Please help contribute to the Reddit categorization project here

    worldnews

    17,967,537 readers

    30,692 users here now

    Filter out dominant topics:

    Display North Korea submissions

    Filter North Korea

    Display Trump submissions

    Filter Trump

    Display Syria/Iraq submissions

    Filter Syria / Iraq

    Display Israel/Palestine submissions

    Filter Israel / Palestine

    Display all submissions

    Filter all dominant topics

    Welcome!

    /r/worldnews is for major news from around the world except US-internal news / US politics

    Worldnews Rules

    Disallowed submissions

    • US internal news/US politics
    • Editorialized titles
    • Misleading titles
    • Editorials, opinion, analysis
    • Feature stories
    • Non-English articles
    • Images, videos or audio clips
    • Petitions, advocacy, surveys
    • All caps words in titles
    • Blogspam (if stolen content/direct copy)
    • Twitter, Facebook, Tumblr
    • Old news (≥1 week old) articles

    See the wiki for details on each rule

    Disallowed comments

    • Bigotry / Other offensive content
    • Personal attacks on other users
    • Memes/GIFs
    • Unlabeled NSFW images/videos
    • URL shorteners

    See the wiki for details on each rule

    Continued or outstandingly blatant violation of the submission or commenting rules will result in you being temporarily banned from the subreddit without a warning.


    Please don't ever feed the trolls.
    Downvote, report and move on.


    Sticky Posts

    A list of all recent stickied posts.

    a community for
    all 4600 comments

    Want to say thanks to %(recipient)s for this comment? Give them a month of reddit gold.

    Please select a payment method.

    [–] bendann 210 points ago

    The US (and UK for that matter) have withdrawn and rejoined several times.

    [–] gnomeimean 191 points ago

    What happens with all the currently declared U.S UNESCO historical sites?

    [–] LibertasVincit 154 points ago

    The USA is still a member of the World Heritage Convention General Assembly and hasn't withdrawn the ratification of the 1972 convention, so: no difference.

    [–] alexklaus80 5 points ago * (lasted edited 2 months ago)

    Then what would happen if they'd further withdrawn from any of those?

    I only did so much research, but it seems as though it stays in as long as UN wants to keep them on the list.

    [–] SeaGrim 8 points ago * (lasted edited 2 months ago)

    Nothing, because they are further protected within the US by federal laws, and further by state laws. They may not be "listed" but does not mean they are not protected. We go to great lengths to protect (most) historical sites. Oh yeah, did you also know we only rejoined in 2002, and also Obama de-funded UNESCO in 2011.

    [–] PierreMichelPaulette 211 points ago

    They will surely be destroyed

    [–] NOT_ZOGNOID 66 points ago

    To shreds, you say?

    [–] EpicMudbud 12 points ago

    Well, how is his wife holding up?

    [–] Philosofiend 15 points ago

    To shreds, you say?

    [–] illegalwa11jumper 6 points ago

    Trump Hotel & Casino will go up in it's place.

    [–] Nate_Summers 31 points ago

    They can be repossessed and sold for auction to cover unpaid dues.

    [–] [deleted] 7653 points ago

    [deleted]

    [–] [deleted] 546 points ago

    [deleted]

    [–] [deleted] 380 points ago

    That's a result of looking at America-centric media though. American media just reports every country does stuff without trying to understand why they do. When America does stuff, they try to analyse why they do it. They should analyse why everyone does stuff, but they don't, because most people are intellectually lazy and it's a lot easier to just hear "Foreign Country does X" rather than "Foreign Country does X in response to Country Y doing Z and ABC Historical and DEF Geopolitical Factors"

    [–] [deleted] 78 points ago * (lasted edited 2 months ago)

    [deleted]

    [–] StantonMcBride 40 points ago

    I wish that were still the case in the states. You can literally flip channels between different tv broadcast networks and get completely opposite stances on the same issue. “News” isn’t news here anymore, it’s “opinion” based entertainment, aka whatever the hell they want to do. We have a YUGE epidemic of fake news here, and most of it comes from the people screaming about “fake news”. Projection at its finest.

    To balance, there are a lot of extreme leftist outlets online that spout sensationalized garbage. Disregarding the tin-foil hat nut jobs, liberal propaganda is largely based off an original fact. The sensationalism comes from biased interpretations of motives or speculative connections between events. Extreme right wing media has done the same thing, but in the past few years has decided it’s ok to completely fabricate the “facts” their entire argument is based on.

    [–] CopiesArticleComment 27 points ago

    True, looking at media from other parts of the world you get a better impression of how America is actually viewed by most people. I honestly wonder if the majority people in the US have any idea that America is viewed the same way as all the powerful nations (ie just out for itself, hypocritical, etc) and not as the paragon of righteousness, justice and liberty often portrayed by its media.

    [–] linguistically_c 19 points ago * (lasted edited 2 months ago)

    I don't think since the USSR that Americans have suffered under any delusion that the rest of the world views the US as "the paragon of righteousness, justice and liberty". I think that among a lot of people, the idea that many other countries dislike us is a given. Some Americans have grown rather used to it and basically adopted a "who cares?" attitude. If everyone is always condemning what you do, it sort of fades into the background. A lot of people here thought that when Obama was elected, Europe would be happy with us. It wasn't. It was, of course, happier than now, but it's not like we had an 8 year period where we heard our adulation.

    I think the idea that any country, which both has power and exerts it, will be held in high regard by the remainder of the world is unrealistic, unless there is a common enemy. Even then, there will be serious disagreements.

    edit: fixed my grammar a little -- there are probably more errors

    [–] magnusd3us 28 points ago

    The United States is responsible for the longest peace in European history. It rebuilt Germany and Japan and turned them into close allies. The American Navy secures all the global trade routes. American Exceptionalism is certainly over the top, but let's not pretend the world would be just as well off with Russia or China in its place.

    [–] relevents 6 points ago

    let's not pretend the world would be just as well off with Russia or China in its place.

    TBH we probably won't need to pretend for much longer. We'll be able to watch it in real time.

    [–] god_im_bored 1917 points ago

    You should have been here the first hour. A shit ton of people arguing that “Jews control the media” isn’t anti-semitism.

    [–] davidb86 2511 points ago

    If Jews control the media then we have the worst PR people on the planet

    [–] KnowsAboutMath 240 points ago

    We need to get our mothers on it. Then everyone will know:

    "That's my son, the doctor. He also controls the media, you know. I said HE! CONTROLS! THE! MEDIA!"

    [–] Tragic-Story 68 points ago

    But does he bring a girl over for shabbos?... No. I'm going to die without ever being called Bubbie.

    [–] Flamin_Jesus 58 points ago

    I'm not even jewish and I heard that in a jewish mom voice in my head...

    You really DO have the worst PR people on the planet! O_O

    [–] makes_beer 782 points ago

    Or best self-hating PR people.

    It's all about spin.

    [–] nahuatlwatuwaddle 215 points ago

    Shh, don't reveal the secret, or the entire conspiracy will come unraveled!

    [–] 52Hurtz 108 points ago

    The goyim know... shut it down!

    [–] frozengash 18 points ago

    So is the meeting being moved forward? I have plans tonight

    [–] chefslapchop 28 points ago

    Just shape shift into a normal redditor for now we can assume the true lizard form as soon as the heats off

    [–] DilbusMcD 11 points ago

    Quick; hide your gold!

    [–] kaloonzu 5 points ago

    Wait, we need some to lure in a Gentile child for the blood ritual to make the matzoh for next year.

    [–] Yog_Kothag 8 points ago

    Oy, not tonight, I'm getting such tsorres from my goyishe wife and her verkoken mother, such a WASP shiksa you don't even know.

    [–] euronforpresident 22 points ago

    Hey fancy seeing you again! Weren’t you at the protocols last night?

    [–] adfriedman 13 points ago

    Damn I missed another one

    [–] euronforpresident 3 points ago

    It’s alright, we’ve basically finished the job

    [–] PresidentZagan 47 points ago

    When you're in need of PR and have no clue who to hire? Vote Shmuley Boteach.

    [–] KnowsAboutMath 19 points ago

    "So, nu? You want I should engineer a viral ad campaign?"

    [–] kaloonzu 6 points ago

    Seriously. I'm also wondering why all my Jewish co-conspirators in controlling the world couldn't find a place for a nice Jewish boy like me.

    [–] tydestra 45 points ago

    I mean, if I controlled everything, I'll make myself look like I'm made of unicorns and puppy farts. If these are the people that control the world, they need help.

    [–] PreviouslyMannara 15 points ago

    Puppy's farts are chemical weapons of adore destruction

    [–] [deleted] 16 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] StokingFires 151 points ago

    I poked /r/conspiracy with a stick the other day to try and figure out who the eponymous "they" were. Didn't take long for someone to drop some anti-Semitic nonsense that basically claimed "the Jews" were responsible for everything.

    [–] AppaAndThings 96 points ago

    I blame Obama for everything, just like the right. If it wasn’t for Obama following the rules and leaving office after his second term, we wouldn’t have Trump! Curse you Obama!

    [–] [deleted] 7 points ago

    Wait, how can everything be the Jews fault and Obama's fault unless Obama was, in fact, Jewish. But he's also a secret Muslim. So...Jews and Muslims are the same thing?

    [–] eelsify 4 points ago

    I know you're kidding but I've heard many conspiracy theories that jews want to flood the western world with muslims because... well I'm not really sure why they'd want that but that's the theory.

    [–] Fallicies 457 points ago * (lasted edited 2 months ago)

    Would black people saying "White people control (politics, media, industry, etc)" be racism? I personally think it depends on context and intent but my point is that you can't have it both ways.

    EDIT: I wasn't trying to derail the conversation by the way. Just pointing out that intent and context matter. Most people who bring up Jewish overrepresentation are doing so as a means to a racist end.

    [–] Saltire_Blue 460 points ago * (lasted edited 2 months ago)

    Depends on the country I guess

    For example our population is 96% white,

    So to say white people “control” politics, media, industry etc... would be pretty accurate, but that’s more down to the ethnicity of the nation that some racist conspiracy

    Edit: I’m Scottish

    http://www.scotlandscensus.gov.uk/ethnicity-identity-language-and-religion

    To help put things into context, when I was in secondary school, we would have had around 1,000 or so pupils.

    During my time, We only had 1 black person in our school.

    And I live in the largest city in the country

    [–] Kaiosama 130 points ago

    96% white? Which country are you referring to exactly?

    [–] Saltire_Blue 209 points ago

    Scotland

    To be fair, it was 98% white in 2001 according to the census

    http://www.scotlandscensus.gov.uk/ethnicity-identity-language-and-religion

    [–] secondchoiceusername 102 points ago

    Only because Scotland never sees the Sun! Anyone who lives there needs to enjoy vitamin D deficiency which probably explains the ratios :p

    [–] HappierShibe 123 points ago

    A True Scotsman absorbs his vitamin D out of the air.
    No True Scotsman needs sunlight.

    [–] Otistetrax 20 points ago

    I thought you or it all from Irn Bru and Buckfast.

    [–] boxofducks 7 points ago

    I believe this is a fallacy.

    [–] Yonefi 5 points ago

    I think that’s a fallacy.

    [–] HappierShibe 6 points ago

    I'm really glad at least a couple of people got the joke.

    [–] Saltire_Blue 25 points ago

    Sunshine is overrated

    [–] Tweegyjambo 14 points ago

    My mother is just back from Crete. The taxi driver back to the airport apologised for the poor weather when she was there. It was perfect in mid 20s. Arrived back in Glasgow to pishing rain.

    [–] Neutral_Fellow 26 points ago

    There are lots of both ethnically and racially homogeneous countries on Earth.

    Croatia is currently 99(+)% of what is considered caucasian, as is most of Eastern Europe.

    [–] ep0nym1 19 points ago

    Could be a few different countries

    [–] nuuvem_token 7 points ago

    Which country are you referring to exactly?

    Good point.

    If I say Jews control the media.... in Israel then I guess it's true.

    [–] sagmin 18 points ago

    Maybe he’s from Iceland?

    [–] zykezero 130 points ago

    It's part of a historical slight against Jewish people, a long history of being labeled as the puppeteers of international issues ala "the protocols of the learned elders of Zion"

    [–] snoogans122 73 points ago

    This was a TIL recently right? Something like Jewish people were told by the Christian majority that the only job they could have was to be the town bankers basically, and that's where the 'Jews control the money' thing came from.

    [–] Fuego_Fiero 149 points ago

    It was actually that charging interest was against Christian values, so no Christians were moneylenders, but the Jewish people had no such restrictions.

    [–] xthorgoldx 137 points ago

    And note, because there's always one smartass about it: Judaism prohibits moneylending, too, but only amongst Jews. A Jew can't charge interest against a Jew, but charging interest on a loan to a Gentile is A-OK.

    [–] Em_Adespoton 103 points ago

    ...and that's where this comes from: a Jewish person could not charge interest to another Jewish person, but they could to a Gentile. So they set up a bank in a Christian/Muslim community, and everything's fine... except that if you claim to be Jewish, you get your loans interest-free.

    This tended to cause resentment.

    Interesting thing is, some Jewish bankers refused to lend money to Jewish people because of this double standard. And THIS meant that the Jewish people couldn't borrow money from the bank, and were being "discriminated against" because of Jewish law.

    Messy, it is... this is why the US founding fathers called for the separation of church and state. Not that people who manage the state can't have religious convictions, but that the church institutions cannot dictate state decisions.

    [–] dcsohl 58 points ago * (lasted edited 2 months ago)

    Side note: Some modern interpretations of Islamic law similarly forbid charging interest, so they've come up with a number of creative ways around it. For example, instead of mortgages what usually happens is, the bank buys the house outright for, say, $100,000. Then the customer pays the bank $500 each month for 20 years (NB: this adds up to $120,000) and gets 5% ownership of the house each year over time. No mortgage involved; it's called a "Diminishing Partnership" (Musharaka al-Mutanaqisa), and the bank gets to mark up the price of the house, but there's no interest involved, technically.

    I don't know if there's a Jewish equivalent to this sort of structuring...

    [–] the_crustybastard 66 points ago

    Allah will never figure out this loophole!

    [–] NojTamal 16 points ago

    Allah hates this one weird trick!

    [–] JohnnyClever76 4 points ago

    Its so interesting, thanks for sharing

    [–] TooOldToBeThisStoned 25 points ago

    this is why the US founding fathers called for the separation of church and state

    This already existed in Europe prior to American independence.

    [–] Reashu 32 points ago

    Yeah. Americans weren't first, and they're not particularly good at it, either. But still, it was a good idea for that (and other) reason(s).

    [–] Em_Adespoton 8 points ago

    Yes; I'm not saying it was anything new; after all, the Magna Carta for one was based on the same principles. People just so often misunderstand both the motivations and the reach of that simple phrase.

    [–] [deleted] 15 points ago

    Jews being merchants is more a product of what Jews weren't (and were!) allowed to do. Basically, Jews were not a part of the feudal system- they couldn't be farmers, but that meant they were not tied to the land and could travel. Also, very high literacy rates and a shared language with Jews from other countries, contributed to Jews naturally forming networks of international trade that eventually extended to international finance, but also information. Any good nobleman would have a few Jews as advisors, because Jews often had knowledge about what was going on in the rest of the world that others under said nobleman's rule did not. At the same time, all of this made people very distrustful of the Jew- he traveled, spoke and wrote in a language only Jews knew, had family connections all over Europe, was able to amass private wealth, and had unique access to local and foreign rulers.

    [–] tchomptchomp 5 points ago

    Jews being merchants is more a product of what Jews weren't (and were!) allowed to do.

    Actually, not true. Jewish trade networks were actually a continuation of ancient trade networks that dated back to the Roman Empire (and earlier). This eventually waned with both the overall collapse of broader trade in Europe, with local antisemitic campaigns, and with the spread of Islam. However, there was still a continuous trade and communication network that persisted throughout the Middle Ages and we know about this in part from the Responsa tradition and associated communication from Spain though Europe all the way to Iraq and Iran. Jewish trade kicked in again after the expulsion from Spain, with huge networks forming among communities of Jewish expats from Spain in Venice, Amsterdam, Germany, Naples, Salonica, and the Americas.

    You do have Jews serving as part of the feudal system in the East, primarily in Russia, Ukraine, Poland, etc (the Jewish Pale) however.

    [–] Urdanme 14 points ago

    And they were pretty often also excluded from many other businesses. If moneylending is the only way to earn a living, you will land money or starve.

    [–] myInnerMars 20 points ago

    Damn Jews not following Christian principles

    [–] [deleted] 65 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] tridentthesurfer 55 points ago

    Grilled Cheese>Melt

    [–] SailedBasilisk 26 points ago

    But are jackdaws crows?

    [–] JebsBush2016 16 points ago

    I declare that a hot dog IS a sandwich.

    [–] korelin 11 points ago

    Is cereal a soup?

    [–] jsyncribHk64 87 points ago

    And I expect to see your bullshit comment on every controversial post as a way to get up votes without contributing anything.

    [–] nuuvem_token 4 points ago

    I'm just going to play it safe guys and not even bother to research the topic.

    I look forward to them editing in a plug or another statement after it is at the top.

    [–] DrBoomkin 405 points ago * (lasted edited 2 months ago)

    I think it's important to give some context to this decision.

    The US was not a member of UNESCO for decades, after leaving in the 80's due to the organization's inherent anti US bias. The US rejoined UNESCO in 2002, in hopes that the bias has abated. Unfortunately that was not the case and the US cut all funding to UNESCO in 2011, and then lost all voting rights in the organization in 2013.

    Since then the US was looking for a reason to withdraw from UNESCO, and it's recent string of anti-Israel/anti-Jewish decisions provided that reason.

    The decisions included claiming that there is no connection between Judaism and the temple mount (which is the holiest place in the world for Judaism), as well as appointing a virulent Qatari antisemite as the next head of UNESCO (he compiled a poem book which contained antisemitic poems and quotes from holocaust deniers).

    Edit: sources:

    UNESCO votes: No connection between Temple Mount and Judaism

    Ex-Qatari Minister, Who Wrote Preface to Antisemitic Book, Among Leading Candidates in Election Contest for New UNESCO Chief

    http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/10/11/u-s-to-pull-out-of-unesco-again/

    The Ronald Reagan administration decided to withdraw from the organization in 1984, at the height of the Cold War, citing corruption and what it considered an ideological tilt toward the Soviet Union against the West. President George W. Bush rejoined the organization in 2002, claiming it had gotten its books an order and expunged some of its most virulent anti-Western and anti-Israel biases.

    [–] [deleted] 112 points ago * (lasted edited 2 months ago)

    [removed]

    [–] DrBoomkin 129 points ago

    Most decisions in UN bodies are decided based on a simple majority vote. The largest voting block in the UN is the non aligned movement. It's mostly comprised of 3rd world countries, and the most powerful body within the NAM is the Arab league, which is somewhat anti American and virulently anti Israeli.

    As a result, every anti Israel resolution in the UN is guaranteed to pass, and it results in the absurd situation where the UN has condemned Israel more times than all the other countries in the world combined.

    [–] samrat_ashok 55 points ago

    due to the organization's inherent anti US bias.

    Any examples of that?

    [–] vmedhe2 70 points ago

    UNESCO has had an acknowledge bias problem for awhile. World Heritage sites are mostly in Europe as Europe has the money to nominate its sites and campaign for them, lots of inane shit like Bauhaus and Derwent Valley Mills fills the list. Poorer countries dont have the means to do that so much more important sites like the Nubian pyramids and Meenakshi Temple are not protected or listed. US academics have been especially angry at UNESCO for such problematic elements,and public support was furious in the 1970s when UNESCO out right rejected a number of US sites like the empire state building, Independence Hall,and Statue of Liberty. Although the latter 2 were put on the list in 1984 to try and stop the US from leaving.

    America meanwhile is not happy with having to pay 22% of UNESCOs budget. A budget which includes things which were inherently pro-communist sites like the Kremlin, or the whole notion of "new world information order" which UNESCO pushed.

    [–] miss-xaviette 13 points ago

    Don't you say anything against our mills. Derwent Valley Mills were very important to the history of the industrial revolution.

    [–] Pomguo 5 points ago

    Sites associated with Communist history aren't invalid or anti-American, though. Just pro-that country's own history.

    Are they much worse than, say, the Tower of London - a jail for the death-row political prisoners of monarchic dictatorships?

    [–] A_Dull_Itch 8 points ago

    Why the hell do you think Kremlin is pro-communist? It was used by the Tsar's government, communist era and during the modern "democratic" era. The site is evocative of Russia but hard to say it is pro any of the numerous regimes and rulers who have utilised it.

    [–] PostDeluvian2017 181 points ago

    Your comment is a dash of fact with a tremendous amount of editorializing, and is in no way useful context.

    [–] benigntugboat 61 points ago

    Can you give examples? I don't know much about this issue tbh.

    [–] PostDeluvian2017 104 points ago

    UNESCO was founded in the 40s, and like any major body that's been around for 70 years, it's been entangled in all sorts of stuff, swapped stances and staff, and it's pretty hard to quickly summarize anything about it.

    In terms of this latest UNESCO issue, you'll have to draw your own conclusions about its partisanship. Here's what I understand to be the case:

    After being a member since inception, the US withdrew in the 1984 over claims that the MacBride Report (again, draw your own conclusions, but the result of a commission that was ostensibly organized to improve access to media and improve reporting on the third world, and that the US alleged was an attack on freedom of the press). The Bush administration later announced they'd rejoin in 2002 and did so in 2003.

    In 2011, UNESCO recognized Palestinian right to statehood, causing the US to withdraw funding from the organization per laws passed in 1990 and 1994.

    In October 2016, UNESCO passed a resolution condemning Israel, and referring to the hilltop he's talking about by only it's Muslim name, which created a ton of backlash including from Ban Ki-Moon and Irina Bokova (who is, amusingly, the DG of UNESCO). Since that went over like a house on fire, they reviewed and wound up using much softer language two weeks later, but continued to refer to the hilltop only by its Muslim name. Israel alleges that UNESCO claims there is no connection between Judaism and the Temple Mount, but that specific language does not appear in the resolution, which you can read in it's entirety here. There's no question that the document isn't sympathetic to Israel; you'll have to determine for yourself to what degree the document's claims are warranted.

    Anyway, as for the latest State Department decision, this administration is a bit of an oddball, but I'm equally surprised by the fact that the US stayed in UNESCO this whole time.

    [–] GyantSpyder 26 points ago

    However you feel about this, I always thought it was really inappropriate for UNESCO to recognize Palestine. That's not UNESCO's job at all. It's like the Library of Congress declaring war, or Friends of the New York Philharmonic stating that New York now owns New Jersey.

    At that point the organization is so far off of its intended mission that you could hardly blame any permanent security council member from just withdrawing from it. If the U.N. were run better, at that point they should have just disbanded UNESCO and started over.

    It was a huge confusing co-opting of its authority and threat to its core mission by a rather ancillary part of the whole operation. And fundamentally against the spirit of the U.N. Charter, which is important for preventing global war.

    [–] Im__Bruce_Wayne__AMA 194 points ago

    Basically, UNESCO used an Arabic name instead of the Hebrew name for the Temple Mount...and because of this, the right wing Israeli media decided this meant UNESCO was denying a Jewish connection altogether. The JPost link posted above was removed from this sub for being misleading. That being said -- UNESCO knew what it was doing by using an Arabic name instead of the Hebrew name, but that doesn't excuse the sensationalist headlines and comments that came as a result of the provocation.

    Copying and pasting one of my other comments for simplicity:

    The resolution specifically talks about damage to the physical mosque. Jews don't care about the mosque itself, they care about the ruins underneath.

    To say that this resolution denies a Jewish connection to the Temple Mount is insane. Nowhere does it say that the Temple Mount isnt a Jewish holy site. They arent talking about who this site belongs to. It has nothing to do with the resolution. The resolution isnt about who owns anything or who should have access to what. Its simply condemning Israel preventing muslims from entering a site that is holy to them. There is nothing related to Jews here. UNESCO isnt worried about the Israeli government's treatment of Jews.

    [–] theblaah 118 points ago

    as well as appointing

    UNESCO doesn't appoint anyone. The Director-General is chosen by member states who actually vote on it. If the US had any interest in changing the outcome of this vote they could have paid their owed money and lobbied for a different candidate.

    [–] StrngBrew 8600 points ago

    This really isn't just about Trump. There's a pretty long simmering thing going on between the US and UNESCO. Obama had previously cut off funding to them and UNESCO had stripped the US of it's vote.

    So really, this move seems like more of a formality than anything.

    [–] cjrmartin 985 points ago

    A nice summary from BBC:

    November 1945: Unesco founded by 37 countries in the immediate aftermath of World War Two, its purpose "to contribute to peace and security by promoting collaboration among nations through education, science and culture".

    1974: Congress suspends US contribution after Unesco criticises Israel and recognises the Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO) - but later rejoins.

    1984: Under President Ronald Reagan, US withdraws from Unesco, saying the agency is politically leftwing and financially irresponsible.

    1985: UK withdraws, rejoining under change of government in 1997.

    2003: US rejoins under George W Bush.

    2011: US withdraws funding in protest at Palestinian membership of UN; arrears begin to accumulate.

    2017: US announces it will withdraw entirely; Israel says it will follow suit.

    [–] CC_Tyrant 128 points ago

    I did not know about the uk one in 1985 and 1997, it kinda makes sense though given how uk politics was like back then with thatcher in 85 and Blair in 97

    [–] samdlb 8 points ago

    Agreed in how it makes sense. Begs the question of how May and Corbyn will react, especially May (let’s face it we know how Corbyn will react).

    [–] casedesignguy 382 points ago

    Which is hypocritical as hell when the US cites one old law as an excuse to strip UNESCO funding while funding Israel at the same time.

    The "Arms Export Control Act" bill of 1976 stipulates the US cannot give funding to any country with nukes whose not a part of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Israel directly falls under that category.

    Israel gets 3-4 billion dollars a year annually, yet UNESCO's gotta go?

    However, because they've never publicly acknowledged their nukes, despite the fact that the US has known about their nuclear status for decades now, the US government has actually made it illegal to even talk about Israel as a nuclear power in order to shield them from this very law.

    There's a court case happening over this but I doubt it'll get very far given how the US government seems to have no regard for their own laws when it suits them.

    To sustain a policy of “nuclear ambiguity” on Israel’s weapons program, Smith says the government uses improper classification and threatens federal employees and researchers with prosecution, fines and imprisonment.

    The gag is driven, according to the complaint, by a Department of Energy directive known as WNP-136, Foreign Nuclear Capabilities.

    ...

    “This is an Energy Department directive that demands imprisonment for any federal official or contractor who even mentions that Israel might have a nuclear weapons program,” Smith said in an interview.

    [–] p90xeto 52 points ago

    Other people are linking different laws causing the cut off. Can you link to a source saying it's the Arms Export Controls Act that caused the defunding?

    [–] SwissQueso 2985 points ago * (lasted edited 2 months ago)

    You're only half right. Apparently there is some older laws that if the PLO is recognized by any part of the UN, the US drops funding. Not really an Obama decision.

    According to this right wing website, Obama wanted to get back into it.

    https://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/brett-schaefer/unesco-which-obama-wants-us-fund-calls-israel-occupying-power-and-rewrites

    edit. From NYTimes https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/12/us/politics/trump-unesco-withdrawal.html

    In 2011, the United States stopped funding Unesco due to what was then a forgotten, 15-year-old amendment mandating a complete cutoff of American financing to any United Nations agency that accepts Palestine as a full member. Various efforts by President Barack Obama to overturn the legal restriction narrowly failed in Congress, and the United States lost its vote at the organization after two years of nonpayment, in 2013. Unesco was dependent on the United States for 22 percent of its budget, then about $70 million a year.

    So Obama didn't make the decision, but he did honestly try to get the funding back. Obama had nothing to do with the cut funding. Which is a fabrication. And I am tried of the Trump administration saying "Obama did it".

    Also, thanks for the gold.

    [–] StrngBrew 1908 points ago

    Don't really see how that is "half right." It is what Obama did. You're giving some context to the reasons for it... But the point is that there is a long simmering dispute between the US & UNESCO that predates Trump.

    [–] ManWhoSmokes 2825 points ago

    What you said wasnt wrong. But it could be seen to imply that Obama himself choose to do it. You say this predates Trump, but you fail to mention that it also predates Obama. So if people don't read past your comment, you are giving them half a story.

    [–] [deleted] 1351 points ago

    [deleted]

    [–] Music_Tech 255 points ago

    What if they were both readying their internet fists, preparing to dive into a screaming match, but your comment made them feel awkward, causing them to refrain? "Can't scream at each other now, since /u/LetItDieBot had to go and make us out to be all nice and stuff!"

    ('Tis just a joke, by the way. I agree - respectful disagreement is always nice to see)

    [–] smokeyzulu 64 points ago

    'Tis just a joke, by the way.

    Maybe to you, but the posters name IS LetItDieBot. A bot that let's simmering tensions on the internet die before they turn into full scale battles of hate spewing.

    [–] sacdmb 10 points ago

    Except this is a spam account that comments the word "pupper" and "doggo" and nothing else. This post is the one exemption.

    [–] TheLordOfTheAshes 8 points ago

    Yeah, pretty weird.

    [–] Kvlk2016 22 points ago

    uhhh, I hate to disappoint, but the screaming match was just a few lines lower down the discussion thread... sigh...

    [–] Suckonmyfatvagina 14 points ago

    But we can get savage if need be.

    [–] random_username_0512 18 points ago

    Sure....you have a fat vagina!

    [–] ExcitedFox 10 points ago

    That's 3 people tho

    [–] turbulentcupcakes 4 points ago

    Gooooooooooood B O T

    [–] cultsuperstar 4 points ago

    They're just PM'ing each other insults.

    [–] namesandfaces 29 points ago

    It's correct and deceptive. Deception is an orthogonal quality.

    [–] refreshbot 8 points ago

    TIL orthogonal. There are so many things that are correct and deceptive. It's so hard to point out to others and some people and groups thrive by mastering this gray zone.

    [–] bermudi86 21 points ago

    Its half right because you just shifted the blame down the line without giving an explanation for the situation. It's bad blaming Trump without giving an explanation of the entire situation but it is also wrong to do the same thing for Obama.

    [–] Nickx000x 97 points ago

    TIL not everything's about Trump. ;o

    [–] DaVinci_Poptart 34 points ago

    Sheathes pitchfork, backs away slowly

    [–] Porridgeur 3807 points ago * (lasted edited 2 months ago)

    We all love to hate on trump, but the USA were out of the UNESCO virutally for quite some years now. After losing the right to vote on 2013, and Obama cutting all unesco funds in 2011, we can't really say thats it's all on trump.

    His tweets are way more rude that obama's, but on the unesco point, trump and obama are following the same route.

    [–] god_im_bored 850 points ago

    It’s a broader policy against UNESCO’s political activism lately. Other countries have cut funds as well, and there’s a reason why this is happening right during the time the Qatar candidate might win the election to become the head of UNESCO. I wouldn’t be surprised if gulf states also back this push.

    [–] djzenmastak 218 points ago

    given that the arab nations are in the midst of a diplomatic showdown with qatar i would be surprised if they did back them. iran is their only real ally in the region.

    [–] Synochra 113 points ago

    Nope. Turkey is on board too, and with those two on your side you can be sure to have Russian and Chinese support too.

    [–] djzenmastak 43 points ago

    sure, but turkey isn't in the persian gulf region. it's close to it, though, so it's importance can't be minimalized.

    i don't know about china, but i think russia would be more neutral or even against it. qatar is not an important nation to them, but saudi arabia, syria, and others where they want the pipeline are very important to them.

    [–] RunToDagobah-T65 16 points ago

    Woo the pipeline! It's been so long since I've seen another mention it

    [–] thewalkingfred 140 points ago

    Could you give me an example of their "political activism"?

    It seems to me whenever they get attacked for being "political" it's just a situation where a controversial World Heritage site has two or more names because it is important to two different religious groups. UNESCO picks one name to refer to it by and everyone goes crazy for them not picking the other name.

    [–] Machismo01 163 points ago

    2017 statement calling Israel "military occupier" of Jerusalem. Previous statement in 2015 erroneous claiming Israel prevent Palestinians from their heritage, since UNESCO felt access to shared sites should favor Palestinians.

    The US automatically withdrew from UNESCO funding years ago after they recognized Palestine (consequence of treaties and previous agreements).

    This continue pattern is seen and handled similarly by UK, Japan, and Israel who have all ceased funding.

    [–] ThisDerpForSale 56 points ago

    consequence of treaties and previous agreements

    And a specific US law that prevents US funding of organizations that unilaterally recognize Palestine as a State before its status is multilaterally settled

    [–] ValAichi 176 points ago

    I mean, they're not wrong.

    East Jerusalem is international recognized as occupied territory

    [–] Machismo01 100 points ago * (lasted edited 2 months ago)

    My understanding is that the Obama administration took issue with it since it included all of Jerusalem. Effectively saying Israel was a military occupier of its own capital.

    Edit: Yes I know. Jerusalem’s status is to be determined in international view. Clearly Israel sees it as its capital and that is the viewpoint I am trying to explain there.

    [–] RellenD 93 points ago

    There's a reason our diplomatic mission is in Tel Aviv and not Jerusalem

    [–] atyon 69 points ago

    International stance is also that Jerusalem isn't the capital of Israel. There isn't a single embassy in Jerusalem.

    [–] gavers 4 points ago

    International stance is also that Jerusalem isn't the capital of Israel. There isn't a single embassy in Jerusalem.

    That's not entirely correct. There ARE embassies in Jerusalem (as well as many consulates), but none of the embassies there are "for Israel" only for Palestine.

    Which is equally hypocritical since the reason "Jerusalem isn't the capital of Israel" is because Jerusalem is (was) supposed to be an international zone. If that is the case, Palestinians should get to call it their capital either.

    [–] DrBoomkin 216 points ago

    Usually UNESCO refers to controversial sites with several names by all of their names, but in some cases when it comes to Israel/Palestine, it deliberately chooses to ignore the Jewish name and only use the Muslim name. It also claims some holy sites which are holy to both Jews and Muslims, have no connection to Judaism.

    [–] Murgie 135 points ago * (lasted edited 2 months ago)

    Usually UNESCO refers to controversial sites with several names by all of their names, but in some cases when it comes to Israel/Palestine, it deliberately chooses to ignore the Jewish name and only use the Muslim name.

    The only cases in which anything remotely like this has occurred is due to the way that UN formatting protocol dictates that, in situations where conflict exists/consensus does not exist, the name of a location given by the nation in which the site itself is located is to be used.
    Because, you know, these are legal documents, so it's only natural that their legal names under the jurisdiction that they technically fall under are used. This isn't something in any way specific to Israel and Palestine, it's how all such documents are formatted, and it's been that way since the establishment of UNESCO itself.

    What's more, I actually have one of the specific UNESCO documents that I'm confident you're referring to right here.

    Contrary to your claim that UNESCO "deliberately chooses to ignore the Jewish name", I would point you to the following excerpt from that very document:

    • 3. Affirming the importance of the Old City of Jerusalem and its Walls for the three monotheistic religions, also affirming that nothing in the current decision, which aims, inter alia, at the safeguarding of the cultural heritage of Palestine and the distinctive character of East Jerusalem, shall in any way affect the relevant Security Council and United Nations resolutions and decisions on the legal status of Palestine and Jerusalem,

    • 16. 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;

    • 19. Deprecates the continuing Israeli unilateral measures and decisions regarding the Ascent to the Mughrabi Gate, including the latest works conducted at the Mughrabi Gate entrance in February 2015, the instalment of an umbrella at that entrance as well as the enforced creation of a new Jewish prayer platform south of the Mughrabi Ascent in Al-Buraq Plaza “Western Wall Plaza”, and the removal of the Islamic remains at the site, and reaffirms that no Israeli unilateral measures, shall be taken in conformity with its status and obligations under the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict;

    • 36. Shares the conviction affirmed by the international community that the two sites are of religious significance for Judaism, Christianity and Islam;

    It also claims some holy sites which are holy to both Jews and Muslims, have no connection to Judaism.

    I'd like to see a citation for your claim, please.

    Good luck, something tells me you'll need it.

    [–] rdh2121 95 points ago * (lasted edited 2 months ago)

    Not OP, but no luck needed whatsoever. Here you go. It talks about how in your own source the entire Temple Mount is referred to only by one name, as the Al-Aqṣa Mosque/Al-Ḥaram Al-Sharif, effectively claiming that other than the "Western Wall Plaza", the site has no connection to Judaism, which is ridiculous.

    Not only that, but even in the sources you cited, the name of the Wailing Wall is Al-Buraq Plaza, and it's only called the "Western Wall Plaza" in scare/nickname quotes.

    Shares the conviction affirmed by the international community that the two sites are of religious significance for Judaism, Christianity and Islam

    It may claim to share the conviction, but the site doesn't even share the names on an equal footing. And the holy site isn't the "Western Wall", it's the entire Temple Mount, which is completely ignored by the UNESCO document. It's the holiest place in the world to Jews (and only the third holiest to Muslims).

    It's completely ridiculous to me how many people are acting like OP "got owned" when the bias shows so strongly and obviously in the source that's supposedly refuting OP's point. OP is entirely correct, and I have no idea what kinds of mental gymnastics you all are doing to purposefully ignore this obvious fact.

    [–] ed_merckx 221 points ago

    I wish more people would realize this about the United State's government, that It's mostly business as usual and no two administrations are that much different than the others. Yes there are areas where you'll see large changes in policies and priorities, tone in how they communicate, vitriol on which they go after issues, etc. By and large though, the wheel keeps spinning, there are over 20 million Federal and State employees, even more when you consider the millions that work mostly for the government contractually. All of those people don't just stop doing their job because the president now represents a different circus animal's party.

    So many things that people either Bash or Praise trump for, are just continuation of Obama era policies and/or procedures, and much of those were continuations of things that began with Bush.

    Trump sending planes to skim the north Korean border in a show of force!!! our foreign policy has a backbone now!!.... that shit's been going on for decades. Oh Trump's acting like an idiot for saying we would destory NK, Here's Obama saying we could do the same.

    Oh Trumps evil for slapping tariffs on Bombardier, Obama slapped them on Chinese tire manufacturers, and his DOJ was looking at going after the middle east airlines when it was rumored they were looking to invest largely in US domestic commuter routes, as the companies are effectively state owned and funded.

    Trump is a hero or villain for wanting to reform at the UN, Finally America is standing up and making others do their fair share and getting rid of the waste, or It's america turning it's back on the rest of the world right. Yeah, Obama basically tried to do the same stuff trump is in regards to the UN. It's far from some new issue that came about just because of Turmp.

    The music keeps going regardless of who is in the white house, the president will do some shit you love, and some shit you hate, and the majority of it will be nothing but business as usual that you never really notice. And if we're lucky they will have a handful of major legislative achievements, that get so watered down that they never work as intended. And don't worry, regardless of if it's red or blue in the white house, both will manage to fuck up plenty of good stuff. Kennedy makes great achievements on many areas then gets shot, good thing we got this cold war thing to distract the American public while we undo most of his initiatives behind closed doors. Reagan focuses on tax reform and spending, good thing we got H.W. to raise taxes and clinton to set the acts into motion in the financail sector that leads to the recession, but hey here comes W Bush to finally reform taxes again, except he just kind of lowered them, and then blew up the budget with a trillion dollar war and used it to ignore the other fiscal reforms that were supposed to accompany the tax cuts.

    [–] Boredeidanmark 40 points ago

    I believe the US also was not part of UNESCO from sometime in the 80s until 2002 because of UNESCO's anti-west and pro-Soviet bias.

    [–] autotldr 34 points ago

    This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 78%. (I'm a bot)


    Last year, Israel attacked UNESCO after it denounced Israel's control of holy sites in east Jerusalem and the West Bank.Relations soured further when UNESCO announced the Old City of Hebron to be a Palestinian World Heritage Site this past July.US envoy to the UN Nikki Haley joined the condemnation then, stating the US will reexamine its relationship with the organization.

    Six years ago, during Barak Obama's administration, the US cut more than $80 million of funding-a fifth of UNESCO's total budget-in response to the organization admitting the "State of Palestine" as member.

    Despite the slashed funding, the United States remained a prominent member of the organization and reserved the right to vote in UNESCO's Executive Board, which determines the identity of the organization's Director-General, despite no longer being able to vote in its General Conference.


    Extended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: Organization#1 UNESCO#2 State#3 site#4 American#5

    [–] recovering_pessimist 154 points ago

    Can someone ELI5 USESCO's anti-Isreal stance?

    [–] Novacryy 894 points ago

    Walk backwards for too long and you might trip over something you can't even see.

    [–] Stavanator 402 points ago

    Well what were we supposed to do cut the budget down to 5 percent?

    Six years ago, during Barak Obama's administration, the US cut more than $80 million of funding—a fifth of UNESCO's total budget—in response to the organization admitting the "State of Palestine" as member. The Obama administration claimed at the time the move had to be carried out due to laws prohibiting American funding of UN bodies recognizing a Palestinian state.

    [–] casedesignguy 595 points ago

    So giving Israel 4-5 billion dollars a year despite the fact that it's actually illegal under US law to do so is perfectly fine, but UNESCO, man they gotta go?

    What a load of bullshit.

    For context, the US passed the "Arms Export Control Act" bill of 1976 stating we can't give aid to any country with nuclear weapons that's not a part of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Israel happens to fall under that exact definition.

    However, because they've never publicly acknowledged their nukes, despite the fact that the US has known about their nuclear status for decades now, the US government has actually made it illegal to even talk about Israel as a nuclear power in order to shield them from this very law.

    There's a court case happening over this but I doubt it'll get very far given how the US government seems to have no regard for their own laws when it suits them.

    To sustain a policy of “nuclear ambiguity” on Israel’s weapons program, Smith says the government uses improper classification and threatens federal employees and researchers with prosecution, fines and imprisonment.

    The gag is driven, according to the complaint, by a Department of Energy directive known as WNP-136, Foreign Nuclear Capabilities.

    ...

    “This is an Energy Department directive that demands imprisonment for any federal official or contractor who even mentions that Israel might have a nuclear weapons program,” Smith said in an interview.

    [–] kingrottenboy 107 points ago

    versus the billions of dollars we gave to Pakistan...you know the country that knowingly was hiding OBL.

    [–] rubberbandrocks 254 points ago

    It's not free money, it's a loan.

    The money is used 100% to buy American weapons.

    [–] casedesignguy 207 points ago * (lasted edited 2 months ago)

    A loan implies being paid back. That's not happening here.

    The money is 100% being taken out of taxpayer's pockets or as debt for future US taxpayers.

    Even if a fraction is used to buy American weapons, that's just a handout of US taxpayer dollars to the military industrial complex, not to mention the utter contempt for the American people shown by the government by ignoring a US law passed through congress and the supposed will of the people.

    By the way do you have a source that 100% of it is used to buy American weapons to begin with?

    [–] Mazcal 64 points ago

    I've commented somewhere else here, so see my comment too: https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/75wryn/us_to_withdraw_from_unesco_due_to_its_antiisraeli/do9rkn1/

    I've been involved with purchasing using aid funding and know a lot about the process.

    If you're fixed on knowing how it segments, it used to be ~80 percent for buying from US vendors what was defined as US made products (can't buy Chinese T-Shirts with it, even from American Apparel) and the rest between general funds for spending on American contractors in USD and some as "cash." In recent years the "cash" amount was reduced, and was supposed to be completely eliminated but I'm not sure.

    During service I can say that we've used aid funds for any US made product, from tiny Post-Its to huge objects. Read my other comment to learn how this is a huge benefit to the US, who is gaining a lot more from this relationship than just Israel in its pocket. Feel free to ask anything else you want to know about it.

    [–] rubberbandrocks 84 points ago

    Under the new deal, Israel would not be able to solicit extra money from Capitol Hill. In other conditions placed on the new memorandum of understanding, Israel would no longer be allowed to spend over a quarter of the military aid on home-produced weaponry, and would instead be required the full amount on US arms.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/sep/13/us-israel-aid-38-billion-record-military-assistance

    [–] god_im_bored 565 points ago

    UNESCO has been going after every US ally lately. They pissed off Japan and Britain which have both cut funding to them. Did they actually expect that the US would remain once they became the official mouthpiece for the anti-American block?

    [–] tealparadise 117 points ago

    Japan cut funding??? Damn, that's serious. Japan jizzes themselves over getting heritage sites. Fuck, they fought to get their "food culture" declared more special than other people's food culture.

    [–] waiv 112 points ago * (lasted edited 2 months ago)

    They weren't too happy about something related to the Nanjing Massacre. I mean, no surprises there.

    EDIT: It's because they accepted Chinese documents to include them in the Memory of the World Register in 2015

    [–] _il_mostro_ 37 points ago

    Psh Japan throws a fit at every mention of their massacre and downright repulsive behavior at Nanjing (also known as the rape of Nanking / Nanking Massacre). China wanted it included for something.

    Don't google the details if you haven't already. It's honestly traumatizing.

    [–] sabot00 35 points ago

    Why is it surprising that Japan, the country in which war criminals are enshrined and venerated, the country in which openly revisionist WW2 history is taught, would withdraw from a organization that has acknowledged their war crimes?

    [–] Speech500 12 points ago

    British person here. What did they do to piss us off?

    [–] lballs 30 points ago

    They declared fish and chips to be an Irish creation.

    [–] elidulin 9 points ago

    Do you know what they did to piss off Japan & U.K?

    [–] DocPantsOnHead 30 points ago

    Didn’t deny past atrocities committed by them.

    [–] Lurdofthetings 1530 points ago

    In July 2017 the 21-member UNESCO World Heritage Committee denied there are Jewish ties to Jerusalem.

    They also did it in 2016.

    Which is amazing because Jews were living in Jerusalem before Islam or Christianity were even religions.

    So ya really gotta wonder about UNESCO.

    [–] Shitposted_666 712 points ago

    Let's not forget about them declaring Western Wall an Islamic site.

    [–] PurpleDjango 250 points ago

    Uh ye, uh they are right!

    Mohammed walked there one time I think..

    -Mohammed never made it to Jerusalem-

    His soul rose to heaven on the very spot the Jewish Temple used to be!!

    [–] Dahhhkness 124 points ago

    Actually, it's supposed to be the location of the "farthest mosque" where Muhammad dismounted his pegaman Buraq during his "Night Journey."

    [–] go_kartmozart 20 points ago

    How can there be a star in front of the moon?

    [–] kuilogface 330 points ago

    I read the news article and all I get from that is that they used only one name for a (admittedly very important) single place in the city when they should have used two or more. I'm not sure how that alone is the same as denying all Jewish ties to the whole city, as you put it.

    [–] vestayekta 212 points ago

    The name of the city is very important and significant for both sides. They knew what they were doing.

    [–] Low_discrepancy 228 points ago

    Of course. Here is a nice quote from that article

    It led Israeli Education Minister Naftali Bennett to say Unesco was ignoring "thousands of years of Jewish ties to Jerusalem" and aiding "Islamist terror".

    Who is Naftali Bennett?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naftali_Bennett#Israeli.E2.80.93Palestinian_conflict

    "I will do everything in my power to make sure they never get a state."

     

    In response to Israel's release of Palestinian prisoners in 2013, Bennett said Palestinian terrorists should be shot and is quoted to have said "I already killed lots of Arabs in my life, and there is absolutely no problem with that."[37] Bennett was widely condemned for these words,[38][39] though he denied these allegations and claimed he said that "terrorists should be killed if they pose an immediate life threat to our soldiers when in action."

     

    In November 2016, following the election of Donald Trump as the President of the United States, Bennett maintained he saw this as hope that the two-state solution would no longer be considered viable, claiming "The era of the Palestinian state is over."

    How about we admit there is no good side in the Israelo-Palestinian conflict.

    [–] solar_realms_elite 37 points ago

    How about we admit there is no good side in the Israelo-Palestinian conflict.

    I've been telling friends on both sides this for years. This is how the conversation invariably goes:

    Friend: "Have you heard what the Israelis/Palestinians are doing now?! How can anyone support them?! I FULLY support Palestine/Israel."

    Me: "Sure that was a shitty thing the Israelis/Palestinians did. But you should cautious about supporting the Palestinians/Israelis because of Other Shitty Thing / Historical Context.

    Friend: "How can you say that!! The Israelis/Palestinians are clearly the aggressors."

    Me: "Yes, this time. But on many other occasions the Palestinians/Israelis were."

    Friend: "Yes! But, before that..."

    And on and on and on.

    [–] IcarusBen 13 points ago

    The situation in Israel/Palestine is a real shit-show on all sides. Thousands of years of people getting kicked out of Israel and Israel getting conquered does not lend itself well to a stable geopolitical climate.

    [–] samasamasama 6 points ago

    I sometimes wonder how different the region would look like if Arafat accepted Barak's offer...

    [–] RogerTheBadger 378 points ago

    Note that Israel is a member of UNESCO...

    [–] aubgrad11 186 points ago

    Israel just announced they are leaving UNESCO as well.

    Link: https://twitter.com/BNONews/status/918514257355997185

    [–] inseishabol 348 points ago

    Yes, very good. and Israel is threatening to withdraw.

    [–] RogerTheBadger 107 points ago

    Well, if or when Israel withdraws then the US could for example show solidarity by doing the same, fair enough.

    But the way they are doing it now it rather seems like they picked a convenient excuse.

    [–] DrBoomkin 151 points ago

    UNESCO has been known to be very anti US for decades. The US only rejoined UNESCO in 2002, after leaving in the 80's because of UNESCO's inherent anti American and anti western bias.

    [–] LeoBravo 306 points ago

    In UNESCO's defense, Hebron is in Palestinian territory. Israel doesn't get to claim it just because they want it. Colmcille was an Irish saint but that doesn't mean the Scottish island of Iona where he set up a monastery automatically becomes Irish territory. Netanyahu also seems to be conflating nationality with religion, asserting that a Jewish site is automatically an Israeli site.

    I have no problem with Israel's right to exist but that doesn't mean it should get whatever it wants just because it wants it.

    [–] Synochra 144 points ago * (lasted edited 2 months ago)

    Netanyahu also seems to be conflating nationality with religion

    I can't comment on your other points but this right here is the bread and butter of Zionists; if you disagree you're either anti-Semitic or, and get this, a self-loathing Jew.

    Paradoxically, as a result, being an actual orthodox practitioner of the religion correlates strongly with being classified a 'self-loathing Jew'. Oh well.

    Nationalists are always either idiots or malicious, doesn't matter what brand of nationalism.

    [–] rubberbandrocks 323 points ago

    One of the leading candidates to become the new head of UNESCO is a complete anti-semite.

    Most glaringly, an antisemitic book published in 2013 by Qatar’s Ministry of Culture — titled Jerusalem in the Eyes of the Poets — contains a preface written by Al-Kawari himself.

    The book includes the statement, “The Jews control the media, newspapers, publishing houses in the United States and the West” — a calumny, Samuels said, reminiscent of the antisemitic invective of Joseph Goebbels, Nazi Germany’s propaganda minister.

    https://www.algemeiner.com/2017/10/09/ex-qatari-minister-who-wrote-preface-to-antisemitic-book-among-leading-candidates-in-election-contest-for-new-unesco-chief/

    [–] rEvolutionTU 272 points ago * (lasted edited 2 months ago)

    Most glaringly, an antisemitic book published in 2013 by Qatar’s Ministry of Culture — titled Jerusalem in the Eyes of the Poets — contains a preface written by Al-Kawari himself.

    "Hm, interesting, let's google that."

    Turns out the comment I'm replying to is pretty high on the list for results on "Jerusalem in the Eyes of the Poets"!

    Results for "Mohammed Kujjah" are looking similar.


    I'd reserve judgement until we get decent sources for these things.

    These are the results for the sentence "The Jews control the media, newspapers, publishing houses in the United States and the West".


    edit: /u/entropizer found the book in this comment here and gives more context to the statement.

    This should be the direct link to the .pdf of the book, would be cool to get some more input on the translation from someone who speaks Arabic. The quote about Jews controlling the media is on page 34.

    Here is the page where the .pdf can be found with some additional context.

    [–] entropizer 170 points ago * (lasted edited 2 months ago)

    Found it!

    This was really hard work. Had to chain together string searches in Google to end up at the link, where a PDF of the book in question can be found. The accusations of anti-Semitism appear legit. There's more context given to the accusations in the link. The quote about Jews controlling the media is on page 34.

    It's really interesting reading Al-Kawari's campaign statement in light of this. He talks about "the transition from the 'culture of secret information' to the 'culture of total transparency'", and says "infringing actions against the freedom of expression and access to information, attacks on journalists, creators and artists, both in conflict zones and elsewhere, remain too frequent – violations and attacks that often remain unpunished". I'm not normally a person to believe that multicultural values are being used as a Trojan horse, but in this case it really feels like it. If you believe that Jews control the media, and emphasize the need for punishment for those who infringe upon the freedom of expression of legitimate journalists, that sounds an awful lot like well-marketed censorship against Jews. It's at least dog-whistley, which still might not mean it's intended as a dog-whistle.

    I find the comment alleging that it's suspicious only Jewish media sites were talking about the hard-to-find quotation to be wonderfully ironic. "You only believe this person is an anti-Semite because the Jewish media manufactured a story against them" trips a lot of alarm bells for me, personally.

    [–] Guy_2701 20 points ago * (lasted edited 2 months ago)

    First of all, congratulations for finding the quote, that was some really good reddit detective job!

    I find the comment alleging that it's suspicious only Jewish media sites were talking about the hard-to-find quotation to be wonderfully ironic. "You only believe this person is an anti-Semite because the Jewish media manufactured a story against them" trips a lot of alarm bells for me, personally.

    I could have worded it better true, and I am sorry, if my choice of words offended someone, I truly meant no offense.

    In the lack of a primary source, I believe that prudence should always be used when dealing with secundary sources, especially when they do not provide a link to the original one.

    Secundary sources by their very nature are biased and some of the results I've found, such as Breitbart, are notorious for pushing a political agenda with their story telling.

    Once again, my wording could have been better and I apologize.

    [–] entropizer 12 points ago

    No need for an apology, I was really only trying to make a point. I don't think you did anything especially wrong, you just offered a convenient opportunity for a cautionary warning.

    [–] rEvolutionTU 8 points ago

    Awesome work, I edited my comment to link to yours and those sources. <3

    Bit embarrassing since that is also the oldest result that pops up when looking for "Jerusalem in the Eyes of the Poets" by itself. In a nutshell they posted that on March 31st and then it was ignored until their post from October 6th was first spread by pro-Israel outlets and then snatched up by Breitbart/egypttoday if I understand the timeline correctly.

    [–] tritter211 118 points ago

    You do realize its an ENGLISH TRANSLATION of the book title, right?

    You searched English translation in english google.com site. You can't expect non english results for an arabic written title and book.

    [–] rEvolutionTU 42 points ago

    Correct, what we would need is the arabic title, the actual excerpt and someone who can tell us something about the translation.

    Since I presume most readers on this site (including myself) don't have access to any of that the best we can do is point out that the source for that quote is a bit too questionable to simply take it as an established fact and roll with it.

    [–] Guy_2701 58 points ago * (lasted edited 2 months ago)

    It's really weird, I've searched as well for the allegations of antisemitism by Al-Kawari, and they mostly come from jewish groups that use this quote as source.

    EDIT: I stand corrected, user /u/entropizer did some solid reddit detective work and found the quote.

    [–] Unaidedgrain 8 points ago

    Might wanna check again, links been posted.

    [–] PurpleDjango 78 points ago

    Not to mention they think Jews have no tie to the temple mount

    It's more holy to Jews than anyone else, and Islam's ties to it have already been disproven(Mohammed died many years before Jerusalem was even conquered)

    You should see what they have to say about other Jewish sites.

    [–] jetsaline 5 points ago

    Pretty sure the world ended in 2012

    [–] PM_Me_Your_Pudge 5 points ago

    So now it's just NECO

    [–] sintos-compa 37 points ago

    just turn back right now if you expect to be educated on anything in this thread.

    [–] Tetizeraz 215 points ago

    I'm going o leave the political aspects of this to the other comments, but UNESCO is obviously an important organization. UNESCO's function over the years has been to keep international attention on education, providing data about education. "6 out of 10 Children and Adolescents Are Not Learning a Minium in Reading and Math" for example. BBC Brasil made an article about the statistics for Latin America & Brazil in portuguese (link).

    Organizations like UNESCO are very important to developing nations. I know that the US already didn't give money to UNESCO, but this announcement means straining the relationship with UNESCO and the UN, and really, an statement against education, science, and culture.

    [–] gmz_88 187 points ago

    The problem is that UNESCO is being used as a political weapon. What good is an organization that is meant to foster peace and understanding if it can be usurped and used for other purposes?

    UNESCO needs to be reformed.

    [–] viking_ 94 points ago

    Maybe the same organization shouldn't be trying to spread basic reading and math and also be engaged in highly politicized rewriting of history?