Where we find credible allegations of neutrality violations among our staff, we investigate and where it's appropriate we take disciplinary action up to and including dismissal. And that process is audited by our major donors.
Since he said that, he tweeted this::
Interested to find out more about UN Watch's political & financial affiliations since its establishment. Can anyone advise? RT— Chris Gunness (@ChrisGunness) August 26, 2015
Chris Gunness is trying to dig up dirt on UN Watch because they wrote to the UN Secretary General about the antismeitism posted in a UNRWA school Facebook page that I discovered.
Someone sent him a response, that Gunness immediately sent out to his 36,000 followers:
I was just emailed this article on UN Watch http://t.co/wgU2DwrowO Does anyone have their annual reports since their founding? RT— Chris Gunness (@ChrisGunness) August 27, 2015
That link is a long article attempting to smear UN Watch but all it shows is that the organization is partially funded by the American Jewish Committee and that it is pro-Israel. This is, to Gunness, apparently enough to damn UN Watch enough for his readers, but we needs a bit more dirt.
In Chris Gunness' mind, if someone is pro-Israel then their criticisms are not worth responding to.
This is not a one-time thing. In 2009, after an email exchange with me about reports of UNRWA aid being diverted to Hamas, we had this conversation via email:
where do u fit in politically? C
I'm not sure why that is relevant, but you can see from my site that I would be considered a fairly hawkish Zionist. I spend a great deal of time trying to understand the Palestinian Arab psyche, and I am much harsher on their leadership than on the people.
Is there condemnation on your site (which your link didn't get me into) of the white phosphorous attacks on neutral UN compounds? Does it carry the Secretary General statement calling for those responsible to be punished? Chris
I answered, and that was the end of that conversation, but this shows that Gunness treats questions differently depending on the political views of the questioner.
Which is, by definition, a violation of neutrality.
Similarly, Gunness blocks many of his critics on Twitter, which again is against what a spokesperson should do.
We mustn't forget Gunness' pathetic attacks on The Jerusalem Post trying to paint it as "ultra-right" and supporting Jewish terrorism. The UN defended him by denying that he wrote what he wrote.
Based on these well-documented examples, it is clear that Chris Gunness is guilty of what he claims is UNRWA policy against bias and violations of neutrality. As a spokesperson, he must address the issues, not try to divert the issue by smearing the people who point out UNRWA hypocrisy and lies. By his own stated standards, instead of attacking those who point out UNRWA's problems, UNRWA should be investigating them - impartially, and regardless of the source.
Therefore, Chris Gunness is in violation of UNRWA's own neutrality standards. and since there is no chance of an impartial investigation from within UNRWA, he must be disciplined and fired, and UNRWA must hire a spokesperson who actually performs those duties impartially and with respect to all who have legitimate criticisms of the agency.
Fire Chris Gunness now.