OK, so an extremely biased site* reports that several years ago, UNESCO resolutions on building activity at a cultural heritage site did not match the position of Jerusalem’s city government?
Okay, I did not read through all those resolutions. But the ones that I sampled were nothing out of the ordinary.
* Extremely biased: I don’t trust a site that runs tallies of “resolutions against Israel” vs “resolutions against the rest of the world”, where “against Israel” is defined as everything that criticizes the conduct of any part of the Israeli government. Decisions that run counter to other governments decisions on building things at heritage sites apparently doesn’t count as “against” those particular countries.
The “rest of the world” on the site also seems to have a variable definition - the article you cited claims
zero resolutions on the rest of world for the year 2009 and adds “(including Iran, Sudan, Syria, North Korea, etc.)”.
For 2012, it admits one resolution on Syria, but still puts that under the heading “On rest of world: 0 (including Iran, Sudan, North Korea, etc.)”.
So, from your link, I see no reason not to be happy with “as good as it gets”.
More recently, there has been much stink about a resolution last year that referred to East Jerusalem as part of “occupied Palestine”. Which, face it, according to the written rules of the UN Charter, it is. I don’t see how a UN organisation that is at least intended to be non-political has any authority to change that.
