 07:43, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

UNRWA and Curriculum
I agree strongly with the above. This part has no sense as it is written. It only refers to Israeli critics while not at all mentioning that several Israeli schoolbooks as well were under criticism few years ago, due to not including any reference to the occupied Palestinian territories. This whole article is extremely biased and has lost its sense of describing UNRWA as an agency. It has become a forum for the Israeli-Palestinian conflicts with groundless accusations without reliable sources. And, particulary this section is of very low quality, focuses only on UNRWA in the occupied Palestinian territories and very few things about their general work. There is a lot to say about the management of UNRWA and its efficiency but not to confuse with accusation of anti-semitism and anti-Israel critics. The reason why UNRWA exist is because Palestinians were thrown out from their homes or forced to leave under threat after the UN had decided to divide their land. Somewhere this has been forgotten and is never mentioned. Willow46 (talk) 07:49, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

donors
Removed text: "In 2000, "all of the Arab countries together have contributed barely two percent" of UNRWA's annual budget." Reason: ten years later Kuwait and Saudi Arabia contribute more than 6 percent. I don't think this deserves mention either, unless the whole list of major donors is given and/or it is noted that Israel is not on the list at all. Otherwise it looks like it is included just to swipe at Arab countries. Zerotalk 14:55, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

galloway
Is there something controversial about this edit? This a statement from a previous director of the UNRWA. The Arab states built and had total control over the refugee camps. In fact Jordan and Syria are top recipients from UNRWA funding. Galloway was well aware of this from the start. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:56, 26 June 2010 (UTC)


 * This article is about UNRWA. It is not about the refugees or the attitude of the Arab states towards them.  We have other articles for that.  The quote does not say anything specific about UNRWA, so bringing it here looks like OR and the reasons you give are clearly OR.  Incidentally, I'm interested in knowing where this quotation comes from.  Ralph Galloway seems to be almost entirely unknown except for these few sentences.  What came before and after them?  Zerotalk 07:50, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I see it appears in NYT May 19, 1957 as "has said", though I can't read the full article. This shows it is genuine, and also shows the unreliability of the many copy-pasters who cite it as 1958 without bothering to check. This one says it was said in 1952 and this one says it was in 1954.  Do we actually know anything about Mr. Galloway? Zerotalk 08:07, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Ralph Galloway was a former director of the UNRWA and his POV is notable. The attitude of Arab states towards the Palestinian plight as part of the UNRWA's mission is consistent with the article's outline. There is nothing OR about my section – the Arab states built the refugee camps and had control over them. The UNRWA works with the governments in Syria and Jordan, money is given to these states to care for their Palestinian residents. This is somewhere in the article I think. Can you link the NYT article? Wikifan12345 (talk) 08:27, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You are making an argument that is not made by the source. If it isn't OR it is SYNTH.  There are tons of things that can be argued to be somehow relevant to the subject, but we have to use things which themselves indicate their relevance.  The NYT article is behind a paywall and I can't read it.  I only believe this quote is there because google matched it.  Now I see it is an op-ed written by a bishop(!), not sure about RS. Zerotalk 12:04, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * What is synth about this statement? Ralph Galloway was a former director of the UNRWA (relevant) and provided his POV towards the Arab states alleged indifference or perhaps tacit support for the displacement of the Palestinians and their conditions. Jewish Virtual Library is a reliable source, and the book comes with a specific page cite. Wikifan12345 (talk) 12:49, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

A new academic paper,, demonstrates conclusively that there never was a Ralph Galloway. The original source of the "quotation" was a statement made by the Reverend Karl Baehr, Executive Secretary of the American Christian Palestine Committee, claiming to quote Lieutenant-General Sir Alexander Galloway. Zerotalk 10:39, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Canada
''UNRWA has been criticized by Israeli officials, who have claimed it supports terrorism and militancy[8] and Canada has withdrawn its financial support. Other governments, such as those of the United States,[9], Bangladesh, Canada, Japan, Jordan, Malaysia, Netherlands, Norway, South Africa, Turkey, Vietnam, and Palestinian Authority have praised its work.[10]''

The inclusion of Canada in those who have withdrawn support, and those that praise its work, is confusing.Ordinary Person (talk) 04:13, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Also, the sources given are crap. I've removed the crap sources along with the associated content. CoombaDelray (talk) 04:26, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

UNRWA helps terrorists
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/he/7/7e/UNambulance-carry-militants01.jpg in this picture we see hamas activists, escape, thanks you the ambulance of UNRA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.228.112.53 (talk) 17:22, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Definition
taken from the article
 * (article was incorrect- changed 28 – October 2011) ... talknic (talk) 18:08, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

However the definition of refugee for all other nations is much stricter. Thus a large percentage of those who currently are defined as Palestinian refugees never would have been held to refugees by international law; rather, they would have been merely considered recent immigrants to an area who were then forced out due to war. Israelis hold that this special definition for Palestinians alone, out of all the world's nationalities, is unfair, and grossly exagerrates the number of refugees who actually exist.


 * same case as in Palestinian refugee, please provide numbers. Furthermore in the formulation has to be considered that there was no "Palestinian nationality" at this time (in absence of a Palestinian nation), so there was actually a need for some other definition. --Elian 00:05 Oct 5, 2002 (UTC)


 * Elian – The argument is nonsense. Stateless people can also be refugees ... talknic (talk) 18:03, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * DEFINITION OF A PALESTINE REFUGEE under UNGA Res 194:
 * United Nations General Assembly Resolution 194, under which the Palestinians claim refugee rights, was adopted 11t Dec 1948, 12 months before UNRWA was established later 8th Dec 1949. Secondary Sources citing UNRWA figures in relationship to UNGA res 194, are unreliable on the point.


 * Primary Source Document: For the purpose of finding accurate Secondary Sources (http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/418E7BC6931616B485256CAF00647CC7)


 * Secondary Source: ... pages 38, 19


 * Suggestion: Remove all unreliable content ... talknic (talk) 18:05, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Noting no objection since 18:05, 28 October 2011 made a  change ... talknic (talk) 09:20, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Last edit
Activism1234, please read the content policies of this website, particularly WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:OR. The last edits consist entirely of original analysis of primary sources and blogs unsuitable for an encyclopedia article.  nableezy  – 04:27, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I did not link to any blogs. There is no "analysis."  There are simple sentences that contain facts about the curriculum.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Activism1234 (talk • contribs) 04:58, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Really? You cite for the statement The organization has been accused of assisting and fundraising for Hamas. The original research issue of an unpublished synthesis of primary sources remains with the rest of the section. You cite a series of forum entries about classes, a class motto, and several other primary sources. A bit of digging leads to why this is the way it is. You simply copied from a blog and plumped this material in here. There are several problems with such an approach, the most immediate being WP:COPYVIO, the next being that you still do not have a reliable secondary source supporting any of this material.  nableezy  – 05:13, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The Institute for Middle Eastern Democracy is a prestigious and reliable NGO that does important work in its respective field. The article's intention is not an opinion piece, bashing UNRWA, but rather highlighting great concern for this United Nations organization. (Furthermore, find a single non-partisan research center – they're all slanted, but that doesn't stop facts from being facts)  Even if you'd remove that reference, the paragraph would still stand with its other references to the UNRWA website and to Wikipedia.--Activism1234 (talk) 05:37, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no need for a "reliable secondary source" when the UNRWA website is willing to provide information about UNRWA for itself. If I say that I like to eat pizza, I don't need a "reliable secondary source" to reaffirm that I like to eat pizza.  There is no copyright violation either, the author is fine with his research being used by others, I know that, it is not an issue.  A may take his research (all facts from UNRWA website) and put it on his blog as "UNRWA teaches children to be terrorists." B may take his research (all facts from UNRWA website) and put i on his blog as "Support UNRWA's invaluable work in educating our children in the right and honorable path."  C may take his research (all facts from UNRWA website) and add it to a Wikipedia entry to enrich the knowledge of other people in an unbiased tone that simply states real facts taken from the UNRWA website in a paragraph that explains part of their curriculum.  I can just as well make another paragraph for their curriculum about arts and crafts, social studies, sports, etc, and you are welcome to do so if you'd like.  There is no conclusion drawn out in my addition, simply real facts for people to be aware of.  I'm sure many people will take pride in reading that as well. Pleasant night.--Activism1234 (talk) 05:36, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Im sorry, but no, it does not work that way on Wikipedia. You may not take a collection of primary sources and combine them into a topic that not one of those sources actually discusses. You may not use opinion pieces as sources of fact. You may not simply copy and paste material absent permission or proof of a proper license, and even if you have that permission, you most certainly may not cover up your sources of information. I don't particularly feel like reverting this myself right now, but I will be raising the issues with this text with the wider community.  nableezy  – 05:45, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Just one more thing. Please, do not misinterpret me. I have no issue at all with finding reliable secondary sources. I have many scholarly articles that were published which state this as well.  I would include this in a different paragraph, such as "UNRWA has come under heavy criticism, as certain people have accused it of..." with the proper references.  Perhaps it'd make you more comfortable if I do this, so I can get the "secondary source" business out of the way.  I think so...--Activism1234 (talk) 05:41, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * All material must be supported by reliable secondary sources. The Elder of Ziyon blog is not such a source.  nableezy  – 05:45, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I did not reference him. I referenced UNRWA. Generally when referencing a source, you try to find the primary source as much as possible, and use only that one, no matter the secondary one.  It doesn't matter what the views are of the secondary, since he/she is not being referenced, or even mentioned, but rather the primary one – in this case the website of UNRWA itself.  I could very well have just found the same websites on UNRWA as he/she did, or I could very well have found it myself and then sent it to him and he decided to put it on his blog.  And either way, the primary source still stands as a reference.  Also, I mentioned before a possible edit such as "UNRWA has come udner heavy criticism..." That would be better off in the "Criticism" section actually. (Also, if i don't answer you for a while, I'm sleeping and then working – I hope that's understandable)--Activism1234 (talk) 05:58, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You need reliable secondary sources for any material. Original analysis of primary documents like poems on an UNRWA school website or forum entries is not allowed in articles. I am removing several unreliable sources and original research.  nableezy  – 13:26, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It appears you violated the 1RR rule. You reverted/removed information on the Governance of the Gaza Strip page on July 5 at 22:00, and reverted/removed information on the UNRWA page (without reaching a consensus or finishing the talk here, I may add, but rather based on your own arbitrary fickleness) at July 6 13:00.  All articles related to the Arab-Israeli conflict broadly construed are under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24 hour period).  You should consider self-reverting yourself.
 * Now, about what you said... Despite having no proof that this is not original research (who is to say I didn't create that blog?), you removed valuable information. Now, I believe the best approach for this, in order to satisfy the need for important information on UNRWA and the points you brought up, is a more condensed version of my original paragraph with all the references at the end.  For example, "UNRWA's stated educational vision is... (perhaps that should go in the beginning). UNRWA's curriculum has been known to include Islamic religious studies as well, including essays, poems, and stories of waging violent jihad, and schools with explicit goals of teaching an Islamic education."  I can even find more references for this, if you are still queasy.
 * Tragically, whilst violating the 1RR rule, you also removed content unrelated to UNRWA school websites, forum entries, and poem. This calls into reasonable doubt your intentions of removing the content – was it, as you said, only rleated to UNRWA school websites, a primary source that would be cited by historians and authors and journalists? Or was it to remove any possible way of construing a negative image of UNRWA, by removing content that referenced a UNRWA article that explained their parternship with Human Appeal International, and a refernece to Wikipedia page that U.S. defines it as collobarating with terrorist organizations?  It is not in your right to arbitrarily remove properly referenced material under the guise that it's "unreliable" – if you believe a UNRWA website discussing UNRWA is unreliable, then that is indeed tragic, but more so, extremely silly and will be reported if it isn't put back or explained.--Activism1234 (talk) 16:58, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Uhh, no I did not violate the 1RR. And no, that is not the best solution. You cannot construct an argument not made in a secondary source out of primary sources and place it in an encyclopedia article. I removed several unreliable sources in areas besides the edits on schooling, such as actforamericaeducaton.com and un-eye.org. I also removed israelbehindthenews.com. If you continue to disregard the advice given to you, namely to read WP:RS, you may find your ability to edit these pages restricted. Please stop using such garbage sources in articles. Please understand that we build articles based on reliable secondary sources (with some exceptions) and that we do not create articles based on a collection of primary sources to push an unpublished argument. You are free to report whatever you wish. That crap isnt going back in.  nableezy  – 18:52, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It's getting silly now. What makes any of these websites "unreliable?"  A partisan-research tank is not unreliable either, they are experts in their field whose work is read widely and cited widely in books and journals. If someone criticized their work, that can be mentioned.  But just because something is partisan doesn't mean it doesn't contain facts.  Again, no reason why primary sources on the UNRWA website can not be allowed as references at the end of just one sentence that briefly condenses everything in that sentence.  If you wanted to you can do the same thing for sports – "UNRWA offers a wide variety of sports, including..." with references to UNRWA websites that show the type of sports.  That's up to you.  But does that reach a conclusion?  If I wanted to oppose it, I'd say "No you can't have that, it creates a biased conclusion that UNRWA, by offering sports, is a peace-loving flowery beautiful wonderful organization that everyone loves."  Does it really?  Even if it may paint UNRWA in a positive light, it's the truth that X and Y are offered in UNRWA schools.  It's a fact that X and Y are offered, and you can't deny that.  I'm sorry, but you can't just call every NGO, watch-dog monitoring group, and research organization and expert that doesn't agree with you while stating the facts "unreliable," even when UNRWA will say the EXACT SAME THING on their website (and oddly enough, you will remove the UNRWA source too, even in an area where there was no original research, which should be allowed under all circumstances without a dispute).  Unless you want to start a precedent whereby I will simply remove the entire section on OCHA about the Israeli cooperation on the grounds that for some reason OCHA is not a reliable source because one of their members posted on Twitter anti-Semitic comments, then you need to either start backing up what you say, point to a place where it was decided source X is unreliable, or leave it.  But the fact you won't even leave the UNRWA source, in a topic not covered by original research, after I saw it on the UNRWA website and linked to it and then found other reliable websites that found the exact same thing to add as more references, demonstrates a clear and regrettable bias and abuse of power.  Understand, I have been willing to remove or edit content when it was shown that I made a mistake, such as violating a 1RR policy.  I would expect others to follow suit.
 * You claim not to have violated the 1RR. That's odd.  When I reverted something on an article, and then removed something else on a completely different article, you said "you violated the 1RR policy, please visit the talk page for that article before removing."  In your case, you decided to visit the talk page, and then completely ignore what I'm saying, and just go ahead with your own whimsical and terrible points and remove valuable information, reject to reach a consensus or compromise or agreement.  If we can all just ignore talk pages, then this will descend into anarchy and chaos, and that would be most disturbing and regrettable.  I would like to reiterate my call for you to self-revert until a solution can be reached, or to self-revert to the brief condensation that I offered as compromise.
 * Then you dodge the question. Is the UNRWA website unreliable as well?  Firstly, there was no "building a primary source out of secondary sources." The UNRWA is a primary source. UNRWA website had an article about their partnership with an organization.  Why this was removed is beyond me, but reeks of bias.--Activism1234 (talk) 20:30, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No, when you removed something from the same article twice I told you that you violated the 1RR (for the 3rd time in one day). What makes those websites "unreliable"? They don't meet the criteria laid out in WP:RS. Have you read that page yet? Is the UNRWA webpage reliable? For statements by the UNRWA, sure, so long as there is no original research based off of that primary source. Forum entries by students at a school can't be used in place of reliable secondary sources, and they cannot be combined into a claim not made by a reliable secondary source. Please go read WP:RS. When you are done with that, read WP:OR. And then maybe WP:NPOV. I dont intend on continuing with this merry-go-round. You have made several edits that violate several policies. That has been repeatedly explained to you and those policies have been provided to you. If you insist on continuing to ignore all of that you can, but I am rapidly approaching the limit of my tolerance for such poor editing and I may well file a report seeking to restrict you from continuing to edit in such a way.  nableezy  – 20:43, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Your condescending tone is disturbing, as are your numerous assumptions, which are mistaken gravely. Firstly, if we were to accept the forum entries bit, then perhas you believe that a UNRWA statement, a UNRWA social studies lesson, a UNRWA story taught in a school, and a UNRWA job listing is considered forum entries by students. Your own personal opinions are fine, but that would be a misinterpretation of English.  Please go back and look at the references one more time, and you will notice there are far more references than just a forum entry by a student.  Using one reference to delete all the others is silly.
 * Please don't lie either. Slander is not welcome.  You stated I reverted the same article twice.  That is a pure lie.  It was two completely different articles.  The first article was about governance of the Gaza Strip, the second was an article that contained the secton "Israeli cooperation with international aid groups." Please read the edit history before making these accusations.  That's just a double standard, and I don't intend on continuing with this merry-go-round.  Poorly editing arbitarirly to remove information that does not agree with you is not accepted.  You see, the main issue is your constant dodging of a question I posed – you have excuses for everything.  You have an excuse for removing a paragraph about UNRWA's curriculum.  You have an excuse for removing certain references in the next paragraph about their partnership with an organization, because in your mind these are considered "unreliable" (even when UNRWA article says the exact same thing).  And yet, even with all these excuses, the original UNRWA article about their partnership and the Wikipedia link to the organization still stand alone. And yet, you do not answer why you removed those, when there was no reason to.  It may very well be because it didn't generate a shining image of UNRWA.  That's tough, but you have to allow facts on Wikipedia articles. To recap, your excuses have primarily been original research and unreliable references.  The UNRWA article is not based on original research (I found it on their website myself), nor is it an unreliable source, as it is an article published by a United Nations organization on said organization's website about said organizaiton's partnership.  Nor does it need a secondary source, although secondary sources were provided, being that it is published on their very own website and does not have any of the excuses you mentioned.
 * However, perhaps most callous are your threats to report me. For what?  Have I gone back and broken a 1RR policy? Nope.  I am not referring to yesterday, where you notified me and I immediately rectified the issue.  Have I gone back and added in the information? Nope.  I've been requesting here to reach a consensus, compromise, explanation, etc.  You will ban someone for contributing to a TALK page?? Not the Wikipedia page here, as someone reverted my edits and opened a discussion which I am now currently engaged in, and I haven't gone back and added in the information.  Yet for some reason, you threaten to ban/report me, when I am only on a talk page!!  I can't tell if you're serious.  If so, that's plain silly and ridiculous, and I would hope these threats are not made in the future.  If you don't want to respond here, you don't have to.  You say your tolerance is approaching its limit for poor editing.  Excuse me, that's what talk pages are for – you believe it's poor editing, I didn't, and that's what this talk page is for.  I didn't go back and make the same edit either, until something on this talk page is reached.  Understandbly, if you have a short temper, you do not need to respond (although you should look into that, it can be signs of a far worse symptom...). And yet, you are perpetuating this with refusal to engage in a serious talk, which is most disturbing and regrettable.  I have compromised when necessary, and have reverted when necessary, and I have understood when necessary.  I would expect the same from you, as mature and responsible adults.  Tragically, there appears to be a void as of now, but I'm sure that is only a mis-representation of the actual personfication of your character. G'day mate. -- Activism1234 
 * I am not in the habit of lying, thank you very much. At Gaza Strip, you made the same revert 18 minutes apart. At Governance of the Gaza Strip, you made close to the same revert short of 19 hours apart. You also made another revert at that article (here). So that makes 3 reverts at 1 article in 1 day (violating the 1RR, self-reverting to correct, then again violating the revert rule) and 2 reverts at another article that same day. Until you say that you have read WP:RS, I dont see the point in continuing with this. Quoting from that page: Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we only publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves. Later, When relying on primary sources, extreme caution is advised: Wikipedians should never interpret the content of primary sources for themselves. See No original research. Later still, Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities. You cannot take a collection of forum entries and say "look at all the things UNRWA schools have". You cannot take a random webpage and say "this place accuses UNRWA of being evil". You must use reputable secondary sources for such claims. Like I said, ignore this if you wish. But I wont be standing idly by as disregard core content policies to push whatevr the Elders of Ziyon blog tells you is The Truth. Especially when you dishonestly conceal the source for your additions.  nableezy  – 21:39, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That's deceitful and you know it. On governance of the Gaza Strip, I self-reverted after you asked me to.  My other reverts on that article were reverts of mistakes I made, such as a quote not being in the proper tags.  The Gaza Strip article, I removed something, and then removed something again. However, the second time, I self-reverted myself.  As for why you bring up an ad-hominem attack rather than answer the main question I posed at you related to this article is questionable, regrettable, and very disturbing.  You then continued to lie, in which you said I took a "random" webpage and said, and I quote, "This place accuses UNRWA of being evil." That is an outright lie.  I never took a collection of forum entries either, I had one (perhaps two) references that were a forum entry.  A job listing is not a forum entry, nor is a social studies class and description of the goals of a school (at least, not that I'm aware of.  Has the definition changed?).  These were all from the UNRWA website.  I never said either "Look at all the things UNRWA schools have." That is an outright lie.  Again, you continued dodging the question.  You remoevd the UNRWA ARTICLE, unrelated to their schools, that stated they entered a partnership? This was not original research and had no need for secondary resources, although I provided them, and you simply removed them because in your mind they were "unreliable."  Well maybe in my mind they were "reliable," and the simple fact is while you could not prove they were not, I have stated that they explain the same thing as the UNRWA article, and unless you will say UNRWA is lying about themselves, this is silly.  And even without those references, the UNRWA and Wikipedia link can still stand, as it is unrelated to the previous topic and is not based on original research, except for being on their website and reading an article they published.
 * I have no interest in continuing if this will be simply a place for verbal attacks, generalizations, assumptions, ad-hominem attacks, and a complete shift from the main topic at hand. I have no interest in continuing if you will go off topic.  I have no interest in continuing if you will simply repeat the same thing over and over rather than respond to what I write, which has been your tactic so far. I came here to discuss a certain topic, if that will no longer be discussed, then I can not afford to waste my time.  Best of luck.--Activism1234 (talk) 21:53, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That is absolutely, and unequivocally, untrue. Each of the reverts listed was a straightforward revert of a prior edit made by another editor. You should remember that the internet is written in ink, and that people can see article histories. You have, obviously, yet to read any of the policies linked. And since you have now graduated to repeatedly saying that I am lying, this ends the portion of the program where I try, vainly, to get you to comply with these policies, and it now moves on to the portion where if you continue ignoring them I report you for doing so.  nableezy  – 22:39, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Word play
Uh, the word play needs to stop, the addition of the word "initially" makes one believe that he later changed his statement on all three proceeding points, whereas he only reiterated the first point later. There was no G&M investigation, so I'm not sure why that BS keeps being re-added.

What is wrong with "John Ging, director of operations in Gaza for UNRWA, stated that three artillery shells landed near the school where 350 people were taking shelter. Ging stated that the attack was "horrific" and suggested Israel knew it was targetting a UN facility."?

I will unrevert for now, I didn't notice I had broken 1RR, was only taking a quick look in on a work break at the time, but I will change it back to a less deceptive version later on. And just curious, do you always edit from a mobile device to hide your IP, A1234? Unique Ubiquitous (talk) 16:18, 11 July 2012 (UTC) edit by sock

Why is there stuff in here about Caste Lead?
There's a topic Cast Lead talknic (talk) 16:46, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Surely there's a NPOV / BIAS issue between Criticism and Praise
1,306 words dedicated to Criticism 233 words dedicated to Praise ... Rather odd talknic (talk) 17:00, 11 July 2012 (UTC)