UNESCO Adopts Controversial Jerusalem Resolution

[Eugene]

Source: Associated Press

UNESCO Adopts Controversial Jerusalem Resolution

By THOMAS ADAMSON, ASSOCIATED PRESS PARIS — Oct 18, 2016, 8:21 AM ET

UNESCO's executive board on Tuesday approved a resolution that Israel says denies the deep historic Jewish connection to holy sites in Jerusalem — and that has angered Israel's government and many Jews around the world.

The board adopted the measure by consensus in its morning session at Paris-based UNESCO. A draft form of the resolution had already been approved by a commission last week.

The resolution is not expected to have direct impact on Jerusalem itself, but it deepened tensions within UNESCO, which is also facing a diplomatic dispute between Japan and China that threatens funding.

The resolution, titled "Occupied Palestine," is the latest of several measures at the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization over decades that Israelis see as evidence of ingrained anti-Israel bias within the United Nations, where Israel and its allies are far outnumbered by Arab countries and their supporters. Israel's concern has mounted since UNESCO states admitted Palestine as a member in 2011.

[font size=1]-snip-[/font]

Read more: http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/unesco-expected-adopt-controversial-jerusalem-resolution-42874274

[oberliner]

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

Abstaining were: Albania, Argentina, Cameroon, El Salvador, France, Ghana, Greece, Guinea, Haiti, India, Italy, Ivory Coast, Japan, Kenya, Nepal, Paraguay, Saint Vincent and Nevis, Slovenia, South Korea, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Uganda and Ukraine. Absent were: Serbia and Turkmenistan.

Voting in favor were: Algeria, Bangladesh, Brazil, Chad, China, Dominican Republic, Egypt, Iran, Lebanon, Malaysia, Morocco, Mauritius, Mexico, Mozambique, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Russia, Senegal, South Africa, Sudan and Vietnam.

Edit to Add: There were the sposnors: Algeria, Egypt, Lebanon, Morocco, Oman, Qatar and Sudan

[leftynyc]

2. Every country that abstained

is nothing but cowardly. This vote is just another stain on UNESCO that will never come out.

[oberliner]

3. Kind of surprised that it passes without a majority YES vote

Not sure how other UN committees work, but it seems weird that a resolution can pass when a majority of the countries on the committee did not vote in favor.

[leftynyc]

4. Nothing about unesco

surprises me anymore. This vote was vile.

[aranthus]

6. I understand the feeling, but

sites designated by UNESCO may be deserving of protection. Its just that they don't deserve it simply because UNESCO says so. Cultural importance still exists, and so does right and wrong. Its like the fallacy about the Partition Resolution being the justification for Israel's existence. It's not because the UN doesn't have any moral authority, but Israel still has a right to exist inherent in the Jewish people. The UN has nothing to do with morality, but morality still exists.

[Little Tich]

7. This resolution is about a site that isn't even in Israel.

If Israel took good care of the people and places in the occupied territories, resolutions like this would never be passed or even put forward. The real problem isn’t the resolution (even though I think it’s a bit biased), the real problem is that Israel is Judaizing East Jerusalem.

[aranthus]

8. Israel has effectively annexed Jerusalem.

So it is Israeli sovereign territory. As for "Judaizing East Jerusalem" it is more like they are returning the Jews to the city that the Jordanians illegally expelled them from.

[Little Tich]

9. I guess you also believe that Crimea is Russian sovereign territory now.

The UNSC declared the Israeli annexation "null and void" back in 1980. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_478)

As for the Judaization of Jerusalem, it's actually only a euphemism for promoting racist policies towards the city's non-Jewish residents. Here's a Wikipedia article on what Judaization actually entails - I'm not posting any longer qoutes, but the headings should give you a hint of the contents:

Judaization of Jerusalem
Source: Wikipedia

Judaization of Jerusalem (Arabic: تهويد القدس‎‎, tahweed il-quds; Hebrew: יהוד ירושלים‎‎, yehud yerushalaim) is a term used to describe the view that Israel has sought to transform the physical and demographic landscape of Jerusalem towards a fundamentally Jewish city under Israeli sovereignty.

2 Alleged Judaization under Israeli occupation
2.1 Changing the demographics
2.1.1 Revocation or denying of residency rights
2.2 Changing Arab into Jewish zones
2.3 Building Jewish settlements
2.4 West Bank barrier
2.5 Take over of Arab homes by Jews
2.6 Demolition of Palestinian homes
2.7 Replacing Arabic place names with Hebrew names

Read more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaization_of_Jerusalem

[aranthus]

12. Arguably it is.

Whether it should be is another matter. There are similarities between Israel/Jerusalem, but also some very significant differences.

First, the Crimea was long considered Russian territory. Russia annexed it in 1783. Then in 1954 it was transferred as an administrative matter to the Ukraine. Remember that this was when Ukraine was not an independent state, but was merely a part of the Soviet (Russian) Empire. So arguably not intended as a transfer of Russian sovereignty. The Ukraine simply took the territory with it when it became independent. So not the greatest claim to sovereignty, but some.

The differences between Israel/Jerusalem and Russia/Crimea are substantial. Russia took Ukraine in an aggressive act. Not exactly a war, but still, Russia created a situation where its forces could move in and take the territory from a country that had not attacked it. Israel took East Jerusalem in a war of aggression against it started by, among others, the country of Jordan from which it took the territory. Second, as I noted above, Ukraine had at least some legitimate claim to sovereignty over Crimea. Jordan had no legitimate claim to Jerusalem at all. In fact, at the time, the only legitimate claim to sovereignty over Jerusalem belonged to Israel.

As for Russia/Crimea, the only reason I can see to void the Russian claim is the manner in which the Russians enforced it. We don't wan to encourage states to settle territorial disputes by force. Although, historically, that is how they have usually been settled. Also historically, the Russian claim to sovereignty over Crimea is much stronger than Ukraine's. It was long Russian territory which the Ukraine obtained almost by mistake.

[Little Tich]

17. It's never a good thing when a fascist leader starts gobbling up parts of neighboring countries in

Europe, especially when there was an explicit promise not to do it.

[aranthus]

31. That wasn't your question.

The question is Russia sovereign over the Crimea. Who has the better claim to it. Russia or Ukraine? Russia has the better claim. And it's simply narrow minded to say that any attempt to recover territory is wrongful, just because you label the leader of a country a fascist. I think Putin is a ruthless dictator, but I don't see how he is necessarily a fascist, but let's assume that he is. The danger of Russia grabbing Crimea isn't about Crimea. It's about whether he's going to try to recover the Ukraine or the Baltic States, or other parts of the Soviet Empire. It doesn't look as if that is his goal. You are likely going to point to Hitler as an example of the bad that could occur. Except Putin is not Hitler, and Russia isn't Nazi Germany.

[Little Tich]

34. According to international law, Russia is an occupying power in Ukrainian Crimea, not a sovereign.

Russia should respect the Budapest Memorandum it signed and withdraw. Ukraine is the only state with sovereign claim to Crimea.

While this thread isn't about Russian invasions, the inadmissibility of acquiring territories through war can be applied to Israel too. I must however say that if Israel had given the Palestinians in Eastern Jerusalem civil rights and Israeli citizenship, I couldn't have cared less for any non-Israeli claims to Jerusalem...

In a way, our differences boil down to whether the Palestinians in East Jerusalem have rights or not.

[sabbat hunter]

45. One big difference

There was never an independent state of Palestine for Jerusalem to belong to. Even under every partition plan, it was to be internationalized, not a city in Palestine. But the UN long ago abrogatted its duty to protect Jerusalem and keep it an international city (beginning in the late 40's when it failed to defend it against Jordan, and then never taking any steps to get Jordan out between 48 and 67). Palestinians in Jerusalem should all be given Israeli citizenship, automatically, without having to apply for anything.

[Little Tich]

46. I hope you understand that it's not even a de facto annexation until every single Palestinian

in East Jerusalem has Israeli citizenship. As long as the people in Eastern Jerusalem live under martial law with no civil rights, Israel is a hostile occupier with no moral or legal claims whatsoever to East Jerusalem. If they were given civil rights, the moral claim would be strong, and the only other legal claimant would be Jordan.

While the idea of the Corpus Separatum may once have been possible, the death of the two-state solution have made it unnecessary.

[aranthus]

13. And you keep bringing up the UN

This is part of the reason why we don't have common ground on which to discuss these issues. You keep citing to the UN without any explanation as to why that organization has any legal or moral authority to support your position. I have asked you to support your position on the UN, but you haven't.

Similar problem with your constant citing to Wikipedia. It often gets facts wrong, and on controversial matters like this it is often simplistic and horribly biased. It's not a credible source in this case.

[Little Tich]

16. If there's no legal framework for how wars are waged, it will open up for all kinds of atrocities,

and if the notion of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war is rescinded there will be more wars.

States shouldn't be able to invade and say "Hey, we took it, it's ours now...".

But there's one thing that I wonder - are you even aware that there is a sizable population of Palestinians in East Jerusalem? What about them?

[aranthus]

32. Also not the issue.

The question is whether the UN is any kind of moral or legal body. It isn't. Not even close. About the only thing close to a rational reason for thinking it is that you have given is that you really want it to be. Well, I'm not prepared to pretend that it is just because some people think it's necessary to have one. That kind of foolishness comes back to bite you fast and hard.

[Little Tich]

35. I think it's too early to declare the demise of international law.

Just because international law doesn't favor the occupier in war or allow for the mistreatment of the people under occupation doesn't mean it's unnecessary to have it.The UN will remain the main forum and interpreter of international law.

[aranthus]

36. Again you have no reason.

All you can do is impugn my motives. You assume I don't like international law because itt doesn't favor the occupier, That's just more bull from you, because you really don't have an argument here. The truth is that I'm a lawyer, who loves the law. Which is why I don't resp;et international law as law. Because it isn't law. But again, you have no rational basis for your belief. You revere international law because you want to. You revere the UN because it fits with your emotional fantasy view of the world.

[Little Tich]

37. What about International Humanitarian Law, Thrasymachus? n/t

[aranthus]

44. It isn't law.

And, Thrasymachus? As in, "I say that justice is nothing other than the advantage of the stronger." I'm arguing the exact opposite. That international law is effectively the advantage of the stronger, and therefore, is not justice.

[Little Tich]

47. So what legal framework should the Palestinians in East Jerusalem apply to

in order to receive civil rights and equal religious rights?

Or perhaps the unequal treatment is justice somehow?

[leftynyc]

10. You can't even admit

this repulsive vote was nothing but anti semitic bullshit, can you? That's pathetic. If the Western Wall isn't in Israel, just which country is it in?

[Little Tich]

15. You seem to be a one-stater...

If the capital of Palestine is already part of Israel, there can never be a Palestinian state. The sad truth is that Israel will then have to continue the Apartheid system it has imposed upon the Palestinians in East Jerusalem and the rest of the occupied territories indefinitely, just to avoid giving them civil rights and a stake in the state of Israel.

[leftynyc]

19. So you think the Western Wall

and ALL of Jerusalem is in Palestine. That's what I figured. A disgusting view but that's your problem.

[shira]

23. I'm not sure a 2-state proposal exists that puts the wall in a future Palestinian state.

Not the Clinton Parameters, Olmert's offer, Geneva Initiative, Kerry's plan...

[leftynyc]

24. Israeli's will NEVER allow

the Western Wall to be in a country called Palestine. NEVER.

[shira]

25. Only Jew hating bigots would advocate for Palestinian control of the Kotel...

And every last one of them wholeheartedly supports the latest UNESCO vote, proving how bigoted their advocacy is. It's not about a Palestinian state. These bigots don't believe Jews have basic human rights to their holy sites.

These scumbags are advocates of Apartheid, no Jews allowed, and they have the audacity of accusing Israel of Apartheid. Modern day Nazis IMHO...

[leftynyc]

26. More country's voted against

or abstained from the vile unesco prop than voted for it. And the un loses even more credibility. Useless nations, indeed.

[shira]

27. And Israel's "critics" pretending to be humanitarians support UNESCO's Jew hate.

I have yet to find one antizionist BDS'er on any website, Twitter, or Facebook condemning this vile vote.

Tells you all you need to know about that wretched scum.

[Little Tich]

28. Only the occupied part of Jerusalem is part of the occupied territories.

There's another part of Jerusalem that's in Israel. Thanks to the building of settlements in East Jerusalem and Israel's longstanding policy of discrimination against the Arab population, East Jerusalem is no longer able to function as an independent entity. There will never be a Palestinian state.

My bet is that Israel doesn't have to give up anything more than it's Jewish majority in the future.

[shira]

22. Headline: Thousands of Jews desecrate al-Buraq (the Wall)

http://www.qudsn.ps/article/103016

This is the vile UNESCO resolution you support.

You don't believe Jews have rights to our holiest site on earth, do you? The Jordanians didn't either. That's why they banned all Jews from the site for nearly 20 years. The Palestinian leadership doesn't believe Jews have rights there either. But that's the the vile garbage you're defending here, isn't it? It's not like I see you condemning the PA or Hamas for denying Jewish rights to their holy sites.

[shira]

11. Please. There's no excusing pure antisemitism, denial of Jewish history.

And that's exactly what the UNESCO decision is and it's exactly how the Palestinian leadership sees it, as denial of a Jewish connection to the site.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1134133429

It's not "a bit biased", it's pure antisemitism.

Antipathy towards Jews, remember? Denying the human rights of Jews to their history, culture...

Try to at least stick to your own definitions of racism.

[Little Tich]

18. If Israel stopped behaving like a hostile occupier in East Jerusalem,

there would be no need for passing these resolutions. But as long as Israel keeps acting badly, the resolutions will keep piling up. You seem to think that the resolutions are the problem, not Israel's behavior in East Jerusalem. I think Israel should award the Palestinians equal civil and religious rights, which would solve the problem, both with the cause (Discrimination against Palestinians in East Jerusalem) and the effect (UNESCO resolutions).

And I don't think the resolution is caused by anti-Semitism - any occupying state behaving like Israel needs to be condemned. An occupying state must not change things on the ground. But I suppose you don't even think that Israel is an occupier nor that East Jerusalem isn't in Israel.

[leftynyc]

20. Yes, we all know

you think terrorism should be rewarded - you've made that pretty clear in your insistence that Israel is the only party to blame in the I/P issue. You're part of a teeny minority who think people who blow up children are merely meek little kittens who should be rewarded. Pretty disgusting but not surprising at all.

[Little Tich]

29. Why is it so wrong to extend the notion of democratic rights to include Palestinians?

I just don't get it...

[leftynyc]

30. And once again

Not one fucking word about the terrorism Israel faces every single day. Just more insisting on rewarding terrorism.

[shira]

21. So you're saying UNESCO's anti-Jewish resolution is justified, right?

Last edited Thu Oct 20, 2016, 07:36 AM - Edit history (1)

You're blaming Israeli actions for UNESCO's antisemitic resolution.

Let's see you first admit UNESCO's resolution is a classic case of antipathy towards Jews. Can you do it? After all, it's a denial of history designed to nullify the human rights of all Jews to worship at their holiest site in the world. Classic case of antipathy, so why the silence from you?

[Little Tich]

33. You seem to be working under the assumption that an anti-Israel resolution condemning Israel's

attempt to change the status quo on occupied territory is anti-Semitic by definition.

I think that's a weak argument, especially since you can't provide any example of any alleged anti-Semitism in the resolution. But then again, you probably don't even believe that East Jerusalem is occupied territory...

[shira]

38. It's anti-Jewish (not anti-Israel) as proven by PA/Fatah reaction to UNESCO...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1134133429

PA: Denial of Jewish history 'victory for Palestinian people'
A Fatah press release said that the importance of the decision lies in its content, specifically that it denies any historical connection between Jews and Jerusalem and the Temple Mount.

"...It signed the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Resolution (UNESCO), issued last Thursday to deny the existence of any religious association of Jews Al-Aqsa Mosque and the Western Wall.."

That proves it's not merely another anti-Israel resolution. It's an ugly anti-Jewish resolution that you fully support.

How vile.

[Little Tich]

39. Aha - so that's why I didn't find any anti-Semitism in the resolution itself...

But frankly, those who wrote the Fatah press release (if it's accurate) should've read the resolution before making inaccurate statements about it.

No, I don't support the resolution - it's one-sided and leaves little room for backroom acrobatics...

[shira]

40. The release is accurate, stop with the denial. While the resolution says Jerusalem...

....is holy to 3 religions including Judaism, it referred to the Mount only by its Muslim/Arab name. It deliberately ignored Jewish ties to the site & that's exactly the "victory" the PA/Fatah and Hamas are celebrating. It lays the groundwork for ethnic & sectarian cleansing.

The very fact that you are questioning Jewish history at the Mount goes to show you're also part of the problem.

The UNESCO resolution is also a paranoid conspiracy theory about a Jewish plot to harm Islamic holy sites, which has no basis in fact. Back in the 1920's, Hitler's Mufti made the same baseless claims. Jews didn't do anything then, nor are they doing anything now (not even rightwing ultra-orthodox who "storm" the Mount) to threaten Al-Aqsa or Muslim worshipers. This pathetic near century old incitement against Jews is what's also extremely vile & antisemitic about the UNESCO resolution. UNESCO has legitimized anti-Jewish incitement that goes back nearly a century.

This feeds the revenge fantasies of Fatah/Hamas for the day they "liberate" Palestine by ethnically cleansing or killing the infidel zionist colonist invaders.

[Little Tich]

41. If the allegations that Israel was changing the status quo in Jerusalem were untrue,

it would've been more sensible for Israel to reveal the truth instead of spouting nationalist nonsense. But if the allegations were true, it would make perfect sense for Israel to divert from the real issue by stirring up a shitstorm about supposedly erased Jewish links.

[shira]

42. What evidence do you have the status quo is changing? You have nothing.

Last edited Sat Oct 22, 2016, 12:09 PM - Edit history (2)

You're defending a century-old libel about Jews taking the Mount away from the Muslims, denying them access, etc.

Pathetic.

It's the Jews who have no right to pray there. It's the Jews and Christians who are only allowed to visit there for a few hours a week. When Jews go, they're "storming" the Mount.

That status quo isn't changing & anyone saying it is is lying.

[Little Tich]

48. So which of the allegations in the resolution are untrue?

If the resolution calls for a return to the status quo, and you support that, I don't understand why you are you against it...

[shira]

49. Jews "storming" the Mount, Israel inciting violence at the mount...

1. There is no evidence of Jews storming the mount. There's plenty of evidence of some Jews being there and visiting. That charge is incitement against Jews who want to visit there.

2. All evidence points to the PA doing the inciting. From Abbas inciting thugs within al-Aqsa to throw stones at innocent passerbys, to the stabbing intifada from last year, to torching Joseph's tomb...

[shira]

43. The head of UNESCO condemned the resolution as a denial of history....

So don't claim it's something else. Be honest.

Palestinians then told the head of UNESCO to STFU.

Though she did not explicitly mention the resolution, Bokova made her disapproval of the motion clear. “The heritage of Jerusalem is indivisible, and each of its communities has a right to the explicit recognition of their history and relationship with the city,” she said in a statement.

“To deny, conceal or erase any of the Jewish, Christian or Muslim traditions undermines the integrity of the site, and runs counter to the reasons that justified its inscription on the UNESCO World Heritage list,” Bokova said. “When these divisions carry over into UNESCO, an organization dedicated to dialogue and peace, they prevent us from carrying out our mission.”

http://www.timesofisrael.com/palestinians-rebuke-unesco-chief-for-opposing-jerusalem-resolution/

You can't even condemn the PA/Hamas for celebrating UNESCO's denial of Jewish history & rights to the area when that's clear antipathy against Jews.

You're part of the problem when you do all you can to deny & ignore actual racism.

[shira]

14. J-Street says UNESCO vote shows contempt for Jewish people's ties to Temple Mount

J Street is profoundly disappointed by today’s adoption by member states of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) Executive Board of a resolution that outrageously seeks to rewrite history by erasing the Jewish people’s deep historical and religious ties to the Temple Mount, known in Hebrew as Har HaBayit.

http://jstreet.org/press-releases/resolution-adopted-unesco-member-states-shows-contempt-jewish-peoples-ties-temple-mount/