In January, The Wall Street Journal made an explosive claim: Quoting “intelligence reports,” the paper reported that not only had 12 members of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, or UNRWA, taken part in the Oct. 7 attack on Israel, but 10% of the relief agency’s 12,000 workers in Gaza had ties to militant groups.
The New York Times on Jan. 28 had published a detailed story about 12 workers who aided in the Oct. 7 attacks, followed by the Journal’s broader piece about UNRWA staff’s alleged links to Hamas — a one-two punch that had an immediate impact on the agency. More than a dozen countries including Germany and Britain froze funding to UNRWA, stalling a total of $450 million. It was a massive scandal that put the organization, the main conduit for aid to Gaza, on the defensive.
But months later, the paper’s top editor overseeing standards privately made an admission: The paper didn’t know — and still doesn’t know —whether the allegation, based on Israeli intelligence reports, was true.
All aid workers around the world don’t have a choice but to collaborate with ‘militant groups’, gangs, dictators, mafia, warlords, cartels… if they have to make a deal with the devil himself to be able to help some children be damned sure they’re gonna.
Having their ranks infiltrated is nothing new to aid orgs either (remember that sexual abuse scandal not long ago) or any other organization really, specially those that try to do good. Cutting the aid because an organization isn’t perfectly invulnerable is imo utterly stupid.
So I don’t care much for those proofs, as I think the facts are most certainly true (to a degree) but NORMAL. The way they are interpreted and used as an excuse to cut the aid is absolute bullshit.
In this case they never collaborated with Hamas though. It’s pretty wild that despite a thorough investigation of UNRWA basically nothing came up.
I meant ‘collaborate’ as in having talks or meetings, paying a ‘tax’, playing by their rules… nothing that leaves much of a record.
‘Ties with militant groups’ is vague enough so many people will read ‘on the terrorists’ payroll’. And on time some ‘proof’ like phone calls, pictures in the same place with a ‘militant group’ member, or handing them some material aid, going to the same mosquee…
The thing is unless they’re able to articulate more concrete accusations I wouldn’t even ask for proof, proof of what? I mean I have a bunch of cousins I barely met when I was a child, and no clue what they’ve been up to these ~30 years… I might have some ‘ties’ to ‘militant groups’ too, who knows?
True. But in this case they alleged 12 UNRWA members to have participated in the attack as well. Which is more than just a vague claim but a very specific one. So now we can demand NYT and WSJ proof for their claims.
Yeah we should expect proof of this kind of claims, having to demand it only shows how low the bar is. But even IF they can prove it, and that’s a big if, twelve people among such a massive organization would still be a nothingburger unless they’ve infiltrated the highest ranks.