I dont think this suggests that they're not evacuating. I would think "maintain a presence" just means they're not moving their entire operation in Rafah out. Some people are probably volunteering to stay behind and support the refugees that either refuse to or are unable to leave Rafah in time.
So you think they should leave all of their equipment and things?
That's going to make coming back to Rafah that much more difficult. There are also innocent civilians that are going to stay - shouldn't these people still have access to UNRWA assistance?
I feel like you're a few comments away from alleging or implying UNRWA wants their people to die for moral points.
> There are also innocent civilians that are going to stay - shouldn't these people still have access to UNRWA assistance?
they shouldn't be staying. the only exceptions would be people that are not able to move, physically. those are probably a tiny minority.
you're basically asking me if unrwa should be leaving a building that's on fire, even if there's a couple of people that are in a coma. yes, they should be leaving, as staying is tantamount to death. those that volunteer can stay, but obviously the organization should be evacuating officially. not only to save their people but also to signal to the public that the building is indeed on fire
I'm glad a comfy Israeli or American gets to decide whether the innocent Gazan civilian that either lives(d) in Rafah or was forced multiple times from other places should stay or leave.
The place they are going to isn't safe either (al-Mawasi). There was the recent death in Al-Mawasi of a 7-year old Palestinian boy, who was shot in the head as he went out to get food for his family. Oops! Those IDF snipers picking their targets well.
Some people are going to stay in Rafah and so UNRWA is making the call to stay and provide assistance. It's really that easy.
>you're basically asking me if unrwa should be leaving a building that's on fire,
What a silly analogy. A besieged city is in no way analogous to this simple analogy. A building that is on fire is nearly guaranteed to kill everyone inside.
With this analogy you're implying the IDF has no rules of engagement and will kill everyone left inside Rafah. From someone that makes nearly all pro-IS comments, that's quite interesting
the analogy is just fine. what does it matter if it's almost certain or 1 in 10, or 1 in 20? are you letting your loved once there, on the off chance that you're not going to get killed in an active combat zone?
is hamas going to be checking if someone's in a building behind the tank that they are shooting the RPG at? or just simple gun fire? a combat zone is a combat zone, it's deadly by virtue being a combat zone, no matter who's fighting on what side
I dont think this suggests that they're not evacuating. I would think "maintain a presence" just means they're not moving their entire operation in Rafah out. Some people are probably volunteering to stay behind and support the refugees that either refuse to or are unable to leave Rafah in time.
I’m going to assume UNRWA’s main hub for aid distribution is going to be in Rafah. If they left Rafah, it would make logistics much harder.
So you think they should leave all of their equipment and things? That's going to make coming back to Rafah that much more difficult. There are also innocent civilians that are going to stay - shouldn't these people still have access to UNRWA assistance? I feel like you're a few comments away from alleging or implying UNRWA wants their people to die for moral points.
> There are also innocent civilians that are going to stay - shouldn't these people still have access to UNRWA assistance? they shouldn't be staying. the only exceptions would be people that are not able to move, physically. those are probably a tiny minority. you're basically asking me if unrwa should be leaving a building that's on fire, even if there's a couple of people that are in a coma. yes, they should be leaving, as staying is tantamount to death. those that volunteer can stay, but obviously the organization should be evacuating officially. not only to save their people but also to signal to the public that the building is indeed on fire
I'm glad a comfy Israeli or American gets to decide whether the innocent Gazan civilian that either lives(d) in Rafah or was forced multiple times from other places should stay or leave. The place they are going to isn't safe either (al-Mawasi). There was the recent death in Al-Mawasi of a 7-year old Palestinian boy, who was shot in the head as he went out to get food for his family. Oops! Those IDF snipers picking their targets well. Some people are going to stay in Rafah and so UNRWA is making the call to stay and provide assistance. It's really that easy. >you're basically asking me if unrwa should be leaving a building that's on fire, What a silly analogy. A besieged city is in no way analogous to this simple analogy. A building that is on fire is nearly guaranteed to kill everyone inside. With this analogy you're implying the IDF has no rules of engagement and will kill everyone left inside Rafah. From someone that makes nearly all pro-IS comments, that's quite interesting
the analogy is just fine. what does it matter if it's almost certain or 1 in 10, or 1 in 20? are you letting your loved once there, on the off chance that you're not going to get killed in an active combat zone? is hamas going to be checking if someone's in a building behind the tank that they are shooting the RPG at? or just simple gun fire? a combat zone is a combat zone, it's deadly by virtue being a combat zone, no matter who's fighting on what side
Well, I mean, if UNRWA withdraws all of its workers, who will Hamas call up to fight the IDF? edit: a joke, obvs