It's always useful to balance these claims against their critics.
Towards that end I offer up unwatch.
replies(8):
Towards that end I offer up unwatch.
"Calling it antisemitism - it’s a trick we always use." Shulamit Aloni, former Israeli Minister
If I want to understand any position I would look for first sources. Say I want to understand why Russian invaded Ukraine, I would seek out Russian sources. When I try to understand the Palestinian position, I seek out Palestinian sources.
The beautiful thing about intellectual honesty and openness is that you don't have to agree with any position. You can expose yourself to things that deeply conflict with your personal values and walk away with a deeper understanding of why you value what you value, and how to refute ideas that you strongly disagree with.
To dismiss a source because it is Israeli ironically gives fuel to the antisemitism charge. You're saying that the very reason to dismiss it, to not even bother entertaining its arguments is because it is Israeli and no other reason. Beyond that, you are even arguing that any claims of prejudice can be dismissed outright on the basis of one thing that one Israeli Minster once said [allegedly].
That is the very definition of prejudice.
There are many examples of Israeli sources lying about the state of things, from the baseless claims against UNRWA to the unconscionable excuse of burying medics and the ambulances they were in, to avoid wild dogs eating them.
Israeli sources rarely offer evidence to refute the claims presented in this report, and a cry of antisemitism, as stated, conflates Judeism with Israeli nationality, hence these sources are worthless at best.
I note you've not denied the issues with claims of antisemitism which are important.
Receipts: https://unwatch.org/report-unrwas-terrorgram/
If that's not antisemitic, I'm not sure what would be in your mind.
But I think for you, you are able to dismiss it because the rest of the world choose to not see it.
I'm saying that a biased Israeli news source is less valid than the actions of dozens of countries, which decided to restart funding.
It is telling that UN votes for a ceasefire are only opposed by the US, Israel and a handful of client states. This is a genocide, and most countries seem to agree on that.
Second, you dismissed what you deemed to be Israeli sources as "lying about the state of things, from the baseless claims against UNRWA". I brought up evidence otherwise - specifically that their claims are not baseless. Dismiss _that_ as biased all you want, but its just links to social media posts from Hamas members. Members of Hamas that also work for UNRWA in some fashion.
We do agree that the US and Israel standing alone is telling. But we will disagree on what it means. For me it confirms just how morally bankrupt the United Nations is. I see no epistemological value in just conforming to the majority when I see clear evidence otherwise.
Conflation of Israelis and Jews and the false claim of antisemitism.
The lack of evidence of UNRWA-Hamas association, such that Israel's claims are deemed baseless by multiple countries and they restart funding. That is not a UN decision, it is by each country and serves as a good benchmark for baseless.
As to some posts to Hamas members, Israel have called reporters Hamas members simply for reporting with Hamas members, so as far as a few posts go, classification is the issue here, to the point where Reuters and other news agencies have stopped sending the IDF their locations, as the IDF label them Hamas supporters and deliberately target them. Actions are a much more clear signal. In Lebanon, the IDF saying there were Hamas tunnels under hospitals was debunked by numerous news organisations like the BBC, Sky etc. This is the IDF here misclassifying and outright lying, let alone an Internet site.
Lastly, given that both Trump and Netanyahu have openly and on TV advocated ethnic cleansing, and that these comments get next to zero blowback, the US and Israel appear to be the morally bankrupt ones. If an internet site takes precedence over open admission by presidents, multiple country's decisions, evidence presented from an acknowledged organisation (and confirmed from multiple sources), then I'd argue that there's something amiss here.