-9

UNRWA'S Terrorgram - How a Telegram group of 3,000 UNRWA teachers in Gaza celebrated the October 7th Hamas massacre (unwatch.org)

submitted 7 months ago by speaker_hat@lemmy.one to c/world@lemmy.world

10 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Evidence Shows Widespread Support for October 7th Terrorists Among UNRWA Teachers in Gaza

This report details how UNRWA teachers in a 3,000-member UNRWA staff Telegram group cheered and celebrated Hamas’s October 7th massacre while at the same time asking when their UNRWA salaries will be paid.

The UNRWA staff in the group shared photos and video footage of those events and prayed for the terrorists’ success and for Israel’s destruction, in clear violation of UN rules.

This is the latest in a series of reports on UNRWA staff antisemitism and incitement to jihadi terrorism which our research proves is systemic and widespread.

Since 2015, UN Watch has exposed over 150 UNRWA staff Facebook pages that contain antisemitism and incitement to jihadi terrorism in blatant violation of UN neutrality.

The UNRWA Telegram group featured in this report completely eviscerates UNRWA’s denials and exposes the extent of UNRWA’s failure to do the bare minimum to address its staff’s neutrality violations.

Archive: https://archive.md/Zrfto

top 10 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] roastedDeflator@kbin.social 3 points 7 months ago

This is a totally pro-israel organization.

Check out this passage from wiki:

UN Watch is active at the UN in combating what it considers anti-Israel and anti-Semitic attitudes, and what it dubs the selective and politicized treatment of Israel by many UN bodies.[55] The group supported former Secretary General Kofi Annan's declared goal of ending the UN's imbalanced treatment of Israel[56] and has been highly critical of the United Nations Human Rights Council.[6][7][57] The Jewish Telegraphic Agency has described U.N. Watch as a pro-Israel organization.[58]

[-] ShroOmeric@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago

I guess soon The Onion will be considered news.

[-] speaker_hat@lemmy.one -4 points 7 months ago

This news site is highly credible.

Source: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/un-watch/

[-] ShroOmeric@lemmy.world 4 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

The Onion too. But thanks for the "source".

[-] Cheradenine@sh.itjust.works 3 points 7 months ago

They get 'Mostly Factual' and

'In contrast, Right web describes UN Watch’s political stance as “UN Watch has repeatedly been accused of having a staunchly “pro-Israel” bias and an outlook on Middle East peace that is closely aligned with that of Israel’s right-wing Likud Party.”

In review, UN Watch has a strong us

[-] roastedDeflator@kbin.social 1 points 7 months ago

That's what mediafactcheck says for times of israel. lol
They even classify it as left-center. lol

[-] speaker_hat@lemmy.one -2 points 7 months ago

Because they are highly credible.

[-] roastedDeflator@kbin.social 0 points 7 months ago

Anything pro-israel is highly credible. /s

this post was submitted on 31 Jan 2024

-9 points (37.1% liked)

World News

38529 readers

2303 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.