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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
> "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.
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.
> you should refute each of those specific claims.
Sorry, that's just not how it works.
You're making a number of highly controversial, cherry-picked statements that are being heavily debated in the news. It doesn't really matter if a handful of Hamas employees may or may have worked at UNRWA, when it has a staff of 30,000. It's irrelevant if some educational materials take a locally-biased political viewpoint, when the history curriculum in every nation takes a locally-biased political viewpoint.
But I don't have to refute any of your arguments because none of them have any relevance whatsoever to Shirky's law applying. Whereas you continue to refuse to engage with the analogy to the Red Cross, even after I've pointed that out that you aren't responding to that. So I just can't take this discussion seriously anymore, when you keep trying to divert the discussion into irrelevant tangents, and won't engage with the simple, direct comparison that reveals the foundational inconsistency in your logic.
> 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
And yet this is exactly what the UNHCR does. A refugee settles, and they are no longer a refugee.
> To suggest that they are the ones creating the sitution
You're arguing against a strawman. The Arab war on Israel in 1948 created the refugee crisis. No one argued any different.
There is evidence that UNWRA is perpetuating the situatiyon, your personal incredulity notwithstanding. This is but a single example, but it is enough to demonstrate that they intentionally exacerbated it.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/unrwa-textbooks-still-include-...
"The Nakba" was a result of the war begun by Arabs. Without that war, there would have been no "Nakba". Israel invited the local Arabs to participate in the new nation. Some Arabs took them up on the offer, and they and their descendents live as full Israeli citizens today. Some chose to flee because they listened to their leaders who did not have their best interests at heart. Some of those who fled returned and some became refugees. Those who chose to fight or were historically responsible for pograms were expelled. That is the Nakba in a nutshell. Blaming Israel for the "Nakba" is self-pitying ahistorical revanchism full stop. The Nakba was FAFO in action, a lesson that is apparently difficult for Palestinians to understand.
Overly reductive take. And whitewashes the massacres that Israel perpetrated in the civil war prior and during the war in 48. Many fled for fear of being killed by Israeli forces or were actively removed from their land.
> 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.