UN apologists: respond to this.

[Mouthwash]

http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/1.747314?v=53FEA05F856F4BC99CD22026D725F3AE

Here's the full text.

UNESCO adopted an anti-Israel resolution Thursday that disregards Judaism's historic connection to the Temple Mount and casts doubt on the link between Judaism and the Western Wall.

Twenty-four countries voted in favor of the decision while six voted against and 26 abstained while just two were missing from the vote.

The U.S., Britain, Germany, Holland, Lithuania and Estonia voted against the resolution.

A senior source said that the efforts of Israeli diplomats significantly changed the votes of European states, none of which supported the motion. Israeli efforts, he said, succeeded in swaying France, Sweden, Slovenia, Argentina, Togo and India to abstain from the vote.

The resolution, which condemns Israel on several issues regarding Jerusalem and its holy sites, was advanced by the Palestinians alongside Egypt, Algeria, Morocco, Lebanon, Oman, Qatar and Sudan.

The resolution asserted that Jerusalem is holy to the three monotheistic religions: Judaism, Islam and Christianity. However, it includes a special section dealing with the Temple Mount, which says the site is sacred only to Muslims and fails to mention that it is sacred to the Jews as well. In fact, it mentions neither the Hebrew term for the site – Har HaBayit – nor its English equivalent, the Temple Mount. The site is referred to only by its Muslim names – Al-Aqsa Mosque and Haram al-Sharif.

In the past weeks Shama-Hacohen and Israeli ambassadors in dozens of capitals worldwide attempted to convince as many states as possible to oppose the resolution, or to at least abstain or not vote at all.

The Foreign Ministry issued a brochure with pictures of archaeological findings proving the historic affiliation between the Jews and Jerusalem in general and the Temple Mount in particular, as well as the existence of the Temple Mount at the site where the Al-Aqsa Mosque stands today.

One of the findings shown in the brochure is the Arch of Titus in Rome, on which images of holy artifacts that the Romans took as spoils from the Second Temple in Jerusalem are depicted. These include the Menorah, which is the symbol of the Israeli state today.

In a letter Shama-Hacohen distributed to the ambassadors of UNESCO’s executive board’s 58 member states, he wrote that without undermining other religions’ affiliation to Jerusalem’s holy sites, the archaeological facts and historical evidence presented by the accompanying brochure “leave no doubt…of the deepest and longest Jewish presence in Jerusalem since ancient times.”

This is UNESCO stating that the Jewish holy sites in Jerusalem (including the Western Wall) are actually Islamic/Arab sites. And presumably endorsing the Christ Myth Theory, as well as declaring that the Masjid al-Haram was built as a pagan shrine- no, those would provoke riots in dozens of countries, and the second one would also cause a lot of suicide bombings.

Does this make it easier to understand why Israelis don't take resolutions by the UN too seriously?

The entire point of democracy seems to be to allow small actors (people) to restrain large actors (states, political parties, etc). This is exactly the opposite: large actors with myriad interests voting on smaller issues, such as the historicity of religious claims. It's literal mob rule. If this isn't enough evidence, (for contrast) check out what UNESCO has said about Mecca.

 

[tetley]

Well that's easy: the UN is the reason Israel even exists at all. So I won't be crying with you.

 

[Mouthwash]

Well that's easy: the UN is the reason Israel even exists at all. So I won't be crying with you.

Then get off Israel's case about creating a Palestinian state, because one already exists.

 

[El_Machinae]

I'll try to understand their potential reasoning. Are those two sites historically important in Islam as well?

 

[tetley]

Then I hope you don't mind if the UN sends armed peacekeepers to make sure both sides keep the peace.

 

[Mouthwash]

I'll try to understand their potential reasoning. Are those two sites historically important in Islam as well?

Certainly. The resolution denies that they are Jewish, however- it actually demands that Israel remove them from its own national heritage list.

Then I hope you don't mind if the UN sends armed peacekeepers to make sure both sides keep the peace.

I won't hold my breath.

 

[tetley]

Yeah, boo hoo. It's not good enough that the UN recognize Israel as a Jewish homeland. No, they have to recognize their "new" borders and every heritage site they think they should claim as their own. If Israel doesn't get their way, then the UN is just evil evil evil!

The UN OWES them!!!!

 

[Camikaze]

Governmental organisations make decisions that certain parties don't like all the time. That only speaks to the organisation's legitimacy in the long run. The fact that you think one decision is wrong is an unsound basis upon which to question the existence of UNESCO, in the same way that my dislike of the Australian government's internet plan doesn't mean that I think we need a new Constitution.

 

[Mouthwash]

Yeah, boo hoo. It's not good enough that the UN recognize Israel as a Jewish homeland.

The UN has never done any such thing. It has recognized a "State of Israel" within seventy-year-old armistice borders.

No, they have to recognize their "new" borders and every heritage site they think they should claim as their own.

Abraham and Rachel are important figures in Judaism. As far as I or anyone else can tell, it's been that way for the past three millennia.

Governmental organisations make decisions that certain parties don't like all the time. That only speaks to the organisation's legitimacy in the long run. The fact that you think one decision is wrong is an unsound basis upon which to question the existence of UNESCO, in the same way that my dislike of the Australian government's internet plan doesn't mean that I think we need a new Constitution.

1. It's ridiculously, obviously wrong about one of the most well-known sites in human history. And its decision was clearly motivated by political interests. That doesn't suggest a flawed organization, it suggests a broken one.

2. You haven't responded to my arguments for why the UN should not be given the same legitimacy that real governments have.

 

[Camikaze]

1. It's ridiculously, obviously wrong about one of the most well-known sites in human history. And its decision was clearly motivated by political interests. That doesn't suggest a flawed organization, it suggests a broken one.

That's a really optimistic view of government. Governments are 'ridiculously, obviously wrong' all the time. Particularly, it might be though, when considering governments globally, not just western democracies.

2. You haven't responded to my arguments for why the UN should not be given the same legitimacy that real governments have.

I don't think anyone claims that it should.

 

[Lohrenswald]

The resolution asserted that Jerusalem is holy to the three monotheistic religions: Judaism, Islam and Christianity. However, it includes a special section dealing with the Temple Mount, which says the site is sacred only to Muslims and fails to mention that it is sacred to the Jews as well. In fact, it mentions neither the Hebrew term for the site – Har HaBayit – nor its English equivalent, the Temple Mount. The site is referred to only by its Muslim names – Al-Aqsa Mosque and Haram al-Sharif.

tbh I think it's kinda stupid UN even bothers with stuff like that

 

[tetley]

tbh I think it's kinda stupid UN even bothers with stuff like that

Yeah, I think it starts with people petitioning the UN to become a UNESCO site. Petitions get denied all the time. Israel just doesn't like anyone ever having the audacity to tell them "no".

 

[El_Machinae]

Certainly. The resolution denies that they are Jewish, however- it actually demands that Israel remove them from its own national heritage list.

I wasn't able to read the your quotation of the article area when I first posted.

Oh, and I agree with your assertion that we're supposed to prevent people allowing 'democracy' in ways that the many can bully the weak.

I'm having trouble with the legal language of the actual text tbh. The language very much isn't inclusive (except by the default of 'not being exclusive').

What is Israel losing due to this statement?

 

[Ajidica]

Given the lack of enforcement of UNSCR 242 and 338, and successive Israeli governments telling the UN to shove it with regards to settlements and the right of return; I don't see much happening. If the Israeli government can't be bothered to comply with the resolutions of the Security Council of the United Nations -comprising the five great powers of the world- then I struggle to see why they should even consider complying with even the nicest, most politely phrased request of UNESCO, a largely irrelevant body operating under the auspices of a slightly less irrelevant body.

Also, looking over the text of the resolution I'm not seeing anything to be grumpy over, let alone "needing to respond to". The resolution is a laundry list of some valid and not-so-valid complaints that the Israeli government is using the continued unsettled legal status of Jerusalem to their advantage; with the possibility It may irreparably damage Palestinian and Arabic cultural locations in and around the city.

 

[Perfection]

It's hard for me to judge a resolution I haven't actually seen. Can we get the actual text of the resolution?

 

[Mouthwash]

That's a really optimistic view of government. Governments are 'ridiculously, obviously wrong' all the time. Particularly, it might be though, when considering governments globally, not just western democracies.

Governments don't make mistakes about basic issues, though (or if they do, they are termed "failed states"). Bad policies might damage the economy or start a war with another nation, but I have never heard of a functioning government forgetting to collect taxes in an entire province, or not calling up the army when tanks start rolling across their border. UNESCO is an organization whose goal is to preserve the world's cultural and historic sites. The fact that they could endorse a resolution regarding a site as famous as the Wailing Wall (couched in Islamic religious terminology) to deny historical facts that plenty of historians don't even realize a movement exists which denies them, suggests that UNESCO isn't merely performing its duty badly, it's something which cultural and historic sites have to be protected from. There's nothing more dangerous to objective history than modern nationalists trying give their cause ancient roots.

In my opinion, the world is better off without UNESCO. Countries that deny historical truths and harm physical sites aren't impeded in the least by UNESCO- but UNESCO also threatens the integrity of sites which are treated properly. Sites that aren't in dispute can rely on their host countries to protect them.

I don't think anyone claims that it should.

But I don't think that it should have any. The UN's voting system represents everything bad about democracy, and nothing good.

tbh I think it's kinda stupid UN even bothers with stuff like that

I think it makes perfect sense: the UN is a PR machine, and sites with great historical or religious significance are PR goldmines.

Yeah, I think it starts with people petitioning the UN to become a UNESCO site. Petitions get denied all the time. Israel just doesn't like anyone ever having the audacity to tell them "no".

I'm beginning to suspect you haven't read literally anything in the OP.

What is Israel losing due to this statement?

Zionism is losing legitimacy. All Jews, globally, are losing their legitimacy. This also encourages Palestinian obstinacy (we don't have to make any concessions to Israel in regards to the status of these sites- they made it all up, and the UN says so!), and reinforces the views of hardliners; plenty of terrorist attacks are justified on the grounds that "the Jews want to steal Al-Aqsa." The killers now have official sanction for their views, if not their deeds.

Given the lack of enforcement of UNSCR 242 and 338, and successive Israeli governments telling the UN to shove it with regards to settlements

Deservedly so.

and the right of return;

This was endorsed by the General Assembly, and it's difficult to criticize a country for not complying with an action that, if taken, would result in that country no longer existing.

I don't see much happening. If the Israeli government can't be bothered to comply with the resolutions of the Security Council of the United Nations -comprising the five great powers of the world-

The Security Council can be almost as big a circus as the General Assembly.

Also, looking over the text of the resolution I'm not seeing anything to be grumpy over, let alone "needing to respond to". The resolution is a laundry list of some valid and not-so-valid complaints that the Israeli government is using the continued unsettled legal status of Jerusalem to their advantage; with the possibility It may irreparably damage Palestinian and Arabic cultural locations in and around the city.

"Firmly deplores the continuous storming of Al-Aqṣa Mosque/Al-Ḥaram Al-Sharif by Israeli right-wing extremists and uniformed forces, and urges Israel, the occupying Power, to take necessary measures to prevent provocative abuses that violate the sanctity and integrity of Al-Aqṣa Mosque/Al-Ḥaram Al-Sharif"

"Deeply decries the continuous Israeli aggressions against civilians including Islamic religious figures and priests, decries the forceful entering into the different mosques and historic buildings inside Al-Aqṣa Mosque/Al-Ḥaram Al-Sharif by different Israeli employees including the so-called “Israeli Antiquities” officials, and arrests and injuries among Muslim worshippers and Jordanian Awqaf guards in Al-Aqṣa Mosque/Al-Ḥaram Al-Sharif by the Israeli forces, and urges Israel, the occupying Power, to end these aggressions and abuses which inflame the tension on the ground and between faiths"

"Deplores the Israeli decision to approve a plan to build a two-line cable car system in East Jerusalem and the so called “Liba House” project in the Old City of Jerusalem as well as the construction of the so called “Kedem Center”, a visitor centre near the southern wall of the Al-Aqṣa Mosque/Al-Ḥaram Al-Sharif, the construction of the Strauss Building and the project of the elevator in Al-Buraq Plaza “Western Wall Plaza” and urges Israel, the occupying Power, to renounce the above-mentioned projects and to stop the construction works in conformity with its obligations under the relevant UNESCO conventions, resolutions and decisions"

"Regrets the visual impact of the separation wall on the site of Bilal Ibn Rabaḥ Mosque/Rachel’s Tomb in Bethlehem as well as the strict ban on access of Palestinian Christian and Muslim worshippers to the site, and demands the Israeli authorities to restore the original character of the landscape around the site and to lift the ban on access to it"

"Deeply regrets the Israeli refusal to comply with 185 EX/Decision 15, which requested the Israeli authorities to remove the two Palestinian sites from its national heritage list and calls on the Israeli authorities to act in accordance with that decision"

It's hard for me to judge a resolution I haven't actually seen. Can we get the actual text of the resolution?

You have to click on the blue hyperlink saying "Here's the full text" in the OP.

 

[timtofly]

I am not surprised as seeing how one particular religion is actively wiping out all other archeological sites but those that point to them as the only group ever in history. Ensures future endeavors to fail as any proof they were not the only religion at a given time. Written records be falsified.

On the other hand if the Jews re-built their temple next door, unlike building one next to The World Trade center, it would be interesting if not volatile. Conquers in the past have always erected their buildings on top of the conquered as sign of mastery. There is no equality allowed.

On the other hand the Jews cannot have their cake and eat it too. They reject the predictions of the NT, which states that all they have to do is blow up the Wailing Wall, and the world as we know it would end, and the Jews would rule the world. Perhaps the religion putting up so much protest know that as well, and do not want any bombs going off in the area.

 

[Ajidica]

There's nothing more dangerous to objective history than modern nationalists trying give their cause ancient roots.

I'm surprised you would have such a negative opinion of Theodore Herzl.

The idea I have developed in this pamphlet is an ancient one: It is the restoration of the Jewish State ..."

If reaching almost two millennia into the past to justify a nationalist movement isn't trying to give ones cause ancient roots, I don't know what is.

In my opinion, the world is better off without UNESCO. Countries that deny historical truths and harm physical sites aren't impeded in the least by UNESCO- but UNESCO also threatens the integrity of sites which are treated properly. Sites that aren't in dispute can rely on their host countries to protect them.

Given that nobody knows what the legal status of Jerusalem is, let alone Palestine, by your own definition these sites are the perfect place for UNESCO to get involved as the locations of the sites are in dispute.

The killers now have official sanction for their views, if not their deeds.

So a UNESCO resolution now gives official sanction to terrorism, but a guy the Israeli government found to bear personal responsibility for a war crime being elected Prime Minister isn't giving official sanction?

 

[Mouthwash]

I'm surprised you would have such a negative opinion of Theodore Herzl.

If reaching almost two millennia into the past to justify a nationalist movement isn't trying to give ones cause ancient roots, I don't know what is.

Contemporary Judaism is directly descended from the beliefs and mythology of Hasmonean-era Judeans. Making it into a nationalist movement, if anything, is probably making it more authentic.

Given that nobody knows what the legal status of Jerusalem is, let alone Palestine, by your own definition these sites are the perfect place for UNESCO to get involved as the locations of the sites are in dispute.

How is this a response to what you seem to think it's a response to?

So a UNESCO resolution now gives official sanction to terrorism, but a guy the Israeli government found to bear personal responsibility for a war crime being elected Prime Minister isn't giving official sanction?

He was "personally responsible" through negligence. He was not found to have actually planned or carried out the massacre. It's certainly possible to allow an atrocity to happen through inaction, but it's also impossible to know what Sharon's true intentions were.

 

[Agent327]

I'm a bit confused about such things as "UN apologists" and how easy people seem to confuse UNESCO and the UN. (But I guess a term such as "UN apologist" can be expected from an Israel apologist.)