This seems like a very surface look at the issue, and not a very good advert for trusting LLM outputs. For example, I don't see how you can recommend UNRWA without at least considering the idea that, by promoting revanchism and ethnic hatred, they are one of the long-term causes of Palestinian terrorism and thereby suffering in both Israel and Gaza.
(And more generally, I disagree with the use of the EA forum to promote causes without even attempting to argue they might be potential EA causes).
I wouldn't state an unqualified opposition to the "use of the EA forum to promote causes without even attempting to argue they might be potential EA causes." (I'll call the promoted cause Cause Z.)
If people have already decided to donate to Cause Z, there's value in them doing it as effectively as possible. And it's plausible that this particular cause could have be at least relatively effective opportunities -- it's not in a developed country, it has broad scale, many people are dying, etc.
At some point I might find there are too many applying effectiveness to Cause Z posts, but I don't think we are there. However, I do think it's reasonable to hold this kind of post to a certain standard -- and perhaps a higher standard than an ordinary post. One could reasonably conclude that "mostly the work of Gemini 2.5" falls below that standard, at least with this output. I do have a downvote on the original post for that reason -- not out of hostility to the identified cause area or Cause Z posts more generally.
I also downvoted the post for similar reasons regarding LLM reliability (particularly for politically sensitive issues) and lack of depth , and would like to address/provide more information to your last point.
Without debating whether UNRWA is ideal in every respect, they currently have uniquely high leverage in averting large-scale preventable deaths at low marginal cost. Gaza faces a severe humanitarian emergency, with rising rates of acute malnutrition and a resurgence of infectious diseases previously controlled or eliminated [1] EAs have historically supported interventions like malnutrition treatment and immunization because they are cost-effective and high-impact. What makes Gaza distinct from other crises (e.g., Sudan, Haiti, Mali) is that life-saving medical and nutrition supplies (including treatment for severe acute malnutrition) are already purchased, positioned just miles away, and ready for deployment. The main bottleneck is access, not funding or logistics.[2] If granted entry and supported to do their work according to humanitarian principles, organizations like UNRWA and MSF could begin distribution immediately. These supplies cannot easily be redeployed to other regions; if unused, they will likely expire or be destroyed, wasting resources that could save thousands of lives.
From an EA perspective, I see this this is a case where cost-effectiveness, tractability, and neglectedness align: lives can be saved at minimal cost, action is straightforward once access is secured, and the bottleneck is so sharp that intervention could mean the difference between survival and mass mortality. For EAs living in countries that are major global humanitarian donors and/or provide military or political support to Israel, there may be additional leverage. Our citizenship and/or location gives us avenues to influence government policy on aid access in ways that can unlock impact far beyond individual donations.
Concerns about politicization in the UN-run education system may be relevant to long-term peacebuilding, but in the short term, only UNRWA has the footprint, infrastructure, and distribution network to deliver aid at the necessary scale. In my opinion, from a cause prioritization perspective, this is precisely the kind of opportunity EAs should take seriously.
United Nations News, August 12, 2025 -- "Since the start of 2025, 148 people have died from malnutrition, including 49 children – 39 of them under five years old. Nearly 12,000 children under five were diagnosed with acute malnutrition in July, the highest monthly figure to date, with more than 2,500 suffering from the most severe form." https://news.un.org/en/story/2025/08/1165631
Reuters, August 13, 2025 -- "Boxes of Gaza-bound aid turned back by Israel on Sunday languished atop a truck and flatbed trailer parked metres from its border with Egypt, as exasperated drivers and U.N. officials criticised delays in sending food and medicine to the enclave...The supplies seen by Reuters on Monday on the stalled truck and trailer outside Egypt's Rafah border crossing carried blue logos of the World Health Organisation and labels describing contents like topical medications and suction devices to clean wounds...Reuters could not independently verify why the trucks were not allowed to enter Gaza and the Israeli military authority in charge of coordinating aid did not respond to a question about why they were not let into the enclave." https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/turned-back-gaza-aid-shipments-languish-warehouses-roadsides-2025-08-13/
We should also consider the counterfactual here right, though? If UNRWA gets less money, will that actually result in Palestinian's getting taught a better curriculum? Why would it? They will use some textbook, or rely on teacher's own materials, whether or not new UNRWA textbooks are available in the future. Most likely they will use either the old UNRWA textbooks, or other materials acceptable to Hamas/whoever runs Gaza after the war, in Gaza and the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank. How much difference does UNRWA counting Palestinian's as refugees if they are refugee descendants actually make to Palestinian opinion anyway? After all, at least some Jews-maybe most historically, I am not sure, though Zionism as a practical political movement is modern-managed to believe they belonged in Palestine for 2000 years after expulsion without any validation from the UN.
(I'm assuming for the sake of the argument that the empirical claims about UNRWA textbooks your making below are true.)
Hiii! Do you know someplace where I can read up on that? Ty!
I'm afraid I don't have anything great to hand. I can give you a quick summary of the arguments though. (I realise this is not what you asked for, but I figure better than nothing, which is realistically my alternative action).
There are I think three main arguments:
UNRWA operates very differently from all other UN refugee programs because it viewed refugee status as hereditary. For most conflicts, the aim is to find a safe place for displaced people to live... their children should become citizens of their new home. Only in this case are the grandchildren viewed as having a strong moral claim to return to a land they have never seen, which (combined with their high birth rate) means the size of the refugee population has increased over time, rather than decreasing. Apparently even if someone requests to be de-listed as a refugee because they are happily settled elsewhere, UNRWA will refuse and still count them (and their descendents). This is convenient for Israel's enemies who like the perpetuation of the problem.
UNRWA distributes textbooks and pays teachers that promote hatred of Israel and Jews, celebrate terrorists and jihad, and denies the viability of peace. Some of these textbooks are part of the Palestinian government curriculum which UNRWA claims it has no choice but to distribute; other material is produced by UNRWA employees directly.
Hamas directly operate communications, command centers, and weapon storage out of or underneath UNRWA offices, with at least the tacit support of UNRWA.
There are other criticisms of them (e.g. they allow aid to be expropriated by Hamas, UNRWA employees took part in the October 7th massacre, UNRWA helped hold hostages) but the three I mentioned above are the key ones for UNRWA having negative long-term effects.
I appreciate you laying out the arguments you've heard. Given how serious and contested these claims are, I think it's important to include sources or indicate your level of confidence/agreement, otherwise it's very hard for readers to assess whether these arguments are well-supported, disputed, or based on outdated information. Without that context, there's a real risk of unintentionally spreading misinformation or giving a false sense of certainty. Several points articulated in your bullets are not aligned with my understanding of international law or refugee status, and the reference to Palestinian birth rates in the first bullet made me uncomfortable and concerned about where some of this information was sourced from.
On the point about UNRWA's definition of refugee status: my understanding is that, under international law, refugee protections remain in place until people can either safely return home or voluntarily settle elsewhere.[1] For Palestinians, UNRWA's approach reflects the reality that safe, voluntary return has not been possible for decades. Whether one agrees with it or not, it's not unprecedented for refugee status to continue across generations when no durable solution has been reached. There are other areas with protracted crises, like Somalia, where there are multiple generations of refugees registered by UNHCR in camps like Dadaab in Kenya.[2]
And on the point “only in this case are the grandchildren viewed as having a strong moral claim to return to a land they have never seen”it's worth noting that Israel's Law of Return grants "every Jew in the world the right to settle in Israel"[3]/acquire Israeli citizenship, including those whose families haven't ever lived there or haven't for generations. This means some some groups/types of people are supported to come or return while Palestinians are not. I believe this makes the principles at play more complex than this current framing suggests.
Larks' claims seem pretty easy to verify, and I think you failed to address all of them.
In 1965, UNRWA changed the eligibility requirements to be a Palestinian refugee to include third-generation descendants, and in 1982, it extended it again, to include all descendants of Palestine refugee males, including legally adopted children, regardless of whether they had been granted citizenship elsewhere. This is not how refugee status is determined for basically any other group. Interestingly, under this definition, the majority of the world's Jews would have refugee status as well (GPT-5 estimates over 99% of Jews fit this definition). I think this is pretty relevant to your objection about Israel's Law of Return. https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/08/17/unrwa-has-changed-the-definition-of-refugee/
Israeli intelligence assesses that some 10% of all UNRWA employees in Gaza have ties to terror organizations, in addition to at least 12 employees it says were involved in the October 7 terror onslaught in southern Israel, according to a new report.
My heart goes out to the civilians in Gaza, and I hope a peaceful resolution can be found for this conflict soon. But UNRWA doesn't seem like a high integrity organization, and I seriously doubt donating to them is the best way to help the people of Gaza.
"But UNRWA doesn't seem like a high integrity organization, and I seriously doubt donating to them is the best way to help the people of Gaza. "
Almost none of the things you cite are relevant to whether access for UNRWA being allowed is particularly likely to reduce the hunger currently in Gaza, relative to access for other aid agencies which seems a very big part of what determines whether it is "the best way". I actually don't think donations to UNRWA will help because there is no chance in hell of Israel letting them in, and it would be better to try to get them to let in MSF or some other aid agency instead, but that is a separate point.
I guess you could hold that UNRWA are genuinely a major factor in keeping the conflict going, and that this means that marginal further funding for them has a non-negligible but I think that is extremely implausible: Hamas would exist with or without UNRWA, and presumably whoever the major providers of schools in Gaza are they will teach in a way roughly compatible with Hamas' demands and current Palestinian public opinion. I expect the marginal impact of donation to UNRWA or UNRWA access to Gaza to feed people for a few days on the conflict to be zero by any mechanism other than one that goes directly through the effects of more Gazans being fed by literally any organization.
Out of interest, do you think Israel should do more to let in other aid organizations, like say MSF, than they are currently doing?
I appreciate you taking the time to respond. I've replied to a few of your points below.
(1) I don't have objections to Israel's Law of Return per se. But I wanted to raise the point that Jews who cannot trace ties back to Israel in living memory, or have converted to Judaism, receive rights and opportunities that Palestinians whose parents/grandparents were expelled do not. If ancestral ties are valid grounds for some groups, why not for others? Do you agree this is a double standard?
(2) I think it's important to be specific and provide direct examples about "problematic and hateful" content in textbooks. As outsiders, we're often dealing with contested histories through second-hand accounts, and when history is politicized there are always profoundly different narratives. Someone seen as a martyr or hero by one group can be viewed as a terrorist by another - much like how Nelson Mandela or John Brown were perceived differently depending on time, place, and identity. I don't say this to excuse violence or antisemitism, but to note that perspective matters and it is hard to judge these claims without specific examples.
For example, several early Israeli political leaders were leaders of violent paramilitary groups denounced by some countries for terrorism. Menachem Begin was a leader of Irgun, and went on to become a Prime Minister of Israel and win a Nobel Peace Prize in 1978. Yitzhak Shamir was a leader of Lehi (the Stern Gang), which killed more than 100 Palestinians in Deir Yassin, and went on to become a Prime Minister of Israel. It is not hard for me to imagine that they are honored in some narratives as founders and leaders, and criticized harshly in other narratives for violent acts against civilians. I'd be interested to know how these figures are discussed in Israeli curricula - just as I'd like to see concrete examples from Palestinian curricula - but I don't have firsthand knowledge of how either side teaches these histories. I would welcome suggestions on where I can find more information about this, including primary sources.
(4) When aid is restricted by blockades and movement limits, looting and diversion often increase; when aid flows more freely (like during the ceasefires) diversion tends to decrease. Even if some aid is stolen by Hamas, that's not a moral or legal reason to deprive civilians of food and medicine. Cutting off aid risks constituting collective punishment, which is illegal under international law. In principle, do you believe humanitarian aid should be withheld from any civilian population if there's a risk some might be diverted to an armed group? Or does the obligation to prevent mass civilian death take precedence?
(6) I cannot access the full article, but no civilians of any nationality should ever be taken hostage or subjected to collective punishment for the actions of their government or ruling group. The destruction of hospitals and medical facilities by the IDF, and the collapse of medical access in Gaza, affects both hostages and Palestinian civilians. Attacks on healthcare facilities should stop immediately.
While I understand concerns over education content and potential affiliation of UN staff, these problems seem secondary to the immediate crisis on the ground. Hundreds of thousands of Palestinian children have been out of school for two years, most homes, schools and hospitals have been destroyed, and now the entire population is facing catastrophic hunger - while the supplies to save them are just miles away. Currently only UNRWA has the staff on the ground to distribute it at the scale needed. If there were a viable path for NGOs to surge aid according to humanitarian principles, without UN/UNRWA involvement, I would support that. The immediate humanitarian emergency must take precedence.
Without that context, there's a real risk of unintentionally spreading misinformation or giving a false sense of certainty. Several points articulated in your bullets are not aligned with my understanding of international law or refugee status, and the reference to Palestinian birth rates in the first bullet made me uncomfortable and concerned about where some of this information was sourced from.
The fact that Palestinians have high birth rates is, as far as I know, completely uncontroversial. Prior to your comment I have never encountered a single person who would question this! I was hoping to be able to timebox this discussion rather than provide detailed citations for what I thought were relatively undisputed facts, but since you insist:
The Palastinian Ministry of Health say the crude birth rate is over 26/1000. For context, South Korea, a country with a very low birth rate, is around 5/1000, over 80% lower.
According to 'Palestine Remembered', the crude birth rate among Palestinian refugees is even higher - over 30.
Not only is this fact uncontroversial, it is vital for understanding the conflict. The total number of original refugees was much smaller than today; if their birth rates had been low rather than high, or their descendants living abroad not counted, the total number today would be dramatically smaller.
my understanding is that, under international law, refugee protections remain in place until people can either safely return home or voluntarily settle elsewhere.[1]
I think this is incorrect in both directions.
Firstly, I think in many a lot of cases there has been no concern for the voluntary nature settlement. If we compare just to other post WWII population movements, I am not aware of any right of return being granted to (the descendants of) Germans forcibly migrated to Germany, nor Indians and Pakistanis after partition, not Jews fleeing Arab countries. With good reason - doing so would cause a lot of conflict for little gain.
Secondly, voluntary settlement elsewhere does not end UNRWA registration. You are welcome to look up the criteria for being removed from the UNRWA list - as far as I know the only escape is death (or being found to be incorrectly registered). You can be happily living as a citizen of another country, and your children and grandchildren after you, but the UNRWA will still consider them to be refugees.
Firstly, I think in many a lot of cases there has been no concern for the voluntary nature settlement.
On the question of resettlement and return, international law is clear: a power cannot lawfully expel a population and then deny their right to return. A permanent removal or resettlement that is not voluntary could constitute a forcible transfer, prohibited under Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention. This is why it would not be lawful for Israel or the U.S. to pressure or force Palestinians to relocate elsewhere, even if another country was willing to accept them. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 13) affirms the right of every person to return to their country, and UN General Assembly Resolution 194 specifically guarantees that right to Palestinian refugees. That principle doesn't expire after a generation, it remains in force until there is a durable, rights-respecting solution, whether through repatriation, compensation, or voluntary resettlement.
Prior to your comment I have never encountered a single person who would question this! I was hoping to be able to timebox this discussion rather than provide detailed citations for what I thought were relatively undisputed facts, but since you insist:
I should have been clearer in my initial comment. I don’t dispute that the birth rate is higher in the West Bank and Gaza than in some other places. But context matters in understanding what a “high” birth rate actually means, and why that statistic is relevant. According to the most recent data from the World Bank, the crude birth rate (CBR) in the West Bank and Gaza is 27 per 1,000 - higher than Israel (19) or the U.S. (11) but lower than the average for low-income countries (35) and close to the average for the Middle East and North Africa (23) and lower-middle income countries (21). Comparing the West Bank and Gaza to South Korea is not a meaningful benchmark in my opinion.
What concerned me was the framing. Discussing birth rates of marginalized communities is often a shortcut to presenting them as a "demographic threat," a logic that has historically been used to justify harmful policies. It reduces people to numbers instead of recognizing them as individuals with rights, dignity, and autonomy over their family lives. That's why I asked about your sources - not because I can't find basic statistics, but because I wanted to engage in good faith and understand the framing and intent behind that point.
Only in this case are the grandchildren viewed as having a strong moral claim to return to a land they have never seen, which (combined with their high birth rate) means the size of the refugee population has increased over time, rather than decreasing…This is convenient for Israel's enemies who like the perpetuation of the problem.
And from the most recent comment:
The total number of original refugees was much smaller than today; if their birth rates had been low rather than high, or their descendants living abroad not counted, the total number today would be dramatically smaller.
Some of these statements (emphasis mine) could be read to imply that fewer Palestinians would be preferable politically. That framing is what makes me uncomfortable, especially at a time when Palestinians are being killed and displaced daily, illegal settlements in the West Bank are being expanded, and political rhetoric is increasingly dehumanizing.
Framing the growth or continued existence of a group as a "problem" has historically been used to justify dispossession, violence, and worse. In the U.S., when people frame the birth rates of Black, immigrant, or minority communities as too high compared to white Americans; or criticize Orthodox Jews or other religious communities for having too many children, that framing is widely understood as harmful and dehumanizing.
The suggestion that the greater number of Palestinians alive or registered with UNRWA makes resolving the political situation harder (or that the growing Palestinian population justifies limiting their right to return) shifts the conversation from how to uphold rights for everyone, and toward treating the very existence of one group the issue. And if demographics are "vital for understanding the conflict" then Israel's growth - through birth and immigration - should be part of that conversation too.
I was drawn to EA because of its emphasis on valuing all life. In that spirit, I try to approach even charged conversations with care and precision, doing my best to avoid framings that could dehumanize any group. This discussion ended up taking more time than either of us probably anticipated, and I genuinely appreciate you taking the time to engage in it with me.
What purpose does it serve to suggest they should have smaller families?
Ok, I am tapping out. I didn't want to be involved in this conversation in the first place, and only replied because you and Dawn asked for clarification and sourcing which I assumed was a good faith attempt to learn about the world. But I see now you are more interested in picking a fight and casting aspersions on an imaginary person. Since this person apparently holds a bunch of views I don't hold - like that people should have smaller families - the person clearly isn't me, so there's not much point my continuing to engage.
Gemini 2.5's best guesses on how to help effectively: UNRWA, B’Tselem, +972 Magazine.
Introduction
The scale of suffering in the Gaza Strip is catastrophic. This post provides a structured analysis of donation opportunities to alleviate suffering in Gaza, evaluating them through the lens of importance, tractability, and neglectedness.
This analysis presupposes that a donor has already made the decision to allocate funds to this specific crisis. It does not attempt to weigh the marginal impact of a donation here against other well-established EA cause areas. This article makes no claim that donating to Gaza is the highest-impact use of funds globally.
This post is mostly the work of Gemini 2.5, because I don't know enough about the space, but it has gone through a few iterations for fact-checking and corrections.
The Central Challenge: Why Donate When Aid is Blocked?
A crucial concern for any donor is the widely reported bottleneck of humanitarian aid at Gaza’s borders. Even in mid-2025, access remains the single greatest challenge. So, does more funding make a difference?
The bottleneck is political and logistical, not a lack of supplies, but funding remains critical for several reasons:
Sustaining the entire operation. Funding is essential to pay for warehousing, logistics, and the salaries of thousands of local Palestinian aid workers who are the backbone of the response inside Gaza. Without them, any aid that does get in could not be distributed.
Exploring alternative routes. New, expensive initiatives like maritime aid corridors require significant upfront investment, which donations can support.
Source: Throughout 2024 and 2025, humanitarian agencies have consistently reported that aid access is unpredictable and insufficient to meet the overwhelming needs. UN OCHA reports provide regular, detailed updates on these access constraints.
Category 1: Frontline Humanitarian Aid
Goal: To save lives and reduce suffering immediately.
Overall Category Winner: UNRWA
UNRWA (United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees)
Analysis. UNRWA is the single largest humanitarian actor in Gaza. It manages the sprawling shelters, runs primary healthcare clinics, and provides the logistical backbone for food distribution. In early 2024, it faced an acute funding crisis after several governments suspended aid over allegations against a small number of staff. While an independent review has since been completed and most of those donors (including Germany, Australia, and Sweden) have resumed funding, the agency’s financial situation remains dire. Its largest historical donor, the United States, has its funding frozen by a congressional ban until at least March 2025, leaving a massive, persistent shortfall. Therefore, UNRWA’s neglectedness score remains exceptionally high. It is no longer an acute shock, but a chronic, critical funding gap that private donors can help fill.
MSF (Doctors Without Borders, Médecins Sans Frontières)
Analysis. MSF provides hands-on emergency medical and surgical care inside Gaza. Their independence and long-standing presence give them high tractability even in the most difficult conditions. They are transparent about the challenges they face, and funding directly supports their ability to provide life-saving care. However I can’t find out what share of their budget goes to interventions for people in Gaza, and they don’t seem to support restricted donations.
Goal: To address the root causes of the conflict and advocate for human rights.
Overall Category Winner: B’Tselem
B’Tselem (The Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories)
Analysis. As a leading Israeli human rights organization, B’Tselem’s work is to document and publish violations of human rights in the occupied territories, with the goal of ending the occupation. Its unique position as an internal critic within Israeli society gives its voice significant weight and makes it a highly neglected area for those who shy away from political controversy. This is a long-term investment in changing the political conditions that create the crisis.
Goal: To provide the credible, on-the-ground information that fuels effective advocacy and informs the public.
Overall Category Winner: +972 Magazine
+972 Magazine
Analysis. +972 is a non-profit, independent magazine run by a collective of Palestinian and Israeli journalists. It provides some of the most courageous and insightful reporting from the ground, offering a perspective free from state or corporate influence. In an environment rife with misinformation, supporting a trusted source of information is a foundational and highly neglected intervention. Their work is a public good that enables more effective action from everyone else.
Analysis: CPJ’s Journalist Assistance program provides direct emergency grants for medical care, legal aid, and relocation to journalists targeted in conflict zones. With this war being the deadliest for journalists ever documented by CPJ, their work is tragically critical.
Most leveraged & time-critical. Addresses a sudden, massive funding gap threatening the entire aid system. Irreplaceable scale for preventing mass starvation and disease.
2
+972 Magazine
Journalism
Most foundational. Supports the core public good of reliable information, which enables all other effective action and counters misinformation. Highly neglected.
3
B’Tselem
Advocacy
Most potent for long-term change. Addresses root causes from a unique and powerful position inside Israeli society. A true investment in a political solution.
4
MSF
Humanitarian
Most effective for direct medical aid. A proven, high-impact organization for those whose primary goal is to fund front-line doctors and surgeons.
While all the organizations listed are highly effective in their domain, UNRWA currently represents the most leveraged and systemically critical donation opportunity to prevent the most suffering with their dollar within this cause area.
Other Organizations Considered
For transparency, this analysis considered a number of other reputable organizations. While they did not make the final ranked list, they are all doing valuable work and may be of interest to donors.
Palestine Children’s Relief Fund (PCRF): A non-political NGO with deep local roots, focused on the medical and humanitarian needs of children.
Medical Aid for Palestinians (MAP): A UK-based charity that works by supporting local partners and delivering medical supplies to strengthen the local healthcare system.
World Central Kitchen (WCK): An agile organization focused on providing mass-scale food aid.
Gisha: A highly specialized Israeli NGO focused on protecting the freedom of movement for Palestinians through legal action and advocacy.
Gaza Community Mental Health Programme (GCMHP): A vital local organization providing psychosocial support and building long-term community resilience.
Human Rights Watch (HRW): A major international advocacy organization whose influential reports help drive policy change, though it is less neglected than smaller, more specialized groups.
This is a crosspost from the new Animal Welfare Alignment Newsletter by Anima International. You can subscribe on Substack if you are interested in following these efforts. Audio reading also available on Substack.
The goals of this post are to:
1. Raise a question I see as crucially important to the goal of aligning AI to animal welfare...
I used AI to fix transcription errors, rerrarange the ideas, and suggest tweaks to the title and some sentences.
Three of the most exciting projects to come out of EA in recent years are, in a vague sense, CEA spinouts:
* Kairos is directly a spinout of CEA and now handles most support for university AI safety groups. Basically everyone I've found who knows them is really excited about what they do
* NEST is an opinionated ideas-fi...
Hello! I'm Justin Portela. I got hired by GWWC to make YouTube videos after AI in Context did such a kickass job.
My channel is using that same cinematic, high-production value beauty to talk about everything in the EA universe that isn't AI.
...
This seems like a very surface look at the issue, and not a very good advert for trusting LLM outputs. For example, I don't see how you can recommend UNRWA without at least considering the idea that, by promoting revanchism and ethnic hatred, they are one of the long-term causes of Palestinian terrorism and thereby suffering in both Israel and Gaza.
(And more generally, I disagree with the use of the EA forum to promote causes without even attempting to argue they might be potential EA causes).
I wouldn't state an unqualified opposition to the "use of the EA forum to promote causes without even attempting to argue they might be potential EA causes." (I'll call the promoted cause Cause Z.)
If people have already decided to donate to Cause Z, there's value in them doing it as effectively as possible. And it's plausible that this particular cause could have be at least relatively effective opportunities -- it's not in a developed country, it has broad scale, many people are dying, etc.
At some point I might find there are too many applying effectiveness to Cause Z posts, but I don't think we are there. However, I do think it's reasonable to hold this kind of post to a certain standard -- and perhaps a higher standard than an ordinary post. One could reasonably conclude that "mostly the work of Gemini 2.5" falls below that standard, at least with this output. I do have a downvote on the original post for that reason -- not out of hostility to the identified cause area or Cause Z posts more generally.
I also downvoted the post for similar reasons regarding LLM reliability (particularly for politically sensitive issues) and lack of depth , and would like to address/provide more information to your last point.
Without debating whether UNRWA is ideal in every respect, they currently have uniquely high leverage in averting large-scale preventable deaths at low marginal cost. Gaza faces a severe humanitarian emergency, with rising rates of acute malnutrition and a resurgence of infectious diseases previously controlled or eliminated [1] EAs have historically supported interventions like malnutrition treatment and immunization because they are cost-effective and high-impact. What makes Gaza distinct from other crises (e.g., Sudan, Haiti, Mali) is that life-saving medical and nutrition supplies (including treatment for severe acute malnutrition) are already purchased, positioned just miles away, and ready for deployment. The main bottleneck is access, not funding or logistics.[2] If granted entry and supported to do their work according to humanitarian principles, organizations like UNRWA and MSF could begin distribution immediately. These supplies cannot easily be redeployed to other regions; if unused, they will likely expire or be destroyed, wasting resources that could save thousands of lives.
From an EA perspective, I see this this is a case where cost-effectiveness, tractability, and neglectedness align: lives can be saved at minimal cost, action is straightforward once access is secured, and the bottleneck is so sharp that intervention could mean the difference between survival and mass mortality. For EAs living in countries that are major global humanitarian donors and/or provide military or political support to Israel, there may be additional leverage. Our citizenship and/or location gives us avenues to influence government policy on aid access in ways that can unlock impact far beyond individual donations.
Concerns about politicization in the UN-run education system may be relevant to long-term peacebuilding, but in the short term, only UNRWA has the footprint, infrastructure, and distribution network to deliver aid at the necessary scale. In my opinion, from a cause prioritization perspective, this is precisely the kind of opportunity EAs should take seriously.
United Nations News, August 12, 2025 -- "Since the start of 2025, 148 people have died from malnutrition, including 49 children – 39 of them under five years old. Nearly 12,000 children under five were diagnosed with acute malnutrition in July, the highest monthly figure to date, with more than 2,500 suffering from the most severe form." https://news.un.org/en/story/2025/08/1165631
Reuters, August 13, 2025 -- "Boxes of Gaza-bound aid turned back by Israel on Sunday languished atop a truck and flatbed trailer parked metres from its border with Egypt, as exasperated drivers and U.N. officials criticised delays in sending food and medicine to the enclave...The supplies seen by Reuters on Monday on the stalled truck and trailer outside Egypt's Rafah border crossing carried blue logos of the World Health Organisation and labels describing contents like topical medications and suction devices to clean wounds...Reuters could not independently verify why the trucks were not allowed to enter Gaza and the Israeli military authority in charge of coordinating aid did not respond to a question about why they were not let into the enclave." https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/turned-back-gaza-aid-shipments-languish-warehouses-roadsides-2025-08-13/
We should also consider the counterfactual here right, though? If UNRWA gets less money, will that actually result in Palestinian's getting taught a better curriculum? Why would it? They will use some textbook, or rely on teacher's own materials, whether or not new UNRWA textbooks are available in the future. Most likely they will use either the old UNRWA textbooks, or other materials acceptable to Hamas/whoever runs Gaza after the war, in Gaza and the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank. How much difference does UNRWA counting Palestinian's as refugees if they are refugee descendants actually make to Palestinian opinion anyway? After all, at least some Jews-maybe most historically, I am not sure, though Zionism as a practical political movement is modern-managed to believe they belonged in Palestine for 2000 years after expulsion without any validation from the UN.
(I'm assuming for the sake of the argument that the empirical claims about UNRWA textbooks your making below are true.)
Hiii! Do you know someplace where I can read up on that? Ty!
Hiii! Do you know someplace where I can read up on that? Ty!
I'm afraid I don't have anything great to hand. I can give you a quick summary of the arguments though. (I realise this is not what you asked for, but I figure better than nothing, which is realistically my alternative action).
There are I think three main arguments:
There are other criticisms of them (e.g. they allow aid to be expropriated by Hamas, UNRWA employees took part in the October 7th massacre, UNRWA helped hold hostages) but the three I mentioned above are the key ones for UNRWA having negative long-term effects.
I appreciate you laying out the arguments you've heard. Given how serious and contested these claims are, I think it's important to include sources or indicate your level of confidence/agreement, otherwise it's very hard for readers to assess whether these arguments are well-supported, disputed, or based on outdated information. Without that context, there's a real risk of unintentionally spreading misinformation or giving a false sense of certainty. Several points articulated in your bullets are not aligned with my understanding of international law or refugee status, and the reference to Palestinian birth rates in the first bullet made me uncomfortable and concerned about where some of this information was sourced from.
On the point about UNRWA's definition of refugee status: my understanding is that, under international law, refugee protections remain in place until people can either safely return home or voluntarily settle elsewhere.[1] For Palestinians, UNRWA's approach reflects the reality that safe, voluntary return has not been possible for decades. Whether one agrees with it or not, it's not unprecedented for refugee status to continue across generations when no durable solution has been reached. There are other areas with protracted crises, like Somalia, where there are multiple generations of refugees registered by UNHCR in camps like Dadaab in Kenya.[2]
And on the point “only in this case are the grandchildren viewed as having a strong moral claim to return to a land they have never seen”it's worth noting that Israel's Law of Return grants "every Jew in the world the right to settle in Israel"[3]/acquire Israeli citizenship, including those whose families haven't ever lived there or haven't for generations. This means some some groups/types of people are supported to come or return while Palestinians are not. I believe this makes the principles at play more complex than this current framing suggests.
https://www.un.org/en/global-issues/refugees
https://www.unrwa.org/transfer-refugee-status-descendants-unique-unrwa-0
https://www.nbn.org.il/life-in-israel/government-services/rights-and-benefits/the-law-of-return/
Larks' claims seem pretty easy to verify, and I think you failed to address all of them.
My heart goes out to the civilians in Gaza, and I hope a peaceful resolution can be found for this conflict soon. But UNRWA doesn't seem like a high integrity organization, and I seriously doubt donating to them is the best way to help the people of Gaza.
"But UNRWA doesn't seem like a high integrity organization, and I seriously doubt donating to them is the best way to help the people of Gaza. "
Almost none of the things you cite are relevant to whether access for UNRWA being allowed is particularly likely to reduce the hunger currently in Gaza, relative to access for other aid agencies which seems a very big part of what determines whether it is "the best way". I actually don't think donations to UNRWA will help because there is no chance in hell of Israel letting them in, and it would be better to try to get them to let in MSF or some other aid agency instead, but that is a separate point.
I guess you could hold that UNRWA are genuinely a major factor in keeping the conflict going, and that this means that marginal further funding for them has a non-negligible but I think that is extremely implausible: Hamas would exist with or without UNRWA, and presumably whoever the major providers of schools in Gaza are they will teach in a way roughly compatible with Hamas' demands and current Palestinian public opinion. I expect the marginal impact of donation to UNRWA or UNRWA access to Gaza to feed people for a few days on the conflict to be zero by any mechanism other than one that goes directly through the effects of more Gazans being fed by literally any organization.
Out of interest, do you think Israel should do more to let in other aid organizations, like say MSF, than they are currently doing?
I appreciate you taking the time to respond. I've replied to a few of your points below.
(1) I don't have objections to Israel's Law of Return per se. But I wanted to raise the point that Jews who cannot trace ties back to Israel in living memory, or have converted to Judaism, receive rights and opportunities that Palestinians whose parents/grandparents were expelled do not. If ancestral ties are valid grounds for some groups, why not for others? Do you agree this is a double standard?
(2) I think it's important to be specific and provide direct examples about "problematic and hateful" content in textbooks. As outsiders, we're often dealing with contested histories through second-hand accounts, and when history is politicized there are always profoundly different narratives. Someone seen as a martyr or hero by one group can be viewed as a terrorist by another - much like how Nelson Mandela or John Brown were perceived differently depending on time, place, and identity. I don't say this to excuse violence or antisemitism, but to note that perspective matters and it is hard to judge these claims without specific examples.
For example, several early Israeli political leaders were leaders of violent paramilitary groups denounced by some countries for terrorism. Menachem Begin was a leader of Irgun, and went on to become a Prime Minister of Israel and win a Nobel Peace Prize in 1978. Yitzhak Shamir was a leader of Lehi (the Stern Gang), which killed more than 100 Palestinians in Deir Yassin, and went on to become a Prime Minister of Israel. It is not hard for me to imagine that they are honored in some narratives as founders and leaders, and criticized harshly in other narratives for violent acts against civilians. I'd be interested to know how these figures are discussed in Israeli curricula - just as I'd like to see concrete examples from Palestinian curricula - but I don't have firsthand knowledge of how either side teaches these histories. I would welcome suggestions on where I can find more information about this, including primary sources.
(4) When aid is restricted by blockades and movement limits, looting and diversion often increase; when aid flows more freely (like during the ceasefires) diversion tends to decrease. Even if some aid is stolen by Hamas, that's not a moral or legal reason to deprive civilians of food and medicine. Cutting off aid risks constituting collective punishment, which is illegal under international law. In principle, do you believe humanitarian aid should be withheld from any civilian population if there's a risk some might be diverted to an armed group? Or does the obligation to prevent mass civilian death take precedence?
(6) I cannot access the full article, but no civilians of any nationality should ever be taken hostage or subjected to collective punishment for the actions of their government or ruling group. The destruction of hospitals and medical facilities by the IDF, and the collapse of medical access in Gaza, affects both hostages and Palestinian civilians. Attacks on healthcare facilities should stop immediately.
While I understand concerns over education content and potential affiliation of UN staff, these problems seem secondary to the immediate crisis on the ground. Hundreds of thousands of Palestinian children have been out of school for two years, most homes, schools and hospitals have been destroyed, and now the entire population is facing catastrophic hunger - while the supplies to save them are just miles away. Currently only UNRWA has the staff on the ground to distribute it at the scale needed. If there were a viable path for NGOs to surge aid according to humanitarian principles, without UN/UNRWA involvement, I would support that. The immediate humanitarian emergency must take precedence.
The fact that Palestinians have high birth rates is, as far as I know, completely uncontroversial. Prior to your comment I have never encountered a single person who would question this! I was hoping to be able to timebox this discussion rather than provide detailed citations for what I thought were relatively undisputed facts, but since you insist:
Not only is this fact uncontroversial, it is vital for understanding the conflict. The total number of original refugees was much smaller than today; if their birth rates had been low rather than high, or their descendants living abroad not counted, the total number today would be dramatically smaller.
I think this is incorrect in both directions.
Firstly, I think in many a lot of cases there has been no concern for the voluntary nature settlement. If we compare just to other post WWII population movements, I am not aware of any right of return being granted to (the descendants of) Germans forcibly migrated to Germany, nor Indians and Pakistanis after partition, not Jews fleeing Arab countries. With good reason - doing so would cause a lot of conflict for little gain.
Secondly, voluntary settlement elsewhere does not end UNRWA registration. You are welcome to look up the criteria for being removed from the UNRWA list - as far as I know the only escape is death (or being found to be incorrectly registered). You can be happily living as a citizen of another country, and your children and grandchildren after you, but the UNRWA will still consider them to be refugees.
On the question of resettlement and return, international law is clear: a power cannot lawfully expel a population and then deny their right to return. A permanent removal or resettlement that is not voluntary could constitute a forcible transfer, prohibited under Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention. This is why it would not be lawful for Israel or the U.S. to pressure or force Palestinians to relocate elsewhere, even if another country was willing to accept them. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 13) affirms the right of every person to return to their country, and UN General Assembly Resolution 194 specifically guarantees that right to Palestinian refugees. That principle doesn't expire after a generation, it remains in force until there is a durable, rights-respecting solution, whether through repatriation, compensation, or voluntary resettlement.
I should have been clearer in my initial comment. I don’t dispute that the birth rate is higher in the West Bank and Gaza than in some other places. But context matters in understanding what a “high” birth rate actually means, and why that statistic is relevant. According to the most recent data from the World Bank, the crude birth rate (CBR) in the West Bank and Gaza is 27 per 1,000 - higher than Israel (19) or the U.S. (11) but lower than the average for low-income countries (35) and close to the average for the Middle East and North Africa (23) and lower-middle income countries (21). Comparing the West Bank and Gaza to South Korea is not a meaningful benchmark in my opinion.
What concerned me was the framing. Discussing birth rates of marginalized communities is often a shortcut to presenting them as a "demographic threat," a logic that has historically been used to justify harmful policies. It reduces people to numbers instead of recognizing them as individuals with rights, dignity, and autonomy over their family lives. That's why I asked about your sources - not because I can't find basic statistics, but because I wanted to engage in good faith and understand the framing and intent behind that point.
And from the most recent comment:
Some of these statements (emphasis mine) could be read to imply that fewer Palestinians would be preferable politically. That framing is what makes me uncomfortable, especially at a time when Palestinians are being killed and displaced daily, illegal settlements in the West Bank are being expanded, and political rhetoric is increasingly dehumanizing.
Framing the growth or continued existence of a group as a "problem" has historically been used to justify dispossession, violence, and worse. In the U.S., when people frame the birth rates of Black, immigrant, or minority communities as too high compared to white Americans; or criticize Orthodox Jews or other religious communities for having too many children, that framing is widely understood as harmful and dehumanizing.
The suggestion that the greater number of Palestinians alive or registered with UNRWA makes resolving the political situation harder (or that the growing Palestinian population justifies limiting their right to return) shifts the conversation from how to uphold rights for everyone, and toward treating the very existence of one group the issue. And if demographics are "vital for understanding the conflict" then Israel's growth - through birth and immigration - should be part of that conversation too.
I was drawn to EA because of its emphasis on valuing all life. In that spirit, I try to approach even charged conversations with care and precision, doing my best to avoid framings that could dehumanize any group. This discussion ended up taking more time than either of us probably anticipated, and I genuinely appreciate you taking the time to engage in it with me.
Ok, I am tapping out. I didn't want to be involved in this conversation in the first place, and only replied because you and Dawn asked for clarification and sourcing which I assumed was a good faith attempt to learn about the world. But I see now you are more interested in picking a fight and casting aspersions on an imaginary person. Since this person apparently holds a bunch of views I don't hold - like that people should have smaller families - the person clearly isn't me, so there's not much point my continuing to engage.
Thanks for the summary!