4 ms·

That's a creative way of explaining things, but if you were correct the unrwa would have long since disbanded and all the refugees handed over to the unhcr for

by ars 3y ago

That's a creative way of explaining things, but if you were correct the unrwa would have long since disbanded and all the refugees handed over to the unhcr for integration into their country of birth. That this has not happened is the clearest proof against what you wrote. Tell me: If what you said is correct, why does the unrwa even still exist as a separate entity? The unrwa has a policy of always expanding the number of refugees, the unhcr has the opposite policy. Yes, it's true the Arab states have not made things easy, but the unrwa is not even trying - it's simply not part of the mandate. It is however the mandate of the unhcr. Do you think host countries want to admit refugees as citizens? They never do, but the unhcr manages to make things work. If the unrwa would try as hard they would cease to exist, which is a perfect example of this article.

crabmusket 3y ago
> The unrwa has a policy of always expanding the number of refugees That's a very specific claim. Where can we find support for it?
- ars 3y ago
  "UNRWA re-opened its new inscription process in 1992. Palestine refugees who were not registered in the early fifties can now apply for registration, provided that they approach any UNRWA registration office in person and are able to produce valid documentation proving their 1948 refugee status. Since 2006, husbands and descendants of registered refugee women, known as ‘married to non-refugee’ (MNR) family members, have also become eligible to be registered to receive UNRWA services." https://www.unrwa.org/what-we-do/eligibility-registration https://www.unrwa.org/what-we-do/eligibility-registration And this nice graph: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Total_number_of_Palestinian_refugees_as_defined_by_UNRWA_(1950_-_2008).svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Total_number_of_Palestini... There is actually no mechanism to take someone off of UNRWA membership roles! Once a member, always a member, and so are all their kids. Forever.
  - crazygringo 3y ago
    > There is actually no mechanism to take someone off of UNRWA membership roles! Once a member, always a member, and so are all their kids. Forever. This is silly. It's just registration to receive services. You don't need to "take someone off of UNRWA membership roles" -- just stop using the services. You make it sound like an organization that's trying to sinisterly enroll everyone it can find for nefarious purposes, even their children, with no escape! It's a humanitarian aid organization for goodness sakes. If you don't want to use its services, then just don't. I mean, if a humanitarian aid organization provided services to people but not to their children, that seems like it would be a pretty big problem, no? I'm baffled how you can think that providing services to children is a bad thing.
    - JoeAltmaier 3y ago
      It's so much more than that. It's a political affiliation; it's a status; it's a stigma in some circles. We can all easily imagine wanting to distance ourselves from certain organizations. To find you cannot disentangle yourself, that anyone can look you up and draw conclusions from your affiliation, is an problem. Not 'silly'.
      - crazygringo 3y ago
        Can you provide a reputable source for those claims? I can't find anything in the (extremely long) Wikipedia article that suggests anything like that, or anything from a quick Google search. It's not a political party. It's an institution -- a UN agency -- that provides education, social services, and health care, that someone may or may not be eligible for. If you attended a school run by them as a child, or received health care from them, I'm having an extremely difficult time trying to imagine how that becomes a "stigma" that you need to "disentangle" yourself from, or why anyone would ever describe that as an "affiliation". It's just where you went to school and got medical care. (Which, you know, is usually better than not going to school or not getting medical care.)
        ars 3y ago

by ars 3y ago

crabmusket 3y ago

> The unrwa has a policy of always expanding the number of refugees That's a very specific claim. Where can we find support for it?

ars 3y ago
"UNRWA re-opened its new inscription process in 1992. Palestine refugees who were not registered in the early fifties can now apply for registration, provided that they approach any UNRWA registration office in person and are able to produce valid documentation proving their 1948 refugee status. Since 2006, husbands and descendants of registered refugee women, known as ‘married to non-refugee’ (MNR) family members, have also become eligible to be registered to receive UNRWA services." https://www.unrwa.org/what-we-do/eligibility-registration https://www.unrwa.org/what-we-do/eligibility-registration And this nice graph: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Total_number_of_Palestinian_refugees_as_defined_by_UNRWA_(1950_-_2008).svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Total_number_of_Palestini... There is actually no mechanism to take someone off of UNRWA membership roles! Once a member, always a member, and so are all their kids. Forever.
- crazygringo 3y ago
  > There is actually no mechanism to take someone off of UNRWA membership roles! Once a member, always a member, and so are all their kids. Forever. This is silly. It's just registration to receive services. You don't need to "take someone off of UNRWA membership roles" -- just stop using the services. You make it sound like an organization that's trying to sinisterly enroll everyone it can find for nefarious purposes, even their children, with no escape! It's a humanitarian aid organization for goodness sakes. If you don't want to use its services, then just don't. I mean, if a humanitarian aid organization provided services to people but not to their children, that seems like it would be a pretty big problem, no? I'm baffled how you can think that providing services to children is a bad thing.
  - JoeAltmaier 3y ago
    It's so much more than that. It's a political affiliation; it's a status; it's a stigma in some circles. We can all easily imagine wanting to distance ourselves from certain organizations. To find you cannot disentangle yourself, that anyone can look you up and draw conclusions from your affiliation, is an problem. Not 'silly'.
    - crazygringo 3y ago
      Can you provide a reputable source for those claims? I can't find anything in the (extremely long) Wikipedia article that suggests anything like that, or anything from a quick Google search. It's not a political party. It's an institution -- a UN agency -- that provides education, social services, and health care, that someone may or may not be eligible for. If you attended a school run by them as a child, or received health care from them, I'm having an extremely difficult time trying to imagine how that becomes a "stigma" that you need to "disentangle" yourself from, or why anyone would ever describe that as an "affiliation". It's just where you went to school and got medical care. (Which, you know, is usually better than not going to school or not getting medical care.)
      - ars 3y ago