Israel also announced today that they are withdrawing from UNESCO.
2 Likes
I didn’t think you were.
Obligatory:
“UNESCO, ah yes gallant little country.”
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.
It might have to do with the UNESCO resolution referring to the Temple Mount world heritage site by the Muslim name for it.
To Jews, it’s pretty much the only universal holy site and the constant issues around it are a constant matter of concern.
No other faith has a single major site, and they don’t even have full access to it, and then on top of it you have the UN seeming to take steps to claim the site has only ties it Islam. If that’s hard to understand, well I guess I give up.
1 Like
What “decisions that run counter to other governments decisions on building things at heritage sites” are you talking about? Please link.
There’s UNESCO’s “red list”: UNESCO World Heritage Centre - List of World Heritage in Danger
There are several reasons why a heritage site might be put on that list, among others:
“[…] serious and specific dangers, such as the threat of disappearance caused by accelerated deterioration, large- scale public or private projects or rapid urban or tourist development projects; destruction caused by changes in the use or ownership of the land […]”
(from the Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage, Article 11(4), emphasis mine)
So, for example, the “Historic Centre of Vienna” was put on the red list because UNESCO disapproves of a skyscraper that is being built a little outside the center.
Now, most of these decisions are “clean” in that there is no further political baggage behind them, so that’s a difference. But does that mean they shouldn’t be counted when you want to run a count of “resolutions against Israel” vs. “resolutions against the rest of the world”?
OK, I see what you did there. You changed “resolutions that condemn a specific country” to “actions that might anger a country’s government, even if they don’t include any actual condemnation”. That’s not what we were talking about. Please try again. Show me actual resolutions UNESCO (not the 21 member World Heritage Committee) voted on which condemned the actions of a specific country.
So UNESCO has issued 47 resolutions condemning countries in the world. Of those, 46 condemned Israel. And you don’t see that as even suggestive of a possible anti-Israel bias?
1 Like
OK, I see what you suspect me of doing, but my reading of (my random sample of) resolutions quoted by your link was in the same category. So maybe it would be more productive for you to set me straight on the contents of those resolutions condemning Israel, as I must admit that I have only superficially sampled the referenced resolutions.
For the record, I am aware of UNESCO resolutions using Palestinian-biased language. And following your links I found stuff related to an access bridge to the Temple Mount. UNESCO was using the usual “expressing concern” language while also celebrating all the great work done by everyone involved, which I interpreted as between-the-lines condemnation of specific actions, not “resolutions against Israel”.
UN Watch helpfully links to UNESCO session reports to back up its claims. They’re not very long. If you’re interested in informing yourself, feel free to read them. If not, that’s also OK. I don’t have the time or inclination to do your homework, nor is it important to me to “win” an argument on the internet.
1 Like
I will make sure to have another look then. The “random sample” I referred to included following some of those links, maybe I did overlook the juicy parts when scanning.
That is a very strange and counterfactual claim.
The Temple Mount isn’t the only major Judaic holy site - there is, for example, the Cave of the Patriarchs.
And there are literally hundreds of faiths with less control over their holy sites than Judaism enjoys - for example consider the Bahá’í pilgrimage sites, both of which have been purposely seized by hostile nations.
1 Like
Why thanks, why I remember growing up Jewish and all the time people talked about the Cave, and hardly ever
the site of the last Jewish Temple, where the Arc was said to have been kept, where is said to be the single most holy site - you know, the Holy of Holies, where the head priest would go speak with God.
Yea, sorry, I guess I over stated it.
Also, sure, why should Jews worry about how the UN and UNESCO refer to the site and leave Jews out of it.
An hey, it’s no big deal that Jews were banned from the site for 20 years and only restored when Israel took the city in 1967.
Thanks for clearing that up.
Mom: Walt, hit the retaliate button!
[Walt searches for the button]
Mom: Press any button! They all retaliate!
Yes, it’s much more funny if it’s a cartoon.
I doubt they get de-certified. From UNESCO’s perspective, their value as a World Heritage Site hasn’t changed. But (and I say this without doing any research so I could be wrong) I doubt UNESCO has much authority to do anything concrete to protect World Heritage sites. I expect UNESCO relies on the host country to take whatever actions it can (pass laws, limit access etc.) to protect those areas. So if the US has decided it doesn’t care what UNESCO thinks, the US might also not be inclined to put much effort into protecting those areas, regardless of whether UNESCO still considers them to be a World Heritage Site.
You’re welcome! It’s always nice to be thanked.
If you’d like to help the Bahá’í regain access to their holiest site, which was destroyed in 2013 after having been seized in 1922, please do write your congresscritter.
(I’m assuming from your posts that you care about other faiths losing access to their holiest sites for, um, 94 years and still counting.)
Speaking of which, the most prominent sacred site in Australia was seized from its traditional custodians eighty years ago. It was nominally returned to them thirty years ago, but that had little real effect.
It is still covered in tourists every day, who routinely defile sacred areas with both their behaviour and their refuse.
Many sacred sites have been destroyed. Some were partially dismantled by the conquerors for use as trophies.
4 Likes
That sucks and not at all surprising. I wonder if anyone has done comparative studies of indigenous sites in the US and Australia regarding damage to sacred sites like this?
2 Likes
One complication with places like Uluru is that the Anangu people, by their own laws, are responsible for the safety and good behaviour of anyone visiting the site. Both in a “it’s your job to manage this” sense, and a “you will be punished by karma if you fail at that task” sense.
They are now “permitted” to put signs up requesting that tourists refrain from doing offensive things. They are not empowered to enforce these requests in any way.
By Anangu law, every time some middle-aged tourist bloke has a heart attack climbing Uluru (which is a thing that the Anangu would never do, much as a Catholic would not use the Vatican as a bouldering wall), it is as if the Anangu had killed him themselves.
1 Like
