“It’s raining outside.”
“Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson says it’s raining outside.”
I’m saying those sentences present claims by two different people. You’re saying they’re identical. You’re wrong.
Bragging about not changing your conclusion is a self-own. You’re just admitting to being a conspiracy theorist. The failure of the supporting facts not changing the conclusion proves you weren’t using them to reach that conclusion to begin with. The supporting facts shouldn’t be set dressing. It’s dishonest to start with the conclusion then work backwards to find anything to plausibly support it while ignoring contradictory evidence.
You’re alleging a conspiracy that began with that hearing. There is no evidence of a conspiracy. The only “evidence” you have is that one thing happened after another – between two branches of government without evidence of communication let alone collusion. Correlation isn’t causation. Israel hates UNRWA. They have always hated them and they talk about it constantly. Throw a dart at a calendar and you’ll find some Israeli official talking about defunding or replacing UNRWA. At any time that dossier was released there was always going to be some official, some report, or some hearing talking about it relatively recently. That doesn’t make it a conspiracy. A leaked Foreign Ministry report said that Israel wanted to remove UNRWA after the war just days before that hearing.
NYT and Sky News publish sensationalist nothing-burgers on it with clickbait headlines.
The only reason we even know about the contents of the dossier is the NYT. That article broke the story. The idea that they shouldn’t report on the contents of a document being used by world leaders to suspend funding to a critically important organization providing aid to millions of Palestinians is laughable. We’re better off not knowing? Give me a break.