The Colonna report: "Absolutely no evidence of that".

Were UNRWA employees involved in the Oct. 7 attack on Israeli settlements?

The Colonna report: "No comment".

I can imagine a job interview at UNRWA:

UNRWA: "Are you a terrorist?" - Interviewee: "No".
UNRWA: "Were you complicit in any terrorist attack in the past six months?" - Interviewee: "None of your business"
UNRWA: "OK, you are hired!"

The burden's on Israel to share it, not on UNRWA to show it can't exist.

Meanwhile, people are dying because of UNRWA's ejection.

No one questions the fact of UNRWA employed people who are affiliated with Hamas. Not even UNRWA.

The report says Israel didn't provide evidence of UNRWA employees taking part in terrorist acts.

Are you saying that you have to commit a terrorist act to get fired by UNRWA?That's an absurdly low bar, isn't it? Makes you suspicious of the ethical standards of the organization that does that... Ok, maybe not you, but it makes ME question them.

Hmm, I looked for that but couldn't find it. Can you please share where you got that information?
Thanks.

Of course UNRWA will never say they employed Hamas operatives, silly!

Let's see if you can tell the difference between this

Me, I have no idea what UNRWA thinks. I only know what they are not questioning.

Also, this is your statement correct?" No one questions the fact of UNRWA employed people who are affiliated with Hamas. Not even UNRWA." Are you saying that UNRWA does not question it because they know there are no people employed that are affiliated with Hamas or are you saying that they are not questioning it because they know there are or are you stating something else entirely? If I am presenting a strawman fallacy please explain what you meant by that statement and if it is just your opinion or you have some information backing it up.
Thanks

Once again.
Are you saying that UNRWA does not question it because they know there are no people employed that are affiliated with Hamas or are you saying that they are not questioning it because they know there are or are you stating something else entirely?

I am not following your train of thought anyway. Not since I referred you to Mr. Fallacy for answers.

Can explain what you meant?

That is the only one in which you address what I said rather than speculate about the reasons why I said it.

Happy Passover!

Thanks!

Is it your opinion that you could find nothing on UNRWA questioning the affiliation of their employees with Hamas or mine?

But the claim was yours not mine. I asked if it was just your opinion or if you had something to back it up and you have just evaded and evaded the question. I have no problem stating something is my opinion, not sure why you do.

Me finding nothing is indeed an opinion in regards to if the statement is true. Just because I didn't find anything doesn't make it true or false. It just means I did not find anything. That is basic logic. Yes, I did not find anything. That is a fact. My finding nothing does not prove a fact just as you said you cant prove a negative. I was going to point out that your statement "No one questions the fact of UNRWA employed people who are affiliated with Hamas. Not even UNRWA. " is just filled with not being able to prove a negative but I wanted you to explain your statement first. The fact that you wouldn't shows that you knew it was trying to prove a negative in the first place. "So of course, no sane person would attempt back up a negative' which is why you didn't when repeatedly asked about your statement.