If I had to guess (putting on a hat I don't usually wear):
Recognition of Palestine as a member state; resolutions referring to certain contested sites (e.g., Jerusalem's Old City, Temple Mount/Haram al-Sharif) primarily using their Arabic names; promotion of gender equality and LGBTQ+ rights, as well as support for comprehensive sexuality education (CSE) programs; emphasis on climate change action, including its designation of World Heritage Sites at risk due to global warming; alignment with the UN’s 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (specifically SDGs related to gender, education, and environmental goals); and advocacy for internet governance initiatives
The Israeli state was literally founded by terrorists. The leaders of those terrorist organizations were the first leaders of Israeli prime ministers and secretaries of war and so on.
Lots and lots of states were founded by terrorists. Like, my state (Ireland) was founded by a bunch of them. Our longest standing leader (DeValera) was involved in the 1916 rising and was only not executed because he was a US citizen and the Brits wanted the US to join WW1.
Which is to say, that many many states have been founded by terrorists/freedom fighters. That's the norm, not the exception. Like, from the perspective of the British Crown, George Washington was a terrorist.
Almost all states can trace their founding to separatists if they so wish, but those are hard to usefully characterize as a subset of terrorists. The "norm" for secession before the 19th century was basically whatever passed for contemporary conventional warfare. Political terrorism only really becomes comparatively "effective" in response to modern era military disparities.
I’m using the word “terrorism” in exactly the way it should be used. Ireland was founded by people fighting for liberty. South Africa the same. The Israeli founders were terrorists. They used terror to ethnically cleanse the lands of its indigenous population.
Anybody that supports this or tries to draw false parallels with genuine liberation movements is disgusting for obvious reasons.
I get that morally it may feel different, but the Irish separatists used identical methods to the Israeli separatists to gain independence (bombs and violence).
In fact, the Jewish separatists explicitly used the same approaches against the British post WW1.
That’s pretty naive. There are never unambiguously good and bad sides in a civil war. Case in point: the ANC terrorized and massacred Zulu nationalists.
Okay that’s fine — call it naive. Way would you call condemning the Gazans for fighting against occupiers while white washing the long history of crime and abuse by Zionists?
I have family in Israel (some of which go back to Roman times) and am quite familiar with the current nations founding. 'Palestine' is a modern convention from 1967. Prior to that, it was a regional term to refer anyone living in the area (including native Jews).
No disagreements there. I have a friend who grew up in Lebanon who told me how his fathers best friend in high school was Jewish who later came back to invade Lebanon and supervise martial law in the same city they grew up in.
It’s the way of the colonialists. Outsource the occupation to a local minority and your occupation can last a lot longer because the colonial power will be shielded from the inevitable blowback that will follow from the dirty work of colonization. The minority will always be keen to retain your support so you can retain most of the benefits which attracted you to the colonial project for a lot longer.
The world should push for a one state solution. Enough bloodshed already.
> False. Americans taught for liberty from oppression. Same for Irish. Calling them terrorists is the slander of colonialists.
The Americans were the colonialists. They fought to evade taxes and to be free to steal land from its indigenous inhabitants, in pursuit of which they committed a genocide. The latter, in particular, was strongly opposed by the British government. A 1763 Royal Proclamation prohibited settlement west of the Appalachian Mountains, reserving lands for indigenous peoples. After alleviating themselves of those restrictions, the freedom-loving Americans then practiced a brutal form of chattel slavery for many decades after it had been outlawed by more civilized nations, including the Empire they had fought to be free of.
How so? It's common knowledge that the nascent IDF absorbed terrorist organizations like the Irgun and Lehi into their ranks and gave them autonomy to operate as they had been. Leaders of these terrorist organizations went on to join the highest ranks of Israeli leadership. David Ben-Gurion being one of many (his Haganah cooperated closely with the Irgun and Lehi as they committed kidnappings, bombings and murders).
This isn't a conspiracy theory, it's widely documented by respectable historians.
At the very least, I don’t see how anyone couldn’t call Begin a terrorist given the King David Hotel bombing, and he of course went on to become PM of Israel. The Irgun he led was also responsible for atrocities against Palestinian civilians like the Deir Yassin massacre, which Haganah definitely opposed.
That is true. Not sure why you are being downvoted. In fact, many of their victims were British citizens since it was under English mandate. It is impossible to reason with Israel apologists, for they are genocidal actors. It is what one would expect.
Recently I saw a vehicle with a "you are loved" sticker on it, jesus fish, and then a whole series of stickers that describe when they would like to commit violent acts against the reader if they did or said things the owner doesn't like. It really seemed to fit the atmosphere around those folks these days.
> Target 1.4: By 2030, ensure that all men and women, in particular the poor and the vulnerable, have equal rights to economic resources, as well as access to basic services, ownership and control over land and other forms of property, inheritance, natural resources, appropriate new technology, and financial services
> Indicator 1.4.2: Proportion of total adult population with secure tenure rights to land [...] [This goal seems to state that poor people should own just as much land as rich people. That's insane, but even ignoring that, the goal definitely states that renting is evil and everyone needs to own.]
> Target 1.b: Create sound policy frameworks at the national, regional and international levels, based on pro-poor and gender-sensitive development strategies, to support accelerated investment in poverty eradication actions
> Target 3.5: Strengthen the prevention and treatment of substance abuse, including narcotic drug abuse and harmful use of alcohol
> Indicator 3.5.1: Alcohol per capita consumption (aged 15 years and older) within a calendar year in litres of pure alcohol [In other words, the UN considers itself to be achieving this goal if people drink less alcohol than they used to. There is no indicator for problems caused by substance abuse.]
> Target 3.7: By 2030, ensure universal access to sexual and reproductive health-care services, including for family planning, information, and education, and the integration of reproductive health into national strategies and programmes
> Target 3.8: Achieve universal health coverage, including [...]
> Target 4.1: By 2030, ensure that all girls and boys complete free, equitable and quality primary and secondary education [...]
> Target 4.2: By 2030, ensure that all girls and boys have access to quality early childhood development, care and pre-primary education so that they are ready for primary education
> Target 4.5: By 2030, eliminate gender disparities in education and ensure equal access to all levels of education and vocational training for the vulnerable, including persons with disabilities, indigenous peoples and children in vulnerable situations
> Indicator 4.5.1: Parity indices (female/male, rural/urban, bottom/top wealth quintile and others such as disability status, indigenous peoples and conflict-affected, as data become available) for all education indicators on this list
> Target 4.7: By 2030, ensure that all learners acquire the knowledge and skills needed to promote sustainable development, including, among others, through education for sustainable development and sustainable lifestyles, human rights, gender equality, promotion of a culture of peace and non-violence, global citizenship and appreciation of cultural diversity and of culture's contribution to sustainable development
> Target 4.a: Build and upgrade education facilities that are child, disability and gender sensitive [...]
> Target 10.3: Ensure equal opportunity and reduce inequalities of outcome [...]
> Target 10.4: Adopt policies, especially fiscal, wage, and social protection policies, and progressively achieve greater equality
> Target 10.a: [we're still on the goal "reduce inequality"] Implement the principle of special and differential treatment for developing countries [...]
> Target 9.2: Promote inclusive and sustainable industrialization and, by 2030, significantly raise industry's share of employment and gross domestic product [If they really mean this, I'll admit that it swings the opposite way from what I would have expected. I have a suspicion that they don't want this to happen in developed countries. The indicators don't disambiguate. Either way it's a divisive cause.]
> Goal 13: Take urgent action to combat climate change
> Target 12.2: By 2030, achieve the sustainable management and efficient use of natural resources
> Indicator 12.2.1: Material footprint, material footprint per capita, and material footprint per GDP ["We want people to have less stuff."]
> Indicator 12.2.2: Domestic material consumption, domestic material consumption per capita, and domestic material consumption per GDP ["We want people to have less stuff."]
> Target 14.5: By 2020, conserve at least 10 per cent of coastal and marine areas
> Target 16.b: Promote and enforce non-discriminatory laws and policies for sustainable development
> Indicator 16.b.1: Proportion of population reporting having personally felt discriminated against or harassed in the previous 12 months
I wouldn't call this an ideologically neutral set of goals, no.
Target 16.1 seems fine, though I'm a little surprised they didn't use the "By 2030, end all [...]" phrasing.
> I wouldn't call this an ideologically neutral set of goals
What would you call it? I mean, none of it sounds like something you can make a argument that it shouldn't be achieved at all. In fact, I would question the ideology of someone that wouldn't want to achieve those goals.
> I mean, none of it sounds like something you can make a argument that it shouldn't be achieved at all.
Really? I'm not sure you read the goals.
They state that renting is bad.
They state that alcohol consumption is bad, and the less it happens, the better the world will be.
They state that equality of opportunity is good, and - independently of that - that inequality of outcome is bad. This despite the fact that equality of opportunity necessarily causes inequality of outcome.
In particular, they state that all subgroups however defined must achieve exactly the same educational outcomes across all metrics.
The family policies are that children (a) should be avoided in general, but also (b) should spend as little time in the home as possible. What do you think are the prerequisites for primary education?
They state that the poor should enjoy all the same comforts, services, and economic security that the rich do.
They establish a fixed quota for nature reserves.
They state that everyone's standard of living should go down.
UNESCO is against the US-backed Israeli genocide of the Palestinian people, and is against the theft of Palestinian land. That's it - they simply don't support murdering children.
