4 ms·

Even that Economist opinion piece has this line: "That was the role of UNRWA: to preserve the status quo." > The idea that UNRWA is the primary party responsib

Even that Economist opinion piece has this line: "That was the role of UNRWA: to preserve the status quo." > The idea that UNRWA is the primary party responsible for perpetuating the situation, in order to therefore perpetuate its existence, couldn't be further from the truth. The article elides much. The reason for neighboring Arab nations not really trusting Palestinians, for instance. The work of UN Watch in exposing UNWRA as being too cosy at best with Hamas, for another. "... couldn't be further from the truth" is quite a stretch.

crazygringo 3y ago
The Shirky principle is: "institutions will try to preserve the problem to which they are the solution". I see no evidence that UNRWA is the one trying to maintain the status quo. Rather, other parties are trying to maintain the status quo, and UNRWA is providing humanitarian aid until things change, to alleviate misery. I think it's quite obvious that if a peaceful solution were found in Israel and Palestine, the UNRWA would very quickly wind down its operations. With a lot of its staff possibly being hired by the local government. The full situation over there is extremely, astonishingly complex. But the "Shirky principle" tries to posit some kind of simplistic answer. And it's just wrong.
- rendall 3y ago
  > I see no evidence that UNRWA is the one trying to maintain the status quo. You are one of the rare few. UNRWA is losing funding precisely because this evidence exists and is compelling. UNRWA could not have been ignorant of the terror tunnels beneath its HQ. UNRWA school curriculum has taught anti-Israel rhetoric to children for decades. UNRWA telegram channel promoting and celebrating terror attacks. Not to mention Hamas employees working at UNWRA. This is all beside the main point of the number of Palestian refugees ballooning from 500K in 1948 to 5.6 million today. > I think it's quite obvious that if a peaceful solution were found in Israel and Palestine, the UNRWA would very quickly wind down its operations. Indeed. That + Shirky's Principle goes far to explain UNWRA's behavior.
  - crazygringo 3y ago
    Please don't say I'm one of the "rare few" -- that presupposes that there's some kind of broad consensus here, which there absolutely is not. And the things you're saying have nothing whatsoever to do with "Shirky's principle", whether they are true or false. I'm not taking any kind of political position on UNRWA. But what I am saying is that they don't hold any kind of power to change the situation here. They're not any kind of major player in the geopolitical situation. There's not a state actor that has the power to be negotiating over the status of the Palestinians with Netanhayu. The idea that, if it weren't for UNRWA, there would be no more refugees because they'd all have gone back home or been peacefully resettled elsewhere, is absurd. To suggest that they are the ones creating the sitution -- rather than the actions of Israel, Hamas, and the PA, together with neighboring countries and the US -- is totally at odds with all historical fact. It's like saying that the Red Cross foments war so that it can have wartime casualties to treat. It makes no sense.
    - ars 3y ago
      It's pretty simple: The UNRWA should refuse to provide services that the local government is obligated to provide. For example in Gaza the UNRWA has the role of government, instead of Hamas. If UNRWA refused, then Hamas would have had to do that, and they probably would drop this idea of perpetual war with Israel, because they have obligations to their citizens. In Lebanon Lebanon refuses to give even basic services to the people who were born there, because the UNRWA does it. If Lebanon was on the hook for schooling and other basic services they would probably grant work permits to the parents. This would eventually lead to integration with the host country. But instead the UNRWA does it, leading to perpetual refugee status.
      - crazygringo 3y ago
        That's a backwards way of assigning moral responsibility. Would you say that the Red Cross should refuse to provide services that the local military and health services you think are "obligated to provide"? Because by treating wounded soldiers and civilians, they might extend the length of fighting? In other words, that the Red Cross shouldn't exist at all either? Your argument suggests that any and all international humanitarian aid is illegitimate in any conflict, because without it one side might "drop the idea" of making war -- or, more sinisterly, "drop the idea" of defending themselves. I'm not taking any sides in this particular conflict. But the idea that assigning responsibility for prolonging a conflict to a humanitarian aid agency trying to help civilians seems morally absurd.

crazygringo 3y ago

The Shirky principle is: "institutions will try to preserve the problem to which they are the solution". I see no evidence that UNRWA is the one trying to maintain the status quo. Rather, other parties are trying to maintain the status quo, and UNRWA is providing humanitarian aid until things change, to alleviate misery. I think it's quite obvious that if a peaceful solution were found in Israel and Palestine, the UNRWA would very quickly wind down its operations. With a lot of its staff possibly being hired by the local government. The full situation over there is extremely, astonishingly complex. But the "Shirky principle" tries to posit some kind of simplistic answer. And it's just wrong.

rendall 3y ago
> I see no evidence that UNRWA is the one trying to maintain the status quo. You are one of the rare few. UNRWA is losing funding precisely because this evidence exists and is compelling. UNRWA could not have been ignorant of the terror tunnels beneath its HQ. UNRWA school curriculum has taught anti-Israel rhetoric to children for decades. UNRWA telegram channel promoting and celebrating terror attacks. Not to mention Hamas employees working at UNWRA. This is all beside the main point of the number of Palestian refugees ballooning from 500K in 1948 to 5.6 million today. > I think it's quite obvious that if a peaceful solution were found in Israel and Palestine, the UNRWA would very quickly wind down its operations. Indeed. That + Shirky's Principle goes far to explain UNWRA's behavior.
- crazygringo 3y ago
  Please don't say I'm one of the "rare few" -- that presupposes that there's some kind of broad consensus here, which there absolutely is not. And the things you're saying have nothing whatsoever to do with "Shirky's principle", whether they are true or false. I'm not taking any kind of political position on UNRWA. But what I am saying is that they don't hold any kind of power to change the situation here. They're not any kind of major player in the geopolitical situation. There's not a state actor that has the power to be negotiating over the status of the Palestinians with Netanhayu. The idea that, if it weren't for UNRWA, there would be no more refugees because they'd all have gone back home or been peacefully resettled elsewhere, is absurd. To suggest that they are the ones creating the sitution -- rather than the actions of Israel, Hamas, and the PA, together with neighboring countries and the US -- is totally at odds with all historical fact. It's like saying that the Red Cross foments war so that it can have wartime casualties to treat. It makes no sense.
  - ars 3y ago
    It's pretty simple: The UNRWA should refuse to provide services that the local government is obligated to provide. For example in Gaza the UNRWA has the role of government, instead of Hamas. If UNRWA refused, then Hamas would have had to do that, and they probably would drop this idea of perpetual war with Israel, because they have obligations to their citizens. In Lebanon Lebanon refuses to give even basic services to the people who were born there, because the UNRWA does it. If Lebanon was on the hook for schooling and other basic services they would probably grant work permits to the parents. This would eventually lead to integration with the host country. But instead the UNRWA does it, leading to perpetual refugee status.
    - crazygringo 3y ago
      That's a backwards way of assigning moral responsibility. Would you say that the Red Cross should refuse to provide services that the local military and health services you think are "obligated to provide"? Because by treating wounded soldiers and civilians, they might extend the length of fighting? In other words, that the Red Cross shouldn't exist at all either? Your argument suggests that any and all international humanitarian aid is illegitimate in any conflict, because without it one side might "drop the idea" of making war -- or, more sinisterly, "drop the idea" of defending themselves. I'm not taking any sides in this particular conflict. But the idea that assigning responsibility for prolonging a conflict to a humanitarian aid agency trying to help civilians seems morally absurd.