3 ms·

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

by 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.
- rendall 3y ago
  > That's a backwards way of assigning moral responsibility. "Moral responsibility" is a non-sequitur. The discussion is whether UNRWA perpetuates the problem it purports to solve. Several of us have demonstrated that they do this. You seem each time to reject the evidence because you find the premise itself incredible. It is indeed a bitter pill to swallow, that one of the bulwarks of civilization such as the Union of Nations would be so corrupt, but the evidence is clear. > ecause without it one side might "drop the idea" of making war -- or, more sinisterly, "drop the idea" of defending themselves. Well, see, you are taking sides in this conflict. Historically, Israel only attacks when it is attacked. In other words, Israel would like to be left alone. No one argued against Palestinians defending themselves, but there is no legitimate reason to attack Israel, and particularly not Israeli citizens. As we've demonstrated repeatedly in this thread, UNWRA has enabled Palestinians to maintain a perpetual war against Israel for 75 years. If UNWRA had not been doing this, it's at least arguable that Palestinians would have devoted their energies to making a legitimate state that took care of its citizens rather than the situation as it is today: Gaza ruled by a well-funded terrorist organization that literally has "destroy Israel" and "never compromise with Israel" in its charter, while legitimate government operations are left to UNRWA. Even if you believe the Palestinians have some kind of right to "resist" the "occupation" of "their land" (which is taking a side) and so commit acts of terror, it should not be the UN that funds it.
  - crazygringo 3y ago
    > "Moral responsibility" is a non-sequitur. The discussion is whether UNRWA perpetuates the problem it purports to solve. This is incorrect. To determine whether an organization is perpetuating the problem it is trying to solve, one has to assign blame for that problem being perpetuated. Also known as moral responsibility. Just because a problem is being perpetuated, and some organization is trying to solve it, doesn't mean the problem is being perpetuated by the organization trying to solve it. This is the fundamental logical mistake people are making why they try to claim that UNRWA is the one perpetuating the situation. > You seem each time to reject the evidence because you find the premise itself incredible. It is indeed a bitter pill to swallow, that one of the bulwarks of civilization such as the Union of Nations would be so corrupt, but the evidence is clear. Please stop trying to make these assumptions about me. And this conversation has nothing to do with whether the UNRWA is corrupt or how much. It is solely about whether it is an example of "Shirky's law". > Well, see, you are taking sides in this conflict. Please stop reading things I didn't say into things I actually did say. You took a totally generic sentence of mine, that I intentionally made generic, and are then somehow accusing me of taking sides. I don't know how to be clearer that I am not. I am saying that UNRWA is not an example of Shirky's law. You're bringing all sorts of claims about the UNRWA that may be interesting in other conversations, but are irrelevant here. And it's funny how nobody seems to want to answer my question of why, if they think UNRWA is perpetuating the conflict, the Red Cross isn't similarly perpetuating every conflict it provides services in. Because of course it's not. And logical consistency would require one to admit that therefore UNRWA isn't either.
    - rendall 3y ago
      If you want to meet our arguments, refute the specific claims we make; either that the facts are false, or that the facts do not demonstrate Shirky's law. Otherwise we're just arguing in circles. To recap, here is a list: UNRWA collaborates with Hamas. UNRWA schools teach anti-Israel rhetoric to children. Hamas employees work at UNWRA. UNRWA expands the definition of refugee beyond that of UNHCR to include children of refugees and those who have citizenship in other countries. UNRWA replaces the normal operations of government leaving Hamas free to use vast resources to commit terror. To demonstrate that Shirky's Law does not apply to UNRWA, you should refute each of those specific claims.

by ars 3y ago

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.

rendall 3y ago
> That's a backwards way of assigning moral responsibility. "Moral responsibility" is a non-sequitur. The discussion is whether UNRWA perpetuates the problem it purports to solve. Several of us have demonstrated that they do this. You seem each time to reject the evidence because you find the premise itself incredible. It is indeed a bitter pill to swallow, that one of the bulwarks of civilization such as the Union of Nations would be so corrupt, but the evidence is clear. > ecause without it one side might "drop the idea" of making war -- or, more sinisterly, "drop the idea" of defending themselves. Well, see, you are taking sides in this conflict. Historically, Israel only attacks when it is attacked. In other words, Israel would like to be left alone. No one argued against Palestinians defending themselves, but there is no legitimate reason to attack Israel, and particularly not Israeli citizens. As we've demonstrated repeatedly in this thread, UNWRA has enabled Palestinians to maintain a perpetual war against Israel for 75 years. If UNWRA had not been doing this, it's at least arguable that Palestinians would have devoted their energies to making a legitimate state that took care of its citizens rather than the situation as it is today: Gaza ruled by a well-funded terrorist organization that literally has "destroy Israel" and "never compromise with Israel" in its charter, while legitimate government operations are left to UNRWA. Even if you believe the Palestinians have some kind of right to "resist" the "occupation" of "their land" (which is taking a side) and so commit acts of terror, it should not be the UN that funds it.
- crazygringo 3y ago
  > "Moral responsibility" is a non-sequitur. The discussion is whether UNRWA perpetuates the problem it purports to solve. This is incorrect. To determine whether an organization is perpetuating the problem it is trying to solve, one has to assign blame for that problem being perpetuated. Also known as moral responsibility. Just because a problem is being perpetuated, and some organization is trying to solve it, doesn't mean the problem is being perpetuated by the organization trying to solve it. This is the fundamental logical mistake people are making why they try to claim that UNRWA is the one perpetuating the situation. > You seem each time to reject the evidence because you find the premise itself incredible. It is indeed a bitter pill to swallow, that one of the bulwarks of civilization such as the Union of Nations would be so corrupt, but the evidence is clear. Please stop trying to make these assumptions about me. And this conversation has nothing to do with whether the UNRWA is corrupt or how much. It is solely about whether it is an example of "Shirky's law". > Well, see, you are taking sides in this conflict. Please stop reading things I didn't say into things I actually did say. You took a totally generic sentence of mine, that I intentionally made generic, and are then somehow accusing me of taking sides. I don't know how to be clearer that I am not. I am saying that UNRWA is not an example of Shirky's law. You're bringing all sorts of claims about the UNRWA that may be interesting in other conversations, but are irrelevant here. And it's funny how nobody seems to want to answer my question of why, if they think UNRWA is perpetuating the conflict, the Red Cross isn't similarly perpetuating every conflict it provides services in. Because of course it's not. And logical consistency would require one to admit that therefore UNRWA isn't either.
  - rendall 3y ago
    If you want to meet our arguments, refute the specific claims we make; either that the facts are false, or that the facts do not demonstrate Shirky's law. Otherwise we're just arguing in circles. To recap, here is a list: UNRWA collaborates with Hamas. UNRWA schools teach anti-Israel rhetoric to children. Hamas employees work at UNWRA. UNRWA expands the definition of refugee beyond that of UNHCR to include children of refugees and those who have citizenship in other countries. UNRWA replaces the normal operations of government leaving Hamas free to use vast resources to commit terror. To demonstrate that Shirky's Law does not apply to UNRWA, you should refute each of those specific claims.