Israel declares war on Hamas

[belsarius]

Originally Posted by Doctorfever

What evidence do you have that Hamas had not infiltrated UNRWA in the time leading up to 2010, when Canada stopped funding them and directed those resources elsewhere?

Did all members of the 5 eyes stop funding at the same time?

I believe all members call Hamas a terrorist organization and would share intelligence if they had seriously compromised UNRWA. If it was only Canada, then it would appear to be more a political move than based on actual intelligence. If it was all, then I would say it's pretty credible.

Circumstantial evidence for sure, but I would believe that them acting in concert would be a pretty strong indication of the validity of such a concern.

I actually haven't researched that much about what was happening in 2010 so I am not trying to swing the answer one way or another, just an indication of evidence that I would find compelling.

[Doctorfever]

Originally Posted by Bagor

Holy crap!

You're the one making the claims.

You can just imagine him during the Iraq war.

Iraq has WMDs. Let's invade.
Is there evidence of that?
What evidence do you have that don't.

I’m not claiming anything. Just providing links of why things have happened. To be clear, I wasn’t there. So I didn’t see it with my own two eyes.

[blankall]

The UN is playing both sides. When Hamas does something bad, they distance themselves from Hamas by claiming they are a minority position that does not represent the Palestinians people. Otherwise, they are a legitimate political movement that Israel is supposed to negotiate with in good faith:

https://www.jpost.com/israel-hamas-war/article-787084

Asked about the feasibility of Israel’s military goal to eliminate Hamas and disallow the terrorist group from having any governing say in Gaza, Griffiths responded “Hamas is not a terrorist group for us, as you know, it is a political movement. But, I think it is very very difficult to dislodge these groups without a negotiated solution; which includes their aspirations.

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by Doctorfever

All the intelligence gathered over the years about Hamas / UNRWA is wrong. Canada was wrong to suspend funding to them for 6 years. Every one who made all those decisions is wrong, because I can’t provide a link that shows a UNRWA employee slipping a Hamas guy a $20 bill.

Reasonable enough.

All the intelligence gathered suggests there is no evidential reason to not continue UNRWA funding. Everyone that made the decision based on this intelligence is correct.

Reasonable enough?

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Doctorfever

All the intelligence gathered over the years about Hamas / UNRWA is wrong. Canada was wrong to suspend funding to them for 6 years. Every one who made all those decisions is wrong, because I can’t provide a link that shows a UNRWA employee slipping a Hamas guy a $20 bill.

Reasonable enough.

I don't think it's unreasonable to look at it through the lens of the Harper government doing favourable things for Israel, that perhaps the decision wasn't based on what you think it was. I'm not saying it was, but it would be naïve to assume Harper's decisions were based on facts around that. And if they were, wouldn't you expect that to be a news item you could find?

[Doctorfever]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I don't think it's unreasonable to look at it through the lens of the Harper government doing favourable things for Israel, that perhaps the decision wasn't based on what you think it was. I'm not saying it was, but it would be naïve to assume Harper's decisions were based on facts around that. And if they were, wouldn't you expect that to be a news item you could find?

Would it be naive to suggest that the funding was reintroduced because a different political party wanted to be looked favourably by some of its voters? In order to gain said votes?

I am not saying that is the case, nor do I have anything to back that claim up.

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by Doctorfever

I’m not claiming anything.

No. Of course you haven't. You're just making baseless statements presenting them as fact

You haven't stated as fact that UNRWA is "directly" linked to Hamas. Or that UNRWA has been funnelling money to Hamas

Originally Posted by Doctorfever

I guess that’s why our government should not be sending money to organizations like UNRWA, since we have known for years that they have been linked directly to Hamas.

If there is blame to be spread around for the thousands of civilian casualties here, part of the blame falls to those who indirectly fund these organizations that funnel money to terrorist like Hamas.

[Doctorfever]

Originally Posted by Bagor

All the intelligence gathered suggests there is no evidential reason to not continue UNRWA funding. Everyone that made the decision based on this intelligence is correct.

Reasonable enough?

From the CBC article I posted earlier;

The government says the money will be accompanied by "enhanced due diligence," including a "very robust oversight and reporting framework" that includes regular site visits and anti-terrorism provisions.

Why would there need to be “enhanced due diligence” and “very robust oversight” if there was nothing wrong in the past? Why would they suddenly introduce those measures?

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by Doctorfever

Would it be naive to suggest that the funding was reintroduced because a different political party wanted to be looked favourably by some of its voters? In order to gain said votes?

I am not saying that is the case, nor do I have anything to back that claim up.

You never presented the alternative. Let me.
Would it be naive to suggest that the funding was stopped wrongly because a different political party wanted to be looked favourably by some of its voters? In order to gain said votes?

Or one was in the pockets of lobbyists and the other wasn't?

I am not saying that is the case, nor do I have anything to back that claim up.

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by Doctorfever

Why would there need to be “enhanced due diligence” and “very robust oversight” if there was nothing wrong in the past? Why would they suddenly introduce those measures?

There you again. Assumptions based on nothing.
Because cimmpanies/organizations everywhere enhance due diligence all the time.

Are you going to present some evidence or not to back up your claims.

[blankall]

The UN and Hamas were the two biggest employers in the Gaza Strip. It's highly likely there would be cross-over between their memberships. I don't think there was any widespread Hamas control of the UNRWA by Hamas though. I do think that the UNRWA was careless in the way it distributed food and aid though. Hamas had such tight control over the territory, unless there is constant effort otherwise goods and funds are going to filter into their hands.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Doctorfever

Would it be naive to suggest that the funding was reintroduced because a different political party wanted to be looked favourably by some of its voters? In order to gain said votes?

I am not saying that is the case, nor do I have anything to back that claim up.

Sure, go ahead. But then you should ask yourself how risky it would be to alienate Jewish voters, and the Liberals STILL went ahead with it risking a net loss in votes. Now why would they do that? Oh, I dunno, maybe they feel providing support for the plight of the Palestinians is worth the loss. Or, I mean, I guess we cold just let them starve.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by blankall

The UN is playing both sides. When Hamas does something bad, they distance themselves from Hamas by claiming they are a minority position that does not represent the Palestinians people. Otherwise, they are a legitimate political movement that Israel is supposed to negotiate with in good faith:

https://www.jpost.com/israel-hamas-war/article-787084

Pretty stupid comment by him.

But funny that his comments are representative of the entire UN to you after you worked yourself into a tizzy dismissing the Minister of National Security as an “extremist” who wasn’t representative of the Israeli government.

Flames Fan PhD’s comments on confirmation bias were too real. Fascinating to watch it in action.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by blankall

The UN and Hamas were the two biggest employers in the Gaza Strip. It's highly likely there would be cross-over between their memberships. I don't think there was any widespread Hamas control of the UNRWA by Hamas though. I do think that the UNRWA was careless in the way it distributed food and aid though. Hamas had such tight control over the territory, unless there is constant effort otherwise goods and funds are going to filter into their hands.

I presume they were doing their best given a very difficult situation. It's not going to be perfect, or even ideal. But it still saved lives. I would imagine any organization providing aid on the scale Gaza needs would end up having some overlap with Hamas.

[Doctorfever]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Sure, go ahead. But then you should ask yourself how risky it would be to alienate Jewish voters, and the Liberals STILL went ahead with it risking a net loss in votes. Now why would they do that? Oh, I dunno, maybe they feel providing support for the plight of the Palestinians is worth the loss. Or, I mean, I guess we cold just let them starve.

I don’t believe Canada (under the Harper government) stopped send money for aid to the area. I believe they used a different channel than UNRWA.

So I don’t think their intent was to starve out the Palestinians, if that’s what your assuming.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Doctorfever

I don’t believe Canada (under the Harper government) stopped send money for aid to the area. I believe they used a different channel than UNRWA.

So I don’t think their intent was to starve out the Palestinians, if that’s what your assuming.

Case closed, then? Where did this belief come from? Do you have any facts or evidence to show it?

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by belsarius

Did all members of the 5 eyes stop funding at the same time?

I believe all members call Hamas a terrorist organization and would share intelligence if they had seriously compromised UNRWA. If it was only Canada, then it would appear to be more a political move than based on actual intelligence. If it was all, then I would say it's pretty credible.

Circumstantial evidence for sure, but I would believe that them acting in concert would be a pretty strong indication of the validity of such a concern.

I actually haven't researched that much about what was happening in 2010 so I am not trying to swing the answer one way or another, just an indication of evidence that I would find compelling.

This sounds reasonable to me. However, we'd have to draw the inverse inference from the fact that Canada, the US, the UK, Australia and New Zealand have all been funding UNRWA for the past decade (which is indeed the case).

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by blankall

The UN and Hamas were the two biggest employers in the Gaza Strip. It's highly likely there would be cross-over between their memberships. I don't think there was any widespread Hamas control of the UNRWA by Hamas though. I do think that the UNRWA was careless in the way it distributed food and aid though. Hamas had such tight control over the territory, unless there is constant effort otherwise goods and funds are going to filter into their hands.

Yes, I think those are reasonable inferences to make. But (as you note), that's a far cry from what's been alleged in this thread (that Hamas has hijacked the UNRWA).

[Doctorfever]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Case closed, then? Where did this belief come from? Do you have any facts or evidence to show it?

You are a pain in the butt.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/here...ears-1.6625189

Chart shows Humanitarian aid contributions by Canada to the West Bank and Gaza, 2003 - 2021

So Canada did not stop sending aid.


Case closed.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Doctorfever

You are a pain in the butt.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/here...ears-1.6625189

Chart shows Humanitarian aid contributions by Canada to the West Bank and Gaza, 2003 - 2021

So Canada did not stop sending aid.


Case closed.

Thanks, could have started with that.