You can go back a few months in this thread to see it referenced at the time if you really want.
Conflict between Palestine and Israel escalates
- Thread starter dreng3
- Start date
UNRWA staff accused by Israel sacked without evidence, chief admits
Philippe Lazzarini says summary dismissal of nine employees was ‘reverse due process’ after Israel’s claims they aided Hamas attack
www.theguardian.com
- Apr 1, 2009
- 14,505
- 3,453
- 118
- Gender
- Whatever, just wash your hands.
If the palastinians would chill for a bit, it would be harder for a democracy to deny them legal status.
I'm genuinely disappointed in you. I did not think willful deceit was in your wheelhouse, but here we are. That last sentence with the underline is about "an investigation". It is a general description of OIOS investigations. You've successfully drawn the eye in such a way as to mask what's actually being said.
Yes, and? This tells you there was no evidence? We're not talking about due process, we're talking about credible evidence of wrongdoing. We're talking about a school teacher accused of invading a nation to kidnap civilians, and you expect a trial and conviction before the people running that school take action? That's absurd. They were presented credible evidence and acted on it.UNRWA staff accused by Israel sacked without evidence, chief admits
Philippe Lazzarini says summary dismissal of nine employees was ‘reverse due process’ after Israel’s claims they aided Hamas attack
I knew unwarranted condescension was in yours.
fucking obviously that line refers broadly to the nature of an OIOS investigation. That is not hidden. And the nature of an OIOS investigation-- to determine whether something happened-- is rather relevant, coming as it did after dismissal, and not prior to it. So my italics-- "pending investigation", as opposed to "as a result of investigation"-- were correct.No, I don't expect a "trial and conviction" before action is taken. Don't shift the goalposts quite so shamelessly-- The "absurd" suggestion here is one you've invented and attributed to me.
We were discussing whether the dismissal was made on the basis of credible evidence of culpability or not. Here we have Lazzarini, explicitly and unambiguously saying no. He doesn't say "we dismissed them before trial and conviction". He's asked about whether he had evidence and he says "no".
When you say they were "presented with credible evidence and acted on it", you're directly contradicting the UNRWA commissioner general.
From your own source: "On Thursday, the UN secretary general, António Guterres, defended the decision to fire the staff before an inquiry was complete, citing “credible” information from Israel."
For the purposes of the UN, "credible information" is basically "someone said so".
No, it would just be easier to not report about them around the world.
In times when the palestinians didn't do much, Israel still took their land, built new settlements, randomly imprisoned people, let the settlers do whatever they want and made discrimitory laws. It was just easier for the West to look the other way.
Israel is a violently racist society. You are asking Palestinians to simply die.
But dying in a legal and democratically approved way.
Someone's criteria for "credible information" could simply be an accusation from someone they consider credible, or an accusation of a nature they find possible. That statement doesn't speak of the substance of evidence at all.
From my own source:
"Lazzarini was asked if he had looked into whether there was any evidence against the employees and he replied: “No, the investigation is ongoing now".
And Lazzarini is the one who made the decision. He's asked an unambiguous question, whether he had evidence for it, and says no.
We don't actually know what question he was actually asked. They only quoted his response, so that underlined part is likely a paraphrase or interpretation by the author.
oh, yeah, great point.
"have you looked into whether there is any evidence against the employees?" -> was asked if he had looked into whether there was any evidence against the employees
(absolutely accurate, this is a precise rendering of what was asked)
The above can also be "... any evidence about connections to October 7 [or Al-Aqsa Flood or other interchangeable descriptions]" and still be a precisely correct description, or even more vague descriptions like 'terrorism' or 'militancy' and so forth.
"have you seen any evidence against the employees?" -> was asked if he had looked into whether there was any evidence against the employees (close enough, though I wouldn't write it that way)
"is there any evidence?" -> was asked if he had looked into whether there was any evidence against the employees (this rendering would be frankly incorrect and potentially misleading, but poses no problem whatsoever for our purposes: the response to this question would still address our question directly)
Here's a post from January:
Al-Jazeera quotes Lazzarini: “The Israeli authorities have provided UNRWA with information about the alleged involvement of several UNRWA employees in the horrific attacks on Israel on October 7,” Philippe Lazzarini, commissioner-general of the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), said on Friday. “To protect the agency’s ability to deliver humanitarian assistance, I have taken the decision to immediately terminate the contracts of these staff members and launch an investigation in order to establish the truth without delay.”Some context to that tweet. Also, official statements from the UNRWA and the US State Department
UNRWA probes employees over suspected involvement in October 7 attack
The US has paused funding to the UN agency after Israel said some of its staff were allegedly involved in the attacks.www.aljazeera.com
Statement on UNRWA Allegations - United States Department of State
The United States is extremely troubled by the allegations that twelve UNRWA employees may have been involved in the October 7 Hamas terrorist attack on Israel. The Department of State has temporarily paused additional funding for UNRWA while we review these allegations and the steps the United...www.state.gov
So what we have here is: Israel makes allegation. UNRWA takes it seriously and prioritizes the delivery of aid over the employment of people alleged by Israel to have done something objectionable. Funding is cut to UNRWA anyway. No evidence of the allegations emerges, even after two months for Israel to conduct its own investigation to find or fabricate some. Mossad sends agents back in time to deliver that absence of evidence to the State Department so that the State Department knows it is completely full of shit when it suspends funding to UNRWA based on the allegations made in January.
There is no valid paraphrase or interpretation of "asked whether there was any evidence" that doesn't involve the speaker asking whether there was any evidence. It's unambiguous.
OK, how about this: you can watch the press conference with Lazzarini from the following month here:
The relevant part begins at 5:35.
His exact words are as follows:
"Today I also updated the General Assembly about the allegation about twelve UNRWA staff, who have allegedly participated to [sic] the horrendous attack of October 7. I also stress that as far as I'm concerned, at the time I have received the allegation, I have received no substantiated information or evidence, but because of the gravity of the allegation I have taken swift action, the first one being to terminate the staff, immediately followed by an OIOS investigation [...]"
Encourage you to watch it in full, make sure I'm not stripping context, whatever you need to do.