worldnews

4836 readers

1 users here now

Rules:

Be civil. Disagreements happen, that does not give you the right to personally insult each other.
No racism or bigotry.
Posts from sources that aren't known to be incredibly biased for either side of the spectrum are preferred. If this is not an option, you may post from whatever source you have as long as it is relevant to this community.
Post titles should be the same as the article title.
No spam, self-promotion, or trolling.

Instance-wide rules always apply.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

196

Israel is deliberately starving Palestinians, UN rights expert says (www.theguardian.com)

submitted 8 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

4 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 11 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

A US intelligence assessment of Israel’s claims that UN aid agency staff members participated in the Hamas attack on 7 October said some of the accusations were credible but that the claims of wider links to militant groups could not be independently verified… According to the Wall Street Journal, the intelligence report, released last week, declared it had “low confidence” in the basic claim that a handful of staff had participated in the attack, indicating that it considered the accusations to be credible though it could not independently confirm their veracity.

It cast doubt, however, on accusations that the UN agency was collaborating with Hamas in a wider way. The Journal said the report mentioned that although the UNRWA does coordinate with Hamas in order to deliver aid and operate in the region, there was a lack of evidence to suggest it partnered with the group.

It added that Israel has not “shared the raw intelligence behind its assessments with the US”.

Confidence in Assessments, pp 5, per the US’s own National Intelligence Council:

Low confidence generally means questionable or implausible information was used, the information is too fragmented or poorly corroborated to make solid analytic inferences, or significant concerns or problems with sources existed.