Talk:UNRWA/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

"and their descendents"

Where exactly in the cited source does it say that UNRWA aid to Palestine refugees and their descendants. It doesn't, and the reason it doesn't, and brewcrewer, you knows this full well, is that the term Palestinian refugee includes the descendents of those expelled from their homes in 1948. The phrase Palestinian refugees and their descendants is what is misleading. popularized by the Israeli right and their backers to claim that there are only a handful of refugees, not 5 million +, and that it is edit-warred in instead of discussed here is just one of the many problems with brewcrewer's last edit. Brewcrewer, please explain why you made that edit. nableezy – 14:38, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

That's misleading nonsense. A few hundred thousand, at most, were "refugees." You have the WP:BURDEN to prove with reliable secondary sources that a term is used in a mainstream fashion inconsistent with its translation in a dictionary. I'm out for the day and will check in later to see if a source was provided.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 14:43, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh wow. So when you make a change, I need to provide a source? How's this 5 million Palestine refugees are eligible for UNRWA services. Or how about this overview of the AIPAC inspired argument you just brought, and contains this from a US State Department spokesmane: "Both the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) generally recognize descendants of refugees as refugees," State Department spokesman Patrick Ventrell told The Cable. "For purposes of their operations, the U.S. government supports this guiding principle. This approach is not unique to the Palestinian context.". This is nonsense and you know it. Your tag-team revert is unjustified and you know it. The source cited in the sentence says 5 million refugees, not 5 million people who are refugees or descendants of refugees. You are attempting to redefine a term to push an extremist right-wing POV, one that you know full well is at odds with the sources. nableezy – 14:52, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Brew that the term alone is misleading, as there are many people and organizations that dispute this. The U.S. Congress as well has voted to conduct an investigation reporting specifically on the number of descendants. UNRWA's definition is that they are refugees, but no one in their sane mind would deny they are descendants as well – that is a fact that can't be argued over. As stated above, with the U.S. Congress (and don't bring up AIPAC conspiracy theories, it doesn't support your claims), they are not disputing the number of refugees (although many people do), but rather differentiating between descendants and original refugees. Using language such as "URNWA provides... to 5 million refugees, which includes descendants that are considered refugees," or something similar like Brew's edit (although there's a spelling error I believe, Palestine refugees should be Palestinian refugees), may be more in line with WP:NPOV and avoids misleading information. --Activism1234 15:01, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Uhh what? Conspiracy theory? No, its what happened. AIPCAC's man on the Hill put forward an amendment written by them. The US Congress does not define the foreign policy of the United States, the Executive branch, in the form of the US Department of State, does. Even the US considers all of the descendants of those driven from their homes to be refugees. Nobody brought a source for "and their descendants", and it violates NPOV because it implies that some of these people are not refugees. I brought sources, you brought a "me too". That said, I am open to including that the 5 million includes descendants of those forced from their homes, but not the way you wrote it. It can say 5 million Palestinian refugees, which includes those who fled or forced to leave their homes and their descendants. It cant be toeing the Israeli right wing party line, which is what brew's edit made it do. This isnt Arutz Sheva. nableezy – 15:08, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

You ask what conspiracy theory, then write that Kirk is "AIPAC's [I assume you meant that, I don't know of an AIPCAC...] man on the Hill..." That would also apply to everyone who voted and passed it, right... You then write "This isn't Arutz Sheva," yet no one anywhere said it was. Your implication is that certain editors here are nitwits who believe that this site is either actually Arutz Sheva or can employ similar terminology. Yet no one has said that, and no one has employed such terminology (for example, the words "Palestinian Authority Arabs" are not used). The assumption also is that I frequently read Arutz Sheva. False. I do sometimes, or if I get a link from someone (same for Haaretz, although Haaretz is used as an RS here, and you will note I have referenced Haaretz but never Arutz Sheva), but prefer JPost, Ynet, Times of Israel, and MAKO (not English) as Israeli sources (I've stated before I also use Palestinian sources, such as Ma'an, etc)... Please don't continue making this bizzare conspiracy theories (whether you believe them or not), and these bizarre and brazen assumptions and implications. Thanks for understanding. --Activism1234 17:24, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

The line this isnt Arutz Sheva was a remark about the attempt to make this article toe the Israeli right wing party line. Not about your reading habits. The rest of your comment is, well, unworthy of a response. Toodles, nableezy – 17:57, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

That's your perception. OF course, it's completely false, as no one is attempting to do that, rather to balance the article and remove misleading statements. --Activism1234 18:58, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

The claim that descendants of those driven from their homes in 48 are not refugees is the Israeli right wing party line, and that is what was placed in the first sentences of this article. So, no, that is not [my] perception. No misleading statement was removed in brewcrewer's edit, a misleading one was however added. nableezy – 19:15, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually it is only descendants of male refugees who are counted as refugees. If a female Palestinian refugee marries a non-Palestinian, her children are not counted as refugees. I have very good sources for this including the UNRWA operating manual but I have other things I have to do at the moment so they'll have to wait. Zero^talk 16:36, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

That isnt too surprising. Across the region, things like citizenship passes through the father, not the mother. For example, any person's whose father is an Egyptian citizen is an Egyptian citizen, though an Egyptian woman marrying a non-Egyptian citizen man would not be able to pass her citizenship to her children. nableezy – 17:57, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I've reverted the edit, the idea that the descendants are not refugees still seeking to get their land back is held by a very very small group of people, and as such should not override the normal view. Unique Ubiquitous (talk) 16:52, 12 July 2012 (UTC)edit by sock

Editors, in good faith of course, are confusing a legal term with a normative term. The descendents of refugees may be considered by some to be "refugees" in the legal sense, but nobody considered them actual refugees, for one because they did not "flee for refuge." A reader who knows little on the subject will come away with the misleading impression that five million Arabs fled the area now known as Israel. This is false of course if we were diligent we would want to ensure that the reader walks away with the correct information. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:30, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

The term Palestinian refugee (which is what is linked in the article) has a definition, a "normative" definition. That definition includes the descendents of those driven from their homes in Palestine and are denied the right to return to their homes. Descendents of those who fled are not "considered by some to be 'refugees'", they are defined as refugees and it is just "some" that seek to deny them that title. nableezy – 21:42, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Another issue though is that many people state and prove that not all 650,000 original refugees were forced out of their home, as you said. A large large number – according to some people the majority – fled voluntarily, for a number of reasons (Arab countries asked them to and said they could return after they'd throw the Jews into the sea which would be quick but never happened, fear of what a war would mean or further violence, and also radio reports exaggerating Deir Yassin which were intended to inspire). Thus, simply stating that they were forced out of their homes are fled is misleading. For example, Benny Morris (historian critical of Israel) states that (Righteous Victims: A History of the Zionist-Arab Conflict, 1881–1999, page 254) "The Yishuv was on the defensive and upper and middle-class Arabs – as many as 75,000 – fled... These families had the wherewithal to settle comfortably in Cairo, Nablus, Amman, or Beirut, and in any case most viewed their exile as temporary. As in the exodus of 1936–39, they expected to return once the hostilities had ended." Morris writes in the same book (Righteous Victims: A History of the Zionist-Arab Conflict, 1881–1999, page 256) "In some areas Arab commanders ordered the villagers to evacuate to clear the ground for militarypurposes or to prevent surrender. More than half a dozen villages – just north of Jerusalem and in the Lower Galilee – were abandoned during these months as a result of such orders. Elsewhere, in East Jerusalem and in many villages around the country, the [Arab] commanders ordered women, old people, and children to be sent away to be out of harm's way. Indeed, psychological preparation for the removal of dependents from the battelfield had begun in 1946–47, when the AHC and the Arab League had periodically endorsed such a mvoe when contemplating the future war in Palestine. During the first stage, there was no Zionist policy to expel the Arabs or intimidate them into flight... During the second stage, while there was no blanket policy of expulsion, the Haganah's Plan D clearly resulted in mass flight... On the Arab side there was general confusion at this time about everything concerning the exodus... Did not try to stop it... Indeed, AHC agents instructed the population of Haifa, after the flight from the town had begun, to continue to leave." In regards to the second stage, Alan Dershowitz adds that "Such flight from the scenes of battle occurs in most wars." I'm not trying to dispute the policies of groups like Irgun and Lechi, but rather show that an overwhelming number were not actually forced out of their homes or forced to flee, and there are many historical sources that state this. Yes, even those who weren't forced out became refugees, but simply stating that the refugees are those who were forced out of their homes in 1948 or their descendants is misleading, as not all were forced out. --Activism1234 03:41, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

First, read everything that I wrote in this section, that might disabuse you of the notion that I think nobody fled. Second, read more from Morris than what Dershowitz quotes, like, for example, the conclusion of The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited. The idea that a majority of the refugees fled on Arab orders has been rather thoroughly debunked. Last, what are you talking about? What does any of that have to do with adding and their descendants to Palestinian refugees in the first sentence of this article? nableezy – 04:02, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

The majority of my passage consisted of Morris quotes, but for the future, don't tell me what to read. Secondly, I stated "Another issue though..." It does not pertain to descendants necessarily. You also wrote above about refugees that they were driven from their home, so I used these quotes to show from a historical perspective that it doesn't apply to a large number of them, and thus saying, for example, "The claim that descendants of those driven from their homes in 48 are not refugees..." is simply misleading. Not all were forced out. Again, you write above "that might disabuse you of the notion that I think nobody fled." If you would read what I wrote more carefully, you'd see I'm not discussing "fled," but rather those who left voluntarily. Although fled could certainly apply as well. --Activism1234 04:57, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Morris finds that a substantial majority of the Palestinian refugees were expelled or fled as the result of a nearby towns fall to Jewish forces. Not Arab evacuation orders. Since you quoted Morris to claim that what he finds to be responsible for a fraction of the exodus to argue that this was in fact responsible for what is according to some people the majority, I thought you might like to know what Morris actually says about that. But your right, I may be assuming too much. Perhaps you do know what Morris has to say about the topic, and you deliberately placed those ellipsis in your quotes where it suited the argument you chose to make. And, oh by the way, what you wrote was fled voluntarily. nableezy – 06:48, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Um what? "Morris finds that a substantial majority of the Palestinian refugees were expelled or fled as the result of a nearby towns fall to Jewish forces." Firstly, that sentence makes no sense. You can't be "expelled" as the result of nearby towns coming under the victory of a different force. What they did was fled – which is something I mentioned above – "fear of what a war would mean or further violence." When a nearby town loses, you may get scared your town would also lose and there'd be violence and such and therefore flee, which is more or less what I said, and similar to what Dershowitz noted. Morris can find what he'd like, the part that you mention is Stage B, which was just too long and unncessary to copy the entire thing, especially since this isn't going into the article... The point is, those that left in Stage B weren't forcefully expelled. Even fleeing from a town because of what happened in a nearby town does NOT mean "driven from their homes in 48" – which is what you wrote above. You didn't say "descendants of those driven from their homes or those that fled or left voluntarily." It's simply misleading. --Activism1234 17:36, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Nonsense, and your attempts to twist what I have written, and what Morris has written, is not something that I intend on spending any more time on. nableezy – 18:57, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Although the term has been given a unique definition in this case, there is no question that "refugee" is not really the accurate term for most currently designated as such. One would more accurately characterize them as a diaspora, but the fact is they are designated as refugees. It would be helpful to note in the article the fact that this is a unique usage of the term refugee and not some widely accepted parlance.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:08, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with this, and is similar to what I've been saying above. --Activism1234 04:57, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

The term isnt unique in this case. See again here: Ventrell pointed out that the office of the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees also recognizes descendants of refugees as refugees in several cases, including but not limited to the Burmese refugee population in Thailand, the Bhutanese refugee population in Nepal, the Afghan population in Pakistan, and the Somali population seeking refuge in neighboring countries. nableezy – 06:48, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

so nableezy – you are ok with "5 million Palestinian refugees, which includes those who fled or forced to leave their homes and their descendants"? i think we just need to say when they were refugees – something like "5 million Palestinian refugees, which includes those who fled or were forced to leave their homes in 1948 and their subsequent descendants." whatcha think? Soosim (talk) 07:16, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed this. I wouldnt remove that. I think its unnecessary, but I wouldnt revert it. nableezy – 22:04, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Anyone who is arguing they are not refugees are clearly not aware of the situation. The probable reason for descendents getting refugee status by UNWRA is because Lebanon, Syria and Jordan, refuse to even recognize the decedents as citizens of their country (I.E- no birthright). Refugees, including the descendents, have no rights in the country of "refuge". I would like someone who supports in the inclusion to explain to me if they are not citizens or refugees, then what status do they get? Just a couple million people sitting in an indefinite political limbo? Give me a break... -asad (talk) 14:45, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Stateless people. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:23, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Which is what all Palestinians are by definition. I am talking about specifics here. -asad (talk) 16:45, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

A stateless person can also be a refugee. This argument that the "normative" term is not applicable is both untrue and irrelevant. The argument that this is some special status that only applies to descendants of Palestinian refugees is likewise untrue and irrelevant. The term Palestinian refugee means seomthing. If yall dont like that meaning, I suggest you take it up with the UN (RWA and HCR). Here, on Wikipedia, we wont be following AIPAC talking points on only a handful of the refugees are "real" refugees. There are an abundance of sources that say that Palestinian refugees include descendents of those driven from their homes by Zionist, and then Israeli, forces. Somebody doesnt like that? Tough. We follow what reliable sources say. Not what somebody might want them to say, but what they actually say. nableezy – 18:57, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Not all Palestinians are stateless "by definition" many of them have acquired citizenship of various countries.

You are confusing "refugee" as defined in the dictionary and "refugee" as a status. Various organizations can give refugee status to people who are not actually refugees "by definition" or according to the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees.

brewcrewer is correct that a person with no prior knowledge might very well assume that the term "refugee" here refers to the dictionary definition, and it certainly wouldn't hurt to explain the difference. I'm sure there are sources that discuss this. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:38, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

If the article linked were refugee instead of Palestinian refugee I might see that as a valid argument, but we are linking to Palestinian refugee. I already said I was open to including a clarification; what is not acceptable, however, is the phrase Palestinian refugees and their descendants or descendants of Palestinian refugees. The descendants are Palestinian refugees, and both of those phrases imply that they are not. nableezy – 21:56, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I think Soosim's suggestion solves the problem. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 07:04, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

No Reliable Sources for statement "some argue it serves to perpetuate the conflict"

Phrase: "However, some argue it serves to perpetuate the conflict"
7 Goes no where
8 // "who sojourned "in Palestine..." // An "Opinion" piece. Uses incorrect terminology carefully placed before the quoted section. Typical of propaganda journalism
9 // "The United Nations Relief Works Agency (UNRWA) was created under the jurisdiction of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), with the unique responsibility of solely aiding the Palestinians"// Chronologically incorrect. UNRWA was created (1949) before UNHCR (1050) and; UNRWA was created to help Palestine refugees. The word 'Palestinian' does not appear in A/RES/302 (IV) 8 December 1949
10 Un-sourced and factually incorrect opinion
SUGGEST: Whoever.. find Reliable Secondary Sources for their POV pushing or delete the statement talknic (talk) 17:49, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Although I'm sure you can easily find tons of references for "some argue it serves to perpetuate the conflict," that is a fact which is seen on the page by the criticism section. You can make a link or reference to the criticism section perhaps, if you want a reference, but I believe it's just a main statement/lead into further detail (which is in the criticism section). Otherwise, you can easily find more sources that have issue with UNRWA that say it serves to perpetuate the conflict... --Activism1234 19:00, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

You want to keep it? Go right ahead. Provide valid Reliable Sources talknic (talk) 19:09, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

"I believe it's just a main statement/lead into further detail (which is in the criticism section)" That's not where the references point talknic (talk) 19:09, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Based on the title of Reference 7, it should go to here. Reference 8 – how can an opinion piece be "journalism?" Two very different things. The statement here is that "many argue..." which makes an opinion piece acceptable in the context, as this person argues against it... The word "sojourned" was probably meant as a synonym for "lived" or "stayed," but is still an opinion by a person who argues against it, as the statement says. Reference 9 – United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees was founded as a subsidiary organ of the General Assembly by Resolution 319 (IV) of the United Nations General Assembly of December 1949. Its statute was created in 1950. UNRWA was also created in December 1949. Interestingly, while Spyer's executive summary states what you quoted (and I don't know whehter he made the summary or not), he does NOT write that in his article but rather writes – "Millions of refugees worldwide – over 130 million since the end of World War II – have come under the responsibility of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), which aims to resettle and rehabilitate refugees. On December 8, 1949, the United Nations General Assembly passed Resolution 302, establishing an agency dedicated solely to "direct relief and works programs" for the Palestinian Arab refugees – UNRWA (United Nations Relief Works Agency) – making it a unique body." Secondly, even if he made a mistake, it doesn't mean that he doesn't argue that UNRWA perpetuates the conflict... Then there is Reference 10, which you left alone. Then of course there's also this (Ynet) we could include, which was published recently. Chris Gunness, who works for UNRWA, obviously rejects the argument that UNRWA perpetuates the conflict, but states very specifically that there are people who makes this claim here. Two more people argue here (JPost) that it perpetuates the refugee issue. Then there is also this (Honest Reporting) that makes that argument as well, although don't start an argument you don't believe they're an RS, it's been discussed widely before, and I couldn't care less whether you think that, I'm not asking it be included as a reference but rather bringing it up. There's an overwhelming trove of such people making those arguments. --Activism1234 22:05, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Reliability is at issue even if it is 'many argue". WP:IRS Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context. In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article, and should be appropriate to the claims made.

If the sources get basic facts wrong, and all have, they're not RS.

Jpost article "UNRWA, which was established by the United Nations General Assembly in 1949 to carry out relief and works programs for Palestinian refugees," Incorrect. It was established to carry out relief and works programs for "Palestine" refugees Arabic and Jewish. Not a reliable fact checking source. The misinformed congressman goes on "Instead of resettling them, UNRWA keeps them in refugee camps," It's not in UNRWA's mandate to resettle refugees. Its mandate is to provide them with service while they are refugees. Not good fact checking.

"The word "sojourned" was probably meant as a synonym for "lived" or "stayed," Look it up. It precludes people who lived in Palestine permanently. It's goode olde propaganda style 'journalism'

Spyer is wrong on two points. "The United Nations Relief Works Agency (UNRWA) was created under the jurisdiction of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), with the unique responsibility of solely aiding the Palestinians"// It wasn't created under the jurisdiction of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and; its responsibility was not 'solely aiding the Palestinians'. It was to aid Palestine refugees, Arab and Jewish. Not an accurate fact checker.

Ref 10 – Also not a good fact checker "UNRWA (the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian refugees"

Your "overwhelming trove" of claims are still required to check their facts. talknic (talk) 00:46, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Please consider reading what I wrote about Spyer before you repeat the same claim...

"It was established to carry out relief and works programs for "Palestine" refugees Arabic and Jewish. Not a reliable fact checking source." JPost is considered on Wikipedia as an RS. UNRWA's charter writes "Palestine refugees" because it can not exclude people based on nationality, race, etc, according to the founding UN charter. Over the past 60 years, UNRWA has not helped any of the 850,000 Jews fleeing from Arab countries. If you believe otherwise, please provide a reliable source for this claim. Furthermore, it is still within this man's opinion, whether or not he makes a minor spelling difference... "The misinformed congressman goes on "Instead of resettling them, UNRWA keeps them in refugee camps," It's not in UNRWA's mandate to resettle refugees. Its mandate is to provide them with service while they are refugees. Not good fact checking." Are you serious? I really can't tell... That's the crux of the argument! UNRWA keeps them in refugee camps, which is a FACT, whether or not they're obligated to, which is EXACTLY what this man has an issue with, and everyone else who has an issue with it!

It is a FACT that UNRWA assists Palestinian refugees. If I help person X and person Y, it is a FACT that I helped Person X.

It's perfectly reasonable to reject the arguments that a person gives. I'm sure that you believe the opposite of many of these claims, and probably have reasons for such, to which people can respond to, to which you can respond, etc etc. But it's not reasonable to reject that person's opinion as having been stated. Furthermore, we are discussing perpetuation, not terminology of "palestine" vs "palestinian."

Just remember – Chris Gunness himself made reference to the claim, as I showed above. --Activism1234 00:58, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Activism1234 – "Please consider reading what I wrote about Spyer before you repeat the same claim..." What you wrote doesn't change his misinformation. "Palestine refugee" is NOT 'Palestinian Refugee'. "Palestine refugee" refers to any refugee Jewish or Arab whose normal place of residence was Palestine pre May 15th 1948.

" JPost is considered on Wikipedia as an RS. " Read WP:NEWSORG Whether a specific news story is reliable for a specific fact or statement in a Wikipedia article will be assessed on a case by case basis.

"UNRWA's charter writes "Palestine refugees" because " that's what A/RES/302 (IV) 8 December 1949 says.

"Over the past 60 years, UNRWA has not helped any of the 850,000 Jews fleeing from Arab countries. " Refugees from the Arab States were not "Palestine" refugees. BTW there are no Jewish refugees. Once a person has taken up citizenship in another country they are no longer a refugee.

"we are discussing perpetuation not terminology of "palestine" vs "palestinian." A) It's Palestine or Palestinian. Proper nouns.

B) We're discussing the reliability of a source who is talking about UNRWA. If he is talking about UNRWA, then he should have checked his UNRWA facts. He's ignorant of the difference between "Palestine refugee" and 'Palestinian refugee'. He is ignorant of the fact that UNRWA was established to assist any refugee from Palestine Jewish or Arab. He is ignorant of the fact that UNRWA assisted Jewish Palestine refugees in Israel until 1952. He is not a reliable source of information on Palestine refugees or UNRWA

"UNRWA keeps them in refugee camps, which is.. " a fallacy. UNRWA provides assistance while they are refugees per its mandate

Yoaz Hendel via Ynet does the same thing "UNRWA, whose aim was identical, yet the target audience was Palestinian." Then goes on to get it wrong again. "Lance Bartholomeusz, head of the International Law Division at UNRWA’s Department of Legal Affairs. In the absence of another source, the writer explains that his organization has a mandate to deal with Palestinian refugees" HOWEVER : Lance Bartholomeusz uses the term "Palestine" refugees. People who criticize UNRWA without knowing what they're talking about or who misquote, are quite simply, not reliable sources.

It's simple. Supply Secondary Sources with valid criticism of UNRWA, where they have checked their facts about UNRWA talknic (talk) 05:46, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

"Once a person has taken up citizenship in another country they are no longer a refugee". Does that apply to Palestinians as well? A couple million of them have Jordanian citizenship. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 07:39, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

NMMNG – For those who were refugees and who have taken up permanent citizenship, yes. For those who're Jordanian citizens via having been citizens of the territory that became Jordan in 1946 or being born to citizens of the territory that became Jordan in 1946, they weren't refugees and all they're Jordanian, every one of them, even though they might have a historical Palestinian heritage. Are you challenging the statement? talknic (talk) 17:30, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

By the way, "some argue it serves to perpetuate the conflict" is factually correct (obviously) and should be included if RS report on it. Even if those arguing it have no idea what they're talking about, it doesn't change the fact that's what they argue. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 07:43, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

NMMNG – An opinion piece is not a report. The writer expressing the opinion is the source, not the carrier. If they make statements of fact on an UNRWA policy which proves not to be policy at all, they're not a Reliable Source. If it's a statement by someone, accurately reported and the statement makes claims of an UNRWA policy which proves to be false, the statement is the source of the claim, not the carrier or the reporter. In both cases, the parties making the false claims are not RS. talknic (talk) 17:30, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Suez Crisis killings

Hi all. I think the details of the Special Report of the Director of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East Covering the Period 1 November 1956 to mid-December 1956, (Which you can read here) which deals with alleged killings of Palestinian civilians in the Khan Yunis killings and Rafah massacre. Considering the director somewhat accuses Israel of committing mass murder, I think the two incidents and the UNRWA response to them should be noted on here. I myself can't figure out where to put these things, so a consensus on that would be appreciated. Opinions? 1Matt20 23:19, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Weapons in schools

I have added some data on the weapons stores in UNRWA schools and supplied three sources for this. Cpsoper (talk) 19:56, 12 August 2014 (UTC) Please add them. I have just inserted a change about the tunnels used by Hamas under UNRWA hospitals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zezen (talk • contribs) 12:03, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Criticisms

I would like to re-organize UNRWA article so that points 7, 8, 9 and 10 could be merged with the Criticism section (4). The structure for section 4 would follow 4.1, 4.2, etc so that it would be easy to get an overview of criticism. Can I just do it? Or should I ask for agreement? Dian Kjaergaard (talk) 18:25, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I have added some introductory paragraphs to the Criticism section and adjusted the lead-in sentence to the examples of criticisms that are especially brought forth by Israel and pro-Israel actors. Dian Kjaergaard (talk) 07:15, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

@Dian Kjaergaard: I agree that the Criticism section needs to be reorganized. You can be bold and do it if you want. Don't need to ask for agreement. People will revert/edit if they feel it is not going in the right direction. Basically, I feel the lead for the section needs to be trimmed and material organized around topics rather than a blob of awkward text. Kingsindian (talk) 08:30, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kingindian:. Thanks. At this point, my conception of the lead is the first two paragraphs. I will add a little bit more, and then re-organize the whole criticism section around themes or topics. Great minds think alike, perhaps? This is going to take a couple of days at least.31.3.78.10 (talk) 12:26, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I have started the process of re-organizing this main section by themes or topics. I may break up the material from Lindsay, but I'm still thinking about and don't have time to do it right now. Dian Kjaergaard (talk) 13:20, 14 August 2014 (UTC) For starters, I have created a section on reform proposals; Lindsay, U.R.I. and other sections are collected there. Right now the reform proposals are a subsection to Criticisms; perhaps I will move the proposals up a level Dian Kjaergaard (talk) 13:59, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I have moved the section on UNRWA and the Palestinian Curriculum to the main Criticisms section. The content and structure is completely parallel with other criticisms by including both criticisms and disucssions/rebuttals of criticisms. Dian Kjaergaard (talk) 13:40, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I have moved the section Problems with Hamas to the main Criticisms section.

Praise

I have moved the praise section higher up. Dian Kjaergaard (talk) 13:33, 14 August 2014 (UTC) – precisely because I don't want to make the article unbalance Dian Kjaergaard (talk) 11:40, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Operations: Education Programme

/* Education programme */ Re-organized and updated. Added reference to source. Added special achievements. I have not tried to shorten this section being that Education uses more than 50% of UNRWA resources. Dian Kjaergaard (talk) 16:52, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Microfinance

I have only kept the first two paragraphs. If someone feels that any of the following details are especially important, let's talk about putting some of them back in:

Mission:

The MD works by extending micro-credit and complimentary services to small entrepreneurs, households and businesses. This lending is guided in part by economic objectives: to sustain and create jobs, reduce poverty and boost economic security. However, its aim is also to support human development more broadly, by sustaining household consumption and family investments in education and health. Fundamentally, all lending seeks to empower the MD’s clients, and in this respect particularly targets women and youth, as well as other economically and socially vulnerable groups, who face particular challenges in obtaining affordable credit. The MD conceives of its mission in the context of the United Nation’s broader vision of building inclusive financial services for the poor. Many of its clients manage small, often informal businesses on the margins of the economy. The vast majority are unable to secure affordable credit from commercial banks. Yet if provided with such loans they do have the ability to repay them, while generating sustainable incomes for themselves, as well as their families and employees, many of whom are drawn from the poorest segments of society. The MD’s work is to help close this circle of opportunity.

Outreach:

As of March 2009, the MD has invested USD 174.36 million in the Palestinian economy through 146,600 loans. In order to assist Palestine refugees across the wider Middle East region, the department has since 2003 also maintained operations in Jordan and Syria ─ currently home to 2.46 million Palestine refugees. In the intervening six years it has grown into the second largest microfinance provider in Syria, where it is also the first institution to reach operational self-sufficiency, and the fifth largest in Jordan. In total it has disbursed over 55,400 loans in these markets, for a cumulative investment of USD 54.51 million. The department focuses its outreach on poor urban areas, which are both centres of commercial and industrial activity and host a high concentration of Palestine refugees. As of March 2010 it maintains 17 branches around the region, employing 310 staff. Seven branches are in the West Bank, three in Gaza, four in Jordan, and three in Syria. Operations in each country, as well as the West Bank and Gaza, are overseen by a field office, each of which is in turn supervised and provided with support services by the MD’s headquarters in Jerusalem.

Products and Services:

Through its branch offices the MD provides a range of credit products. Existing products available in the MD’s markets include the following:

Microenterprise Credit (MEC): targets the overwhelming majority of regional businesses which employ fewer than five workers, most of whom enjoy no access to formal credit and are vulnerable to shocks. The loans range from USD 300 to USD 8,500, and are designed to help such businesses build-up and maintain reserves of short-term working capital.

Microenterprise Credit Plus (MEC+): allows mature microenterprises who seek to expand capital and grow employment to expand MEC borrowing with more extended repayment horizons. Eligible clients include formal enterprises and borrowers who have demonstrated repayment ability over several loan cycles.

Solidarity Group Lending (SGL): designed for groups of women entrepreneurs who are collectively and individually responsible for repayment. Starting at USD 400, with a maximum ceiling of USD 5,000, the SGL sustains microenterprise, as well household expenditures on education, health, and basic needs.

Women’s Household Credit (WHC): an adaptation of the SGL loan, first piloted in Syria to accommodate home-based enterprise by women, allowing them to build up household assets used for business. Unlike the SLG product, it does not work on a group-lending model. Average disbursements are in the range USD 150 to USD 800.

Consumer Loan Product (CLP): supports low-income and working-class family consumption, regular investments in education and health, as well as emergency outlays.

Housing Loan Product (HLP): helps poor families with no access to mortgage facilities improve, expand or acquire housing.

Small-Scale Enterprise Lending (SSE): finances the long-term capital needs of a range of small-to large-scale formal enterprises

Small and Medium Enterprise Business Training (SMET): an enterprise training program in Gaza that trains participants in subjects such as book-keeping, taxation, tendering, computing and e-commerce.

Dian Kjaergaard (talk) 17:05, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Relief and Social Services

Added source reference and updated.

Pared away following details, but kept the 6% figure in the text:

Fewer than six percent of refugees qualify as hardship cases, with the largest number being in Lebanon where restrictions on Palestinians entering the Lebanese job market cause severe hardship.

Rations are distributed to families in UNRWA's special hardship category every quarter. Finances permitting, the Agency also provides small cash grants to very poor refugee families to help with the purchase of items such as school uniforms and school books or as crisis grants, for example if they lose all their possessions in a house fire.

Most of the concrete-block shelters in the refugee camps were built by UNRWA in the 1950s to replace the tents in which refugees had lived since the 1948 war. Others were built after the 1967 conflict. Although most refugees have been able to make improvements and additions to their shelters over the years, the very poorest refugees often live in shelters that are now in extremely bad condition. Wet, crumbling walls, leaking zinc roofs and rodent infestation cause additional social and health problems. UNRWA has been able to repair hundreds of shelters in recent years, often simply by supplying materials while the families provide their own labour. UNRWA is unable to keep up with the growing numbers of special hardship case families who each year join its waiting list for shelter rehabilitation.

Dian Kjaergaard (talk) 17:15, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Health

Added source reference. Updated.

Deleted following - redundant: For over 60 years, the UNRWA Health programme has been delivering comprehensive primary health care (PHC) services, both preventive and curative, to Palestine refugees, and helping them access secondary and tertiary health care services.

Deleted following - there is no reason to stress Gaza/West Bank out of all of the UNRWA operating areas: In the West Bank and Gaza Strip, the Al-Aqsa Intifada has led to curfews and closures which have caused a growth in malnutrition, especially among children and nursing mothers. The economic hardships in the territory have driven many refugees away from private health care, increasing the number of patient visits to UNRWA doctors in the Gaza Strip by 61 per cent during the first two years of the conflict.

Deleted following - out of date: UNRWA's network of 122 clinics provides free primary healthcare to all registered refugees who ask for it. The clinics are based inside refugee camps or near concentrations of refugees. In 2003 the clinics handled 10 million patient visits – averaging more than 110 visits per doctor per day.

Deleted following because it has become obsolete: Immunisation programmes have vaccine-preventable diseases under control, but there remains a high prevalence of diseases caused by cramped housing and open sewers in the camps and high poverty levels. At the same time, non-communicable diseases such as hypertension and diabetes are on the increase. Birth rates are among the highest in the world, with short intervals between pregnancies. Diarrhea and intestinal parasites are particularly common among children because of poor environmental health for the one third of refugees who live in camps.

Deleted following because I can't find documentation and it doesn't match very well with the newest statement from UNRWA about what the Environmental Health Program does: The 1.3 million refugees who still live in refugee camps – one third of the total – receive environmental health services from UNRWA. These include such essentials as sewage disposal, the provision of safe drinking water and disposal of refuse. Large scale projects have been carried out in camps since 1989, but many still have inadequate infrastructure, including open sewers. A great many refugee shelters suffer flooding by waste water in winter.

Dian Kjaergaard (talk) 17:43, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Primary sources - chiefly for the description of UNRWA operations

@Dian Kjaergaard: I notice that you have used a lot of primary sources or based on UNRWA website in this edit. Use of self- or primary- sources is discouraged on Wikipedia see WP:PRIMARY and WP:ABOUTSELF, though they can be used in certain cases. It is better to find a secondary source describing UNRWA activities and educational programs, if you can find them. I am watching the page, though I will unable to contribute for perhaps the next few days. Kingsindian (talk) 20:50, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: Thanks. I understand the problem. As you may remember, there were zero sources about the operations. My strategy was to start with "primary sources" and "about self" - and make sure that the information was up to date. I hope this is enough for a few days, perhaps a week, while other material is being substantively cleaned up. And then I/we can go back and try to replace or supplement the "about self" references with secondary. Dian Kjaergaard (talk) 21:01, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

In order to ameliorate this problem - until we perhaps find other sources than "about us...." I have added this sentence to the description of operations: "In the following, UNRWA's own descriptions of itself are summarized." Dian Kjaergaard (talk) 13:30, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

/* Operations */ Added sixth section

Added small section on improvement of infrastructure and camps to complete the presentation. Dian Kjaergaard (talk) 13:46, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Relations with Israel

This section can be trimmed down. However, I would like this to happen after completion of the the trimming of Criticisms & Controversies and of Concrete Proposals... Dian Kjaergaard (talk) 20:50, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I have trimmed down relations with Israel and related it to previous sections. Dian Kjaergaard (talk) 10:38, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Overall

Overall: I am copying talk about possibly deleting the article on the UNRWA reform initative (URI)where I explain what I have tried to do:

I have now re-organized the article on UNRWA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Relief_and_Works_Agency_for_Palestine_Refugees_in_the_Near_East. I have not removed any content, but tried to show a clean, clear structure throughout. I have changed two or three wordings to make them more neutral and added a bit of material and references. The next step will be to merge any useful UNRWA criticism points from this page (U.R.I.) to the UNRWA article. Then I will re-write the U.R.I. so that it describes the focus and results of the initiative rather than the broad background which has now been clarified in the UNRWA article. The U.R.I. article will also include some references to documentation, publications, etc, instead of including a huge list. I need a for more days to do this. Dian Kjaergaard (talk) 21:51, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

what I think you may have done is add a somewhat disproportionate amount of negative material to that article. I remind you about the need for cautious editing in in this area. DGG ( talk ) 04:50, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

DGG: I think if you look carefully, I have actually added to the UNRWA article many positive things and acknowledgement of how difficult UNRWA's work is.

I think the reason you think there is more negative material is because I have used structure to reveal clearly what was already written in the article! Please re-read in the light of this information. And if you have specific suggestions for trimming, let me know. I fully support the need for dispassionate care.

Note also that the article has a very large amount of neutral and positive information about UNRWA which editors (not sure who) have pointed out is poorly documented. I would be willing to help clean that up, too!

Finally – please check the URI stub.Dian Kjaergaard (talk) 11:34, 16 August 2014 (UTC) Dian Kjaergaard (talk) 11:40, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

@Dian Kjaergaard: You have done a great job in organizing the material. The exposition of the criticisms and their response is very good. However, I am struck as was DGG, by the length of the criticism section. I notice that almost all of the criticism comes from Israel and the United States, yet that section is given probably five times (just an estimate with the naked eye) the space of the "Praise" section which is from a variety of countries. I do not say that the sources are unreliable or anything like that, but this is clearly a problem of WP:UNDUE and WP:WORLDVIEW. This needs to be addressed in a serious way. I have a few suggestions on how to do this.

• Organizing material around topics need not mean they should all get their own sections. Many of the sections can be condensed into a few lines. A good example is "Hamas sympathizers employed in and dominating UNRWA unions". People working in humanitarian organizations are of course not required to not vote, or not hold political opinions, as the section itself makes clear. This should be reduced to a 2-3 sentences at most.
• Same with summer camps. I do not see why this is taking so much space. The section seems to be a list of disjointed incidents and no WP:RS connecting them. It would be WP:OR to pick arbitrary data points to include in the section. There should be a reliable, secondary source connecting the criticisms.
• The Kirk amendment section can be drastically condensed. Not sure why that is so long and needs to be described in so much detail.
• The Palestinian curriculum section picks out, as first glance, arbitrary elements from the primary source IPCRI. This should not be done. A secondary source should be used to pick out the notable elements.

There are other things which can be done, but this is a start. Kingsindian (talk) 13:49, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

To clarify, I am not saying you should do all the work yourself :). I will be making changes myself. I am just outlining my thinking on what needs to be done. Kingsindian (talk) 14:04, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: Thanks a bunch. A quick run through of your thoughtful comments suggests that we are very much in agreement. I especially agree that the Kirk amendment and Palestinian curriculum sections are way too long. I do want to note, however, that points of criticisms are usually coupled with rebuttals and discussions, so criticism doesn't just mean criticism - if you follow my drift. Oh, and it would be great if you would work on cleaning up the very long discussions of what UNRWA does.

Please go ahead with your ideas and let's stay in touch with each other. 87.49.173.182 (talk) 15:31, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

from the afd discusssion

I think it might be convenient to copy here my exchange with K exchange fro mthe AfD discussion:

what I think you may have done is add a somewhat disproportionate amount of negative material to that article. I remind you about the need for cautious editing in in this area. DGG ( talk ) 04:50, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

DGG: I think if you look carefully, I have actually added to the UNRWA article many positive things and acknowledgement of how difficult UNRWA's work is.

I think the reason you think there is more negative material is because I have used structure to reveal clearly what was already written in the article! Please re-read in the light of this information. And if you have specific suggestions for trimming, let me know. I fully support the need for dispassionate care.

Note also that the article has a very large amount of neutral and positive information about UNRWA which editors (not sure who) have pointed out is poorly documented. I would be willing to help clean that up, too!

Finally - please check the URI stub.Dian Kjaergaard (talk) 11:34, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes,some of it is in the presentation. including the wide spacing of the material and the breaking of related material into separate paragraphs. But some of it is also in the wording, and in reporting such things as investigations by the US Congress as if they proved the facts alleged, and using an excessive number of quotes from those taking one side of the issue,and including sentences and words of evaluation ("However, there seem to be some serious problems". There are also some selective presentations of facts: "Pinner wrote in 1959 that the number of refugees...."); Pinner is not a neutral source, but a committed advocate, and the data he asserts is half a century old, yet presented in the article as part of the analysis of the current situation. As for balance, sections 6, 7, sand 8, almost all of which is negative, occupy about 70% of the article in length (not word count). I give the same advice as I give with my usual area, commercial COI: minimize adjectives.

I think your work does have considerable merit, and I offer these as suggestions on what to look at. I hope you will do some appropriate editing at integrating the material. . DGG ( talk ) 19:03, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Education and concerns

Have cross linked to the US State report, and one reference to claims about incitement. It doesn't seem appropriate for this to go under criticism, but value comments from other editors.Cpsoper (talk) 13:18, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

@Cpsoper: These concerns are already raised under the criticism section. Why do you see that as not appropriate? Both the summer camps and the palestinian curriculum. Reverting your edits per WP:BRD. Kingsindian (talk) 14:04, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

@Cpsoper::@Kingsindian: - I haven't looked at this but will get back to it within a few days.

Apologies, buried in later part. Cpsoper (talk) 20:15, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

@Cpsoper::@Kingsindian:- I have collected the education concerns within the trimmed Criticism and Controversies section; this includes Lindsay's comments on education and the UNRWA rebuttal@Cpsoper:Please add your additional reference to the appropriate place there. Dian Kjaergaard (talk) 10:40, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

General considerations about the article

With a subject like this, almost every positive or neutral thing can be coupled to a negative - and almost every criticism can be coupled to a positive (like my acknowledgement of how hard UNRWA's tasks are). Indeed, we almost always include rebuttals, refinements, discussions to each various criticism. So the overall evaluation should take this into account, and if we need to edit or re-arrange in order to balance the entry, let's do it.

Another thing to keep in mind is that many problems - and many strengths overlap. Sometimes we can deal with it by keeping given point to just one section - other times we must allow repetition.

I am working with the Center on the URI stub so that references are provided and so that simple, helpful links can be made to further information on the Center webpage(s).

I just want to say that I think that the current discussion is constructive and I hope we can collaborate to create two really great entries (UNRWA and URI). Especially thanks to :@Cpsoper: :@Kingsindian: @DGG:

I've been away from Wikipedia for a few days and have just skimmed the talk. More thanks to @Cpsoper: :@Kingsindian: @DGG: for continued input. At first glance, I think I can use everything you have suggested. I'll try to document carefully as I work.

I don't know who wrote the very long section about what UNRWA does - it looks to be several years old. But I will take up the challenge to trim it in a fair way.

I can see that the UNRWA Reform Initiative Wikipedia page has been deleted. I am in close contact with URI and will discuss with them whether or not it makes sense to try again. But right now I think all of us - and the reading public! - is best served by our making this UNRWA "main page" as good as possible. Dian Kjaergaard (talk) 13:16, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I've gone through a lot of this Talk to gather suggestions and was struck by the fact that the article was apparently started in 2004 - there was a huge amount of activity in 2011 - and nothing since August 2012 until we started the current activity a few weeks ago. Dian Kjaergaard (talk) 13:25, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

@Dian Kjaergaard: Hi, I'm sorry I did not follow through on trying to organize this article more. Too many articles...too little time, I just forgot. I hope to get back to this at some point. Kingsindian (talk) 13:36, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

There seems to be a project to subvert this page into a dump of URI's perspective. This can't be allowed. Wikipedia is not a forum for waging political campaigns. The "criticism" section is already ridiculously long and will have to be massively trimmed. Zero^talk 14:00, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

@Zero0000: - I understand your concerns. The "operations" section is also ridiculously long and impossible to keep up to date. I assure you that I will trim things carefully - and expect help from three other editors who are contributing constructively. Give us a few days before getting too upset. @Kingsindian: @DGG: @Cpsoper: Note that I have made an update to the Organisation section and expanded praise.

I have made it a practice not to actively edit in this field, or on any controversial political topic. My one-time involvement in an AfD on a related article was a rare exception. DGG ( talk ) 16:09, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

@Zero0000: See my comments in the beginning of this section as to how I think the material in the "criticisms" section should be trimmed. (That is just a start, much more can be done) Unfortunately I haven't found the time to actually implement it. I hope to get back to it at some point. Kingsindian (talk) 16:20, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Removal of two sections and transfer of some points to other sections

section "2004 alleged abuse of UN-marked vehicle" REMOVED The following has been replaced by a short mention in "UNRWA facilities being abused by Hamas"

The Israel Defense Forces released a video from May 2004, in which armed Palestinian militants carry an injured colleague into an UNRWA ambulance, before boarding with him. The ambulance driver requested that the armed men leave, but was threatened and told to drive to a hospital.

UNRWA issued a plea [1] to all parties to respect the neutrality of its ambulances.

On 1 October 2004, Israel again lodged accusations against UNRWA. The Israeli Defence Forces released unmanned aerial vehicles and video documenting what they initially claimed was a group of Palestinian militants load a rocket into UN-marked vehicle.

The accusation over the rocket in a UN vehicle has never been substantiated. Hansen responded that the footage was of UNRWA crew members carrying a stretcher into the UN ambulance, stating "While the quality of the video clip is poor, its analysis shows beyond the shadow of a doubt that the object carried and thrown into the vehicle is not / cannot be a Qassam rocket". Moreover, Hansen accused Israel of making "baseless accusations" which put UNRWA's ambulance crews in "grave danger".

The Israeli authorities initially dismissed UNRWA's reaction, blaming Hansen for being "anti-Israeli". Later on, however, Israeli General Yisrael Ziv recognized having doubts over whether the object was a rocket launcher or a stretcher. Eventually, the Israeli military changed some of its earlier statements and conceded the possibility that the object could have indeed been a stretcher, but did not offer the apology Hansen had demanded.

Israel announced its intention to file a strong complaint against UNRWA and demand that Danish diplomat Peter Hansen, UNRWA's head, be removed from office.

section 6 January 2009 incident removed The following has been replaced by a short mention in "UNRWA facilities being abused by Hamas". reference to the article about Al-Fakhura school is intact.

Main article: Al-Fakhura school incident

On 7 January 2009, UNRWA officials alleged that the prior day, in the course of the Gaza War, the Israel Defense Forces shelled the area outside a UNRWA school in Jabalya, Gaza, killing more than forty people. The IDF initially claimed it was responding to an attack by Hamas gunman hiding in the compound, but upon reexamination, said that an "errant shell had hit the school." This statement caused wide criticism of Israel from all over the world. At first, the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs stated in its report that the school itself had been shelled. Three weeks later, this error was corrected by Maxwell Gaylord, the UN humanitarian coordinator, who stated that the UN "would like to clarify that the shelling, and all of the fatalities, took place outside rather than inside the school.

Initially, 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 targeting a UN facility. Later, in an investigation by The Globe & Mail which concluded that Israel did not attack the school, Mr. Ging stated that all three Israeli mortar shells landed outside the school and that he knew that "no one was killed in the school." However the Globe and Mail later issued a retraction and an admission that the story was completely false. http://www.unrwa.org/etemplate.php?id=476

IDF officials have disputed the accuracy of the UN fatality assessment: "It was not certain that the number of casualties reported by the UN, 43, was accurate and that Military Intelligence noticed Hamas attempts to cover up the identity of those killed in the strike."

Concrete Proposals section - what I have done and what is left

The Criticisms & Controversies section has been reduced considerably and grouped into 3 sub-sections.

The Concrete Proposals section has been renamd to "Investigations and calls to reform". It has been trimmed down and made into a 4th sub-section within Criticisms & Controversies. Dian Kjaergaard (talk) 20:45, 25 August 2014 (UTC) and Dian Kjaergaard (talk) 10:46, 27 August 2014 (UTC) -

Remaining work: Continued tightening; perhaps adding a few other items, finishing documentation. Dian Kjaergaard (talk) 10:46, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm, sorry, at the bottom of this section are the reference notes from the stuff I removed from Criticisms & Controversies Dian Kjaergaard (talk) 20:46, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

/* Investigations and calls for reform */ Re-arranged and slightly expanded. Additional citations will be provided within a few days. Dian Kjaergaard (talk) 23:06, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

/* Investigations and calls for reform */ (subsection in criticisms & controversies - now moved back as a main section in order to keep balance): Editing to increase accuracy. Title changed to Investigations and calls for accountability and/or reform. Canada entry title changed from "withdrawal of support" to "redirection of funds from UNRWA to specific PA projects" Dian Kjaergaard (talk) 07:03, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

After looking at the whole piece, I elevated the section again. I added several introductory paragraphs, including Karen Abu Zayd's 2012 call for support and David Horovits's 2014 analysis of Israel's dependency on UNRWA. The purpose of this is to provide a realistic and reasonable context for investigations and calls for accountability and/ or reform Dian Kjaergaard (talk) 12:46, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

New subsection in Execution-related criticisms and controversies.

Added subsection: "Not being able to protect Palestinian refugees in host countries". Dian Kjaergaard (talk) 16:35, 29 August 2014 (UTC)