URNWA - Hamas investigation. Thread 2

1. Hamas' announcement that its leader in Lebanon Fathi Sherif al-Amin was killed.
2. The head of UNRWA's teachers union Fathi Sherif al-Amin was killed

Oh. dear…
This time it is not maybe, could have, likely, highly likely to have been Hamas.
No. Fathi al-Sharif was Hamas.

This time Lazzarini declares he didn’t know! Or didn’t know he was a commander! Perhaps it is okay to be local Hamas?

Lazzarini could have just asked Hamas or checked out his public Facebook page.

What I found really interesting, UNRWA teachers utter support of their UNRWA teaching union head when he had been suspended because he was accused of being Hamas.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/unrwa-chief-says-he-did-not-know-suspended-employee-was-hamass-leader-in-lebanon/

We haven’t seen the original ad never mind a reliable translation. However, Netanyahu is documented as saying”“The idea that we will stop the war before achieving all its aims is not an option”.

I think the ads are part of the Israeli justification for killing so many civilians- it’s a variation of “ you made us do it” narrative that runs along the line of “ The bombardment would stop if they just released the hostages.”

There are about half a dozen different tacks starting with exaggerating the scale of depravity of Hamas( as if that were needed), denying the scale of the humanitarian catastrophe, discrediting critics of the Israeli government, etc etc but as denial gets harder, Israel is clearly finding it harder and harder to make any case justifying their actions. But it’s a very Trumpian approach- keep saying the war will end if the hostages are released and those who want to will believe it. But in reality, Netanyahu is sacrificing the surviving hostages for his other war objectives.

Because they are lying and they are desperate.

"Ceding control over Gaza" is a potentially problematic concept - ceding to whom?

It's also rather 'problematic' to have any government using ads in that way as part of propaganda - with the problematic bit being the method of communication and the effects of that on people who encounter it, rather than the part of the message that pretty much everyone is in agreement with.

Should governments buy commercial ad time/space for conflict-related propaganda? It's quite different from a charity advertising campaigns to help people in need, or from public health media campaigns.

How are those adverts targeted and what does that mean for the people seeing it in terms of their personal data? What does that mean for users of the products on which those ads appear?

What is the purpose of the ad campaigns? What is actually being achieved by presenting messages like "Hamas must cede control over Gaza" in adverts by the Israeli government, in Arabic, presumably primarily to be seen by people who understand Arabic? One possible answer to that question is: Intimidation.

That's problematic.

"The ad Shaheen saw is in Arabic and describes Hamas as having the ability to end the war by releasing hostages and ceding control over Gaza. She flagged it in the YouTube app as problematic."

Problematic! Suggesting the freeing the hostages might help end the war. Bizarre someone might complain that, freeing hostages might help as being 'problematic'.

@PeasfullPerson

Palestine refugees are not distinct from other refugees in protracted refugee situations such as those from Afghanistan or Somalia, where there are multiple generations of refugees, registered by UNHCR as refugees and supported as such. Protracted refugee situations are the result of the failure to find political solutions to their underlying political crises.’

Here is where the sleight of hand comes in. Of course it is possible for there to be multiple generations of refugees by UNHCR, IF the multiple generations all fit the primary 1951 definition of a refugee. For example, if the granddaughter of a refugee is also outside the country of her nationality due to a well founded fear of being persecuted, she too is a primary refugee. But she is NOT a refugee due to descent, because there is no provision for refugee status based on descent in the 1951 refugee convention or in internationally accepted practices for refugees who are not Palestinian refugees.

Almost all of Jordan’s 2.2 million UNRWA-designated refugees would lose their status under UNHCR criteria, as would most of Syria’s 560,000 and just under half of Lebanon’s 521,000. All 2.17 million UNRWA-designated refugees in Gaza, the West Bank would lose that status were those areas to become parts of a sovereign Palestinian state.

@Scirocco
'Your post is saying that it’s ok to hold on to land taken by conquest and, by inference , ok for Israel to thwart a two state solution.
Israel is a sovereign recognised country.'

Yes it is. The Occupied Territories are... Occupied. By Israel. It might be nice if the people there could have sovereignty too. Disputed territories, that Israel has been willing to concede since 1967 ( subject to land swaps) in 2000 and 2008. Gaza has not been occupied since 2005.

'Why wouldn’t Palestinians gravitate toward Iran or Russia or anyone else who will support them in trying to get their land back if the only way is by conquest.
You have to be a bit more specific with your incredibly vague posts. What land are you talking about? Gaza? The West Bank? Or Israel?'

Maybe having a sovereign Palestinian state, free from occupation, could be a way of making it possible for Palestinians to have homes and safety from persecution, alongside some sort of recompense for the suffering inflicted upon them by decades of occupation and oppression.

At every point in history Palestinians have said no to a state of their own. Why? Throughout history from 1947 when given the choice of attacking, delegitimising, or working towards the destruction of Israel OR having a state of their own they have chosen the former.
Whenever these two goals have come into conflict, the first - the destruction of Israel (through the ‘right’ of return) has won out over the second of having a state.

'Israeli policy for decades has been to do anything to avoid a political two state solution
This is utterly untrue. Please read up on the peace negotiations from 2000 and 2008.'

It kind of is true. Kicking the ball into the long grass isn't progress, it's just making something tomorrow's problem rather than resolving it today.
Please explain, how your statement explains Israeli participation in both of the peace negotiations and willingness to negotiate after 1967 war is considered kicking the ball into the long grass.

'-the pullout from Gaza was not remotely self determination
Gaza did have self determination how else do you think Hamas the governing body were able to build a terror tunnel city?'

Gaza is still recognised as having been under occupation even once the Israeli settlements there were removed. Having experience of Gaza, what they had there was a very long way from self-determination.
Hamas co-founder Mahmoud Zahar confirmed in 2012 there was no Israeli occupation of Gaza.
Hamas ran its own police, courts, jails, schools, media and social services. Hamas regulated business activities, banks and land registries. It levied taxes, controlled its own border with Egypt and even imposed a dress code. It was a functioning and fully independent local civil government, buttressed by armed forces.
The international law of occupation requires that a hostile army have "effective control" over a territory in an area where its authority can be exercised, and to the exclusion of the territory's established government. The UN considers it occupied, in reality it was not.
Borders of Gaza. Hamas along with Egypt, controlled the Rafah border before October 2023. 352,000 Gazans left and returned to Gaza (equal to 35% of population) between January and June 2023. Hamas published a daily roster of exit permits.

They don't have a 'terror tunnel city'. They have a tunnel network, plenty of bits of which were already there. Lots of urban areas do have tunnel networks, by the way, this isn't a thing that's unique to Gaza.
Lots of countries do have a tunnel network, the tube for example and I’m sure there were some tunnels before 2005 however, Hamas dramatically expanded the tunnel network built specifically for warfare over a 19 year period and is longer than the London tube. Taking away materials which should have been earmarked for the benefit of their population.

‘Palestine refugees are not distinct from other refugees in protracted refugee situations such as those from Afghanistan or Somalia, where there are multiple generations of refugees, registered by UNHCR as refugees and supported as such. Protracted refugee situations are the result of the failure to find political solutions to their underlying political crises.’

That would be a durable solution wouldn’t it! And which state is most against this happening!!

‘Under international law and the principle of family unity, the children of refugees and their descendants are also considered refugees until a durable solution is found.’

'Your post is saying that it’s ok to hold on to land taken by conquest and, by inference , ok for Israel to thwart a two state solution.
Israel is a sovereign recognised country.'

Yes it is. The Occupied Territories are... Occupied. By Israel. It might be nice if the people there could have sovereignty too.

'Why wouldn’t Palestinians gravitate toward Iran or Russia or anyone else who will support them in trying to get their land back if the only way is by conquest.
You have to be a bit more specific with your incredibly vague posts. What land are you talking about? Gaza? The West Bank? Or Israel?'

Maybe having a sovereign Palestinian state, free from occupation, could be a way of making it possible for Palestinians to have homes and safety from persecution, alongside some sort of recompense for the suffering inflicted upon them by decades of occupation and oppression.

'Israeli policy for decades has been to do anything to avoid a political two state solution
This is utterly untrue. Please read up on the peace negotiations from 2000 and 2008.'

It kind of is true. Kicking the ball into the long grass isn't progress, it's just making something tomorrow's problem rather than resolving it today.

'-the pullout from Gaza was not remotely self determination
Gaza did have self determination how else do you think Hamas the governing body were able to build a terror tunnel city?'

Gaza is still recognised as having been under occupation even once the Israeli settlements there were removed. Having experience of Gaza, what they had there was a very long way from self-determination.

They don't have a 'terror tunnel city'. They have a tunnel network, plenty of bits of which were already there. Lots of urban areas do have tunnel networks, by the way, this isn't a thing that's unique to Gaza.

'and the rise of its Hamas administration was Israeli orchestrated.
Please explain this conspiracy theory in detail. Looking forward.'

https://www.timesofisrael.com/for-years-netanyahu-propped-up-hamas-now-its-blown-up-in-our-faces/

Not really a conspiracy theory.

@Kindatired

Your post is saying that it’s ok to hold on to land taken by conquest and, by inference , ok for Israel to thwart a two state solution.
Israel is a sovereign recognised country.

Why wouldn’t Palestinians gravitate toward Iran or Russia or anyone else who will support them in trying to get their land back if the only way is by conquest.
You have to be a bit more specific with your incredibly vague posts. What land are you talking about? Gaza? The West Bank? Or Israel?

Israeli policy for decades has been to do anything to avoid a political two state solution
This is utterly untrue. Please read up on the peace negotiations from 2000 and 2008.

-the pullout from Gaza was not remotely self determination
Gaza did have self determination how else do you think Hamas the governing body were able to build a terror tunnel city?

.and the rise of its Hamas administration was Israeli orchestrated.
Please explain this conspiracy theory in detail. Looking forward.

Your post is saying that it’s ok to hold on to land taken by conquest and, by inference , ok for Israel to thwart a two state solution. Why wouldn’t Palestinians gravitate toward Iran or Russia or anyone else who will support them in trying to get their land back if the only way is by conquest. Israeli policy for decades has been to do anything to avoid a political two state solution-the pullout from Gaza was not remotely self determination and the rise of its Hamas administration was Israeli orchestrated.

@Kindatired

You’re saying there’s no such thing as a Palestinian refugee and the Palestinians who were forced to give up their land should just suck it up to facilitate world peace because many groups were displaced in the aftermath of WW2.

No, I am not, there indeed are Palestinian refugees, but these number in the tens of thousands not 5.9 million. Those that are still refugees are mainly from Lebanon, some are still in Syria. In Lebanon the Palestinian refugees have been treated the worst. Lebanon did not make the Palestinians citizens, they were not integrated into the economy. The Palestinian refugees and their descendants in Lebanon have been prohibited from employment in over twenty professions and their ability to enter and exit the country is highly limited. Around half live in refugee camps and many live in dire poverty.
They could be transferred to the care and protection of UNHCR. In doing so, they would become official refugees subject to the protection of UNHCR. In 2017 an official census in Lebanon found that the number of registered refugees living there was only one-third of the number in UNWRA’s records. Since the refugee population is much smaller than previously thought it should be easier to find individual solutions for them. UNHCR would advocate to end the discriminatory regime against them in Lebanon, while it would also seek solutions of resettlement in third countries and even attempt to naturalisation in Lebanon.

UNRWA was set up just before UNKRA the agency for Korean’s refugees.
UNKRA was set up to aid and work to absorb the 3.1 million refugees from North Korea into South Korea which was devastated, whole cities were rubble and the countries economy was paralysed.
UNKRA settled every refugee in South Korea within 10 years.
Imagine if the Koreans had sat seething on the 38th parallel for the last 71 years. It wouldn’t be the successful country it is today with one of the world’s strongest economies.

Firstly, they were displaced due to the actions of the UN doing a deal with the British so the UN has a special responsibility to sort out the ensuing difficulties. Secondly the role of UNWRA is to provide assistance to the Palestinian refugees, not to co-operate with ethnic cleansing or forced relocation.

No, they became refugees when they waged a completely unnecessary war with a view to kill or expel every single Jew from the Mandate of Palestine.
Not sure what deal you are talking about between the British and the UN? The UN are not responsible for the Palestinians becoming refugees, the GA offered a solution which was rejected by the Arabs. It is a common argument from the Palestinians that the UN was responsible for creating the refugees; it was not responsible. You see Hamas spouting this spurious argument; Moussa Abu Marzouk when asked by an interviewer why haven’t Hamas built bomb shelters for it’s population the Hamas leader’s reply was the population of Gaza are the UN’s responsibility.
Secondly, UNRWA was created which would operate for a limited time (much like UNKRA for the Koreans) to prepare for the eventual discontinuation of international aid for the refugees. The Arab countries had other ideas and some interesting amendments to this.
By forced relocation are you including the citizens of Jordan who were born there and have never had to flee their homes who are registered as refugees?

the Palestinians should be moved on permanently without their consent purely to accommodate the state of Israel which has forcibly annexed the land that had been allocated to the Palestinian state

Forcibly annexed the land? The Palestinians, along with 5 other Arab countries waged a completely unnecessary war which the Jews against all odds won.
No land was allocated to the Palestinian state. The GA in 1947 offered a solution to the problem a Jewish state and an Arab state, which was rejected by the Arabs at the time. The resolution 181 is not binding as it was rejected.

It sounds like one of the key steps to removing a need for UNRWA would, therefore, be the international recognition and protection of a sovereign Palestinian state, free from occupation. I think a lot of people would far rather have that than perpetual refugee status.

Today, some 5.9 million Palestine refugees are eligible for UNRWA services.

@PeasfullPerson

UNHCR does not explicitly mention descendants of refugees in its definition, but the UNHCR Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status says that if the head of a family meets its definition of a refugee, his or her dependents normally are normally granted refugee status as well for the sake of family unity, ie his or her children.

In contrast to UNRWA, the UNHCR handbook, however, also mentions that granting refugee status to a dependent who “is a national of the country of asylum or of another country… would not be called for.” To be clear no citizen refugees. No forth or fifth generation refugees who have never fled their homes and who are citizens of the country they were born in.

Also, UNHCR has very specific ways for refugees to exit their refugee status. Under UNRWA, it is death or being falsely registered/duplicated.
UNHCR tries to remove their refugee status, while by default UNRWA tries to maintain it.

Almost all of Jordan’s 2.2 million UNRWA-designated refugees would likely lose their status under UNHCR criteria, as would most of Syria’s 560,000 and just under half of Lebanon’s 521,000. All 2.2 million UNRWA-designated refugees in Gaza and the West Bank would lose that status were those areas to become parts of a sovereign Palestinian state.

Is The Transfer Of Refugee Status To Descendants Unique To UNRWA?
37866

No. Under international law and the principle of family unity, the children of refugees and their descendants are also considered refugees until a durable solution is found. As stated by the United Nations,this principle applies to all refugees and both UNRWA and UNHCR have recognized descendants as refugees on this basis.
In line with this, the UN General Assembly annual resolutions on UNRWA operations continue since the 1950s to require the Agency to deliver its services for the protection and assistance of Palestine refugees, including descendants.
Palestine refugees are not distinct from other refugees in protracted refugee situations such as those from Afghanistan or Somalia, where there are multiple generations of refugees, registered by UNHCR as refugees and supported as such. Protracted refugee situations are the result of the failure to find political solutions to their underlying political crises.
It is important to note that registration with UNRWA does not afford refugee status under the 1951 Geneva Convention, but provides services and assistance based on a definition that sets out eligibility for receipt of such services.

Why Can’t UNRWA Resettle Palestine Refugees?
37866

Unlike UNHCR, UNRWA does not have a mandate to resettle Palestine refugees and has no authority to seek lasting durable solutions for refugees. UNRWA is mandated by the UN General Assembly to provide services to Palestine refugees in five fields of operations, pending a just and lasting solution to their plight. Palestine refugees within the Agency’s fields of operations are excluded from the mandate of UNHCR, which has a resettlement mandate. However, according to UNHCR, less than 1 per cent of refugees are resettled each year.
It is worth noting that the protracted situation in which Palestine refugees live is not unique. Resettlement requires the consent not only of refugees, but also of the receiving state. UNHCR estimates that 78 per cent of all refugees under its mandate – 16 million refugees - were in protracted refugee situations in 2019. According to UNHCR data, of the 20.7 million refugees under UNHCR protection in 2020, less than 2 per cent of refugees (251,000) were repatriated to their country of origin. Far fewer were resettled in a third country (34,400) or naturalized as citizens in their country of asylum (33,746). The vast majority remained refugees pending a solution to their plight.

UNWRA is set up to protect the human rights of Palestinians, not everyone registered with them has refugee status,
some are registered under different groups in order to receive their services.

There are currently 5.9 million refugees. No one comes off the list.

They do when they die.

Eligibility requirements to be recognised as a Palestinian refugee changed in 1965 to include third generation descendants. In 1982 eligibility changed again to include ALL descendants of Palestinian males.

Because this conflict has been going on since 1948 and Israel has repeatedly denied Palestinian refugees their right of return. If we only had right of return until the original refugees died, well isn’t that rewarding countries who just refuse refugees their right of return? Aren’t we just allowing a loophole, of oh well, everyone who was alive in 1948 is now dead so nanner nanner we win, ethnic cleansing is complete, all we had to do was kick them out and wait 75yrs…

UNWRA refuses to accept that people who are citizens of a country are not refugees

You don’t have to be stateless to be a refugee! Citizenship of a country doesn’t mean you can’t be a refugee.