This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
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.
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. [1] 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. [2]
There seem to be a revertion-war between the two versions. It should be tried to merge them.
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. [3] UNRWA replied that the militants forced the driver to take them.
MathKnight 14:11, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
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.
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.
I've reworded, again. Any better, Humus sapiens? Ambivalenthysteria 08:10, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
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 [4], there has been no evidence that this was condoned, implicitly or otherwise, by UNRWA itself.
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 documented incidences of ambulances being used by militants, there has been no evidence that this was officially condoned, implicitly or otherwise, by UNRWA.
How's this? ← Humus sapiens← Talk 18:19, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
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.
By the way I edit a single word saying that Hamas is a militant group. But does a militant group murder hundreds of civilians???
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 [8], there has been no evidence that this was condoned by UNRWA, implicitly or otherwise, and UNRWA have called the claims "baseless" [9].
To avoid confusion, I'm moving this back down here. Minor rewording, per Zero's latest requests. Ambivalenthysteria 13:43, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Peter Hansen Commission General of UNRWA has states that the claims that UNRWA ambulances were used to transport these bodily remains "baseless" [10]. 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)
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:
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:
"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.
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)
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. ← Humus sapiens← Talk 08:04, 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)
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
Sounds just like the reporting on Jenin...fabrications later downplayed.
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. [16] 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)
Isarig 16:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Lets work together to find a reasonable solution. Please discuss changes here before making them. -- יהושועEric 18:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
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 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)
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)
Why is the majority of this article unreferenced? I think that objectively, maybe half can be deleted. -- Shuki 22:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
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 Wikipedia: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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 ( [18]) 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. < eleland/ talk edits> 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
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)
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)
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)
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. [20] 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. Zero talk 14:55, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Is there something controversial about this ? 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)
A new academic paper, A. H. Joffe and A. Romirowsky. "A Tale of Two Galloways: Notes on the Early History of UNRWA and Zionist Historiography". Middle Eastern Studies. Vol. 46, no. 5. pp. 655–675., 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. Zero talk 10:39, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
taken from the article
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.
Noting no objection since 18:05, 28 October 2011 made a change ... talknic ( talk) 09:20, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
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)
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
There's a topic Cast Lead talknic ( talk) 16:46, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
1,306 words dedicated to
Criticism
233 words dedicated to
Praise ... Rather odd
talknic (
talk)
17:00, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
This was the definition accepted by the drafters of the resolution 194 for the purposes of defining the entire group of Palestinians who were entitled to the protection of the International Community
{{
cite book}}
: External link in |location=
(
help)CS1 maint: location (
link)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
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.
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. [1] 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. [2]
There seem to be a revertion-war between the two versions. It should be tried to merge them.
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. [3] UNRWA replied that the militants forced the driver to take them.
MathKnight 14:11, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
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.
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.
I've reworded, again. Any better, Humus sapiens? Ambivalenthysteria 08:10, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
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 [4], there has been no evidence that this was condoned, implicitly or otherwise, by UNRWA itself.
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 documented incidences of ambulances being used by militants, there has been no evidence that this was officially condoned, implicitly or otherwise, by UNRWA.
How's this? ← Humus sapiens← Talk 18:19, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
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.
By the way I edit a single word saying that Hamas is a militant group. But does a militant group murder hundreds of civilians???
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 [8], there has been no evidence that this was condoned by UNRWA, implicitly or otherwise, and UNRWA have called the claims "baseless" [9].
To avoid confusion, I'm moving this back down here. Minor rewording, per Zero's latest requests. Ambivalenthysteria 13:43, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Peter Hansen Commission General of UNRWA has states that the claims that UNRWA ambulances were used to transport these bodily remains "baseless" [10]. 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)
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:
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:
"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.
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)
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. ← Humus sapiens← Talk 08:04, 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)
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
Sounds just like the reporting on Jenin...fabrications later downplayed.
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. [16] 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)
Isarig 16:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Lets work together to find a reasonable solution. Please discuss changes here before making them. -- יהושועEric 18:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
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 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)
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)
Why is the majority of this article unreferenced? I think that objectively, maybe half can be deleted. -- Shuki 22:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
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 Wikipedia: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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 ( [18]) 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. < eleland/ talk edits> 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
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)
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)
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)
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. [20] 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. Zero talk 14:55, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Is there something controversial about this ? 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)
A new academic paper, A. H. Joffe and A. Romirowsky. "A Tale of Two Galloways: Notes on the Early History of UNRWA and Zionist Historiography". Middle Eastern Studies. Vol. 46, no. 5. pp. 655–675., 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. Zero talk 10:39, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
taken from the article
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.
Noting no objection since 18:05, 28 October 2011 made a change ... talknic ( talk) 09:20, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
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)
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
There's a topic Cast Lead talknic ( talk) 16:46, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
1,306 words dedicated to
Criticism
233 words dedicated to
Praise ... Rather odd
talknic (
talk)
17:00, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
This was the definition accepted by the drafters of the resolution 194 for the purposes of defining the entire group of Palestinians who were entitled to the protection of the International Community
{{
cite book}}
: External link in |location=
(
help)CS1 maint: location (
link)