https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-68518468

(WSJ Article paywall bypass)

There is a good chance the entire organization is going to have to go through major changes after this one. To able to rebuild trust with the majority of beneficiaries within a year sounds highly improbable

The image shows Sweden as having suspended funding, but I don't think that's correct. A UNRIC article from yesterday says:

Denmark, Norway and Sweden have not, so far, joined donor countries such as the USA, UK, France, Germany and Italy in such actions.

Swedish media reports that various politicians, including from the ruling coalition, has called for the government to suspend funding, but that the government has not made a decision yet and that Swedish government officials are meeting with UNRWA officials.

It seems like the EU and perhaps some other funders may not have suspended funding either, but have just made statements about the need for an investigation and/or stating that there are no imminent payments planned.

For example, EU High Representative Josep Borrell has explicitly said that funding has not been suspended:

Ongoing funding commitments by the EU have been implemented and funding has not been suspended. The EU will determine upcoming funding decisions in light of the outcome of the investigation.

The European Commission has said:

Currently, no additional funding to UNRWA is foreseen until the end of February.

It's important to have clarity on who has suspended funding for this market to resolve correctly, otherwise the EU could be counted as having renewed funding if it makes a payment as planned at the end of February, for example.

@J89502 They have to announce that they are suspending funding or not make a previously planned/promised payment intentionally to count as having "paused funding".

So if what you say is true the EU has not yet paused funding.

I'll remove the image since it seems inaccurate.

@J89502 added clarification to market description

@Shai The UN Watch link may also be inaccurate. Some of the statements they list under "countries that have decided to suspend their UNRWA funding" don't seem to support that conclusion. The EU statement is the same I linked to above; the French and Dutch statements also don't seem to say that they have suspended anything. That doesn't necessarily mean that those countries have not suspended funding, but the UN Watch page is not evidence that they have.

@J89502 yes, it's just a collection of announcements. Not every country listed there suspended funding according to the definition in the market description.

@Shai Okay, but it doesn't seem to be true that it's a list of all countries that have suspended funding, as they claim, and it's also not a list of the most relevant announcements. The Dutch government, for instance, has also said: "The Netherlands has halted any future funding of UNRWA", but that statement is not listed.

@J89502 If you have another good source I'll link it as well. It's just there for convenience.

@Shai I don't have another source. I just wanted to point out that the UN Watch page should not be relied on. Hopefully, something better will exist by the end of the year.

Accidently wrote the wrong year in the title. Fixed now.

Just to be clear: In that picture there are 16 countries which have stopped their funding. So 9 of those countries would have to resume their funding for this to resolve YES, right?

@Agh The picture is for illustration purposes only. Any country that paused (or will pause) funding in 2024 will count.