Mainstream media doesn't need any help in that regardIt also does not make mainstream media unreliable.
Mainstream media doesn't need any help in that regardIt also does not make mainstream media unreliable.
Why must one imagine that? They've got a track record of unsubstantiated allegations, as well as lists of UNRWA staff.Not to me. But one must imagine evidence was provided to UNRWA that they were able to identify them.
This seems rather insubstantial.Regardless, that line in the report is explicitly about the March allegations. Tiring it back to the January allegations is a lie.
If the purview was an article specifically about American bombings, that sentence would be completely reasonable, and it would be absurd to argue it should give equal weight to events outside of its purview.Except that cancer doesn't cause ebola or vice versa and the two have very little to do with each other. It would be more like if it said "in 1944 America bombed france and killed 1352 germans." This is the 'and then stuff happened' type of history that article does.
No. Yet they are subject to Israeli policy and the effects of Israeli law, and their access to resources is determined by Israel. Their exclusion when considering the effects of discrimination in Israeli law is arbitrary.Some of the laws in that sheet are and some can be utilized that way, but are palastinians israeli citizens?
Israel gave no evidence for any of their accusations against UNRWA. They had the chance for that report, and failed to do so. You are still wrong and don't know anything.For countries to cut funding in January based on Israel's March accusations requires those countries to know what would happen in two months.
Totally disagree, context is king. Without context nothing means anything, its just "shit happens."If the purview was an article specifically about American bombings, that sentence would be completely reasonable, and it would be absurd to argue it should give equal weight to events outside of its purview.
Well, they are an occupied people, kinda expected they wouldn't have the same rights. Seems like violence isn't helping that much.No. Yet they are subject to Israeli policy and the effects of Israeli law, and their access to resources is determined by Israel. Their exclusion when considering the effects of discrimination in Israeli law is arbitrary.
Disagree all you like, but that's how legal aid groups work everywhere. Groups have purviews. This is not a mark against their credibility for any rational person. There is nothing wrong with the link you were provided with and this is still deflection: you have a comprehensive list of laws explicitly discriminating against Israeli Arabs.Totally disagree, context is king. Without context nothing means anything, its just "shit happens."
OK, so we've gone from "They're not discriminated against" to "They are discriminated against but its fine".Well, they are an occupied people, kinda expected they wouldn't have the same rights.
Seriously?This seems rather insubstantial.
They did give evidence for their accusations against the 12. To the UNRWA. There is some public record with alleged photos of the participation in October 7th that I have no ability to validate nor reason to trust at face value... but the UNRWA has those abilities, and fired the accused, and published a report about how they take accusations against their members seriously as many of them are valid and should be taken seriously.Israel gave no evidence for any of their accusations against UNRWA. They had the chance for that report, and failed to do so. You are still wrong and don't know anything.
They were fired pending investigation. Here's the investigation. Israel provided nothing to substantiate their claims. You're the willfully ignorant one.Seriously?
Imagine a person was accused of murder with evidence and they confessed to it. Then later, they get accused of more murders without the same evidence, and then someone goes on Twitter and claims that there was no evidence this person committed murder, even the first murder, the one they confessed to. Is that an insubstantial difference?
They did give evidence for their accusations against the 12. To the UNRWA. There is some public record with alleged photos of the participation in October 7th that I have no ability to validate nor reason to trust at face value... but the UNRWA has those abilities, and fired the accused, and published a report about how they take accusations against their members seriously as many of them are valid and should be taken seriously.
I can only assume you pursue ignorance on purpose.
Then its rather worthless for our discussion.Disagree all you like, but that's how legal aid groups work everywhere. Groups have purviews. This is not a mark against their credibility for any rational person.
If they aren't israeli citizens then the literally aren't what I am talking about and every country discriminates against non-citizens.OK, so we've gone from "They're not discriminated against" to "They are discriminated against but its fine".
Are you dumb? I linked the report. Anyone can read it. Including you.They were fired pending investigation. Here's the investigation. Israel provided nothing to substantiate their claims. You're the willfully ignorant one.
Yes, and the report found that Israel provided no credible information for their claims. They never do. They just like killing aid workers.Are you dumb? I linked the report. Anyone can read it. Including you.
You wanted evidence of legal discrimination against Israeli Arabs. You were given exactly that, from an internationally credible source. It's as directly relevant as you can get-- and you're not even disputing the substance.Then its rather worthless for our discussion.
Yes, I know you want to make arbitrary exclusions. Most other countries don't have millions of people subject to their laws and policies, under their control and occupation, who aren't citizens.If they aren't israeli citizens then the literally aren't what I am talking about and every country discriminates against non-citizens.
That's not an insubstantial difference. It's also so completely incomparable to the situation we're discussing that it's absurd.Seriously?
Imagine a person was accused of murder with evidence and they confessed to it. Then later, they get accused of more murders without the same evidence, and then someone goes on Twitter and claims that there was no evidence this person committed murder, even the first murder, the one they confessed to. Is that an insubstantial difference?
Israel accused 12 of the UNRWA staff of specific participation in October 7th, with names, occupations, what they allegedly did on the 7th, and sometimes pictures or recordings. UNRWA received this info and fired all those shown to be involved. Then Israel claimed a lot more of their staff is connected to Hamas without the same level of evidence. In response, crimsons position is " Israel provided no credible information for their claims. They never do. They just like killing aid workers. "That's not an insubstantial difference. It's also so completely incomparable to the situation we're discussing that it's absurd.
You say "with names, occupations, what they allegedly did" as if that is substantiation. Its not. That's still just allegation.Israel accused 12 of the UNRWA staff of specific participation in October 7th, with names, occupations, what they allegedly did on the 7th, and sometimes pictures or recordings. UNRWA received this info and fired all those shown to be involved. Then Israel claimed a lot more of their staff is connected to Hamas without the same level of evidence. In response, crimsons position is " Israel provided no credible information for their claims. They never do. They just like killing aid workers. "
It's the exact same situation.
You should stop reading Times of Israel, it's a propaganda outlet.Israel accused 12 of the UNRWA staff of specific participation in October 7th, with names, occupations, what they allegedly did on the 7th, and sometimes pictures or recordings. UNRWA received this info and fired all those shown to be involved. Then Israel claimed a lot more of their staff is connected to Hamas without the same level of evidence. In response, crimsons position is " Israel provided no credible information for their claims. They never do. They just like killing aid workers. "
It's the exact same situation.
Isaeli arabs, not palastinians. They are different groups.You wanted evidence of legal discrimination against Israeli Arabs. You were given exactly that, from an internationally credible source. It's as directly relevant as you can get-- and you're not even disputing the substance.
This is a big reason why this situation is so complicated.Yes, I know you want to make arbitrary exclusions. Most other countries don't have millions of people subject to their laws and policies, under their control and occupation, who aren't citizens.
I recommend you actually read the sources you've been provided with, which make it abundantly clear that Israeli law also discriminates against Israeli Arabs.Isaeli arabs, not palastinians. They are different groups.
Yes, I'm aware. Yet 'complexity' is not an excuse to operate an apartheid-- it's just a vapid descriptor.This is a big reason why this situation is so complicated.
Do you have a source for those italics? Or is crimson5phoenix enough for you to stake your reputation on?You said UNRWA fired people "shown to be involved", but that's also untrue-- they were fired pending investigation.