U.N. Watch: More propaganda |

U.N. Watch: More propaganda

Once again the United Nations aid agency for Palestinians obliterates its credibility with a report blaming Israel for an increase in Gaza’s infant mortality rate.

Dr. Akihiro Seita, with the U.N. Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), suggests that Israel’s blockade of the Gaza Strip since 2007 is a contributing factor in the infant mortality uptick, according to a report from Agence France-Presse.

But nowhere does the UNRWA report cite the influence of Hamas terrorists and their anti-Israel obsession over the same period.

And how curious, too, that, according to the supposedly objective relief agency report, the number of infant deaths has gone down over recent decades —before Hamas took control.

In the latest survey, for 2013, the number of babies dying before reaching their first year rose to 22.4 per 1,000 live births, up from 20.2 per 1,000 in 2008.

Casting more doubt on UNRWA findings is that “no appropriate registration exists for infant deaths among Palestine refugees in Gaza,” writes Claudia Rosett of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.

And UNRWA is the same “humanitarian” agency that posts anti-Israel cartoons on its Facebook page, according to the group U.N. Watch.

Instead of building health care centers with the aid it receives, Hamas dedicates itself to the destruction of Israel. UNRWA’s propaganda only sustains that single-minded objective.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.