6 ms·

This is in response to the flagged comment that, apparently, I cannot comment on. I'm not thrilled about what current US administration is doing when it comes

This is in response to the flagged comment that, apparently, I cannot comment on. I'm not thrilled about what current US administration is doing when it comes to international NGOs. UNESCO is one example. However, there's also another problem: various UN bodies became tools for international politics instead of doing what they were originally designed to do. It's another example of good will easily subverted by malicious actors to serve shady political goals. These international organizations need restructuring that would introduce some sort of a watchdog that would make sure these organizations don't overstep their aria of responsibility. Similarly to how constitutional democracies usually have separation of power and multiple branches of government that are supposed to counterbalance each other. My layman understanding of the reason for UNESCO existence is the preservation of cultural heritage. This shouldn't be political. This should be based on historical or archeological knowledge as well as arts. However, UNESCO as well as eg. UNICEF and other similar orgs shamelessly engage in political activism that has nothing to do with conservation efforts. The officers of these organizations haven't been elected to represent political wishes of their constituents. They bare no responsibility for the effects of political propaganda they are spreading, but it's impossible to prevent them from doing something they shouldn't be doing by all accounts. Bad political actors found a way to subvert and misuse organizations that were intended for a good cause. We need to figure out a way to fight this subversion. Defunding is both too late, and comes at a cost of not having an organization that cares about preservation of historical heritage or the rights of children etc.

layer8 1y ago
> My layman understanding of the reason for UNESCO existence is the preservation of cultural heritage. This shouldn't be political. It is political when cultures are being eradicated. Tibet is one of several examples.
kennywinker 1y ago
UNICEF’s mission is “providing humanitarian and developmental aid to children worldwide” Children in gaza are being intentionally starved by israel blocking food aid. At least 15 people including one infant have been starved to death in the past 24 hours. UNESCO’s mission is preservation of cultural heritage. Gaza and the west bank are being ethnically cleansed, and their arts and culture have already been physically destroyed by US bombs dropped by israel. This will destroy cultural groups, thus leaving little to preserve. The world is political. You give someone a goal of preserving culture, or protecting children, and all of a sudden they’ll start speaking out when you destroy culture and starve children.
- busterarm 1y ago
  Hamas, who run Gaza, want to "Globalize the Intifada" and bring violence to Jews worldwide. You speak about ethnic cleansing like if the roles were reversed we wouldn't be seeing the same thing. This is basically just criticizing Israel for having the means. Clearly both have the will. The two parties are locked into a death pact with each other.
  - kennywinker 1y ago
    > This is basically just criticizing Israel for having the means. No, it’s criticizing israel for the will, the means, and the action of murdering tens of thousands and starving millions. > Hamas, who run Gaza, want to "Globalize the Intifada" and bring violence to Jews worldwide This is one interpretation of that phrase. Intifada means roughly “shaking off”. A call for international support for shaking off the oppression of Palestinians is how it’s usually understood. I’m not here to defend hamas, but using the words of hamas to excuse the genocide of all palestinians (including in the west bank where hamas does not exist) is disgusting. Like using the words of trump to justify shooting up a walmart. But you are right in that if hamas was doing the same thing that israel is doing UNESCO and UNICEF would be “getting political” about that too.
    - s5300 1y ago
      [dead]
    - busterarm 1y ago
      > This is one interpretation of that phrase. And I could always say "the final solution" is referring to my math homework. In the context of the Palestinian occupation, intifada ALWAYS is meant as violent. There is no other interpretation. Pretending that it doesn't is both bad faith and classic taqiyya.
      - kennywinker 1y ago
        > The First Intifada was characterized by protests, general strikes, economic boycotts, and riots[1] Sounds like violence was a small component of the first intifada. So, tell me again how it always means violence? And also how did you get from violence against israeli occupation to violence against all jews? [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globalize_the_intifada https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globalize_the_intifada
nine_k 1y ago
This should be the top comment. I greatly doubt it's going to be.

layer8 1y ago

> My layman understanding of the reason for UNESCO existence is the preservation of cultural heritage. This shouldn't be political. It is political when cultures are being eradicated. Tibet is one of several examples.

kennywinker 1y ago

UNICEF’s mission is “providing humanitarian and developmental aid to children worldwide” Children in gaza are being intentionally starved by israel blocking food aid. At least 15 people including one infant have been starved to death in the past 24 hours. UNESCO’s mission is preservation of cultural heritage. Gaza and the west bank are being ethnically cleansed, and their arts and culture have already been physically destroyed by US bombs dropped by israel. This will destroy cultural groups, thus leaving little to preserve. The world is political. You give someone a goal of preserving culture, or protecting children, and all of a sudden they’ll start speaking out when you destroy culture and starve children.

busterarm 1y ago
Hamas, who run Gaza, want to "Globalize the Intifada" and bring violence to Jews worldwide. You speak about ethnic cleansing like if the roles were reversed we wouldn't be seeing the same thing. This is basically just criticizing Israel for having the means. Clearly both have the will. The two parties are locked into a death pact with each other.
- kennywinker 1y ago
  > This is basically just criticizing Israel for having the means. No, it’s criticizing israel for the will, the means, and the action of murdering tens of thousands and starving millions. > Hamas, who run Gaza, want to "Globalize the Intifada" and bring violence to Jews worldwide This is one interpretation of that phrase. Intifada means roughly “shaking off”. A call for international support for shaking off the oppression of Palestinians is how it’s usually understood. I’m not here to defend hamas, but using the words of hamas to excuse the genocide of all palestinians (including in the west bank where hamas does not exist) is disgusting. Like using the words of trump to justify shooting up a walmart. But you are right in that if hamas was doing the same thing that israel is doing UNESCO and UNICEF would be “getting political” about that too.
  - s5300 1y ago
    [dead]
  - busterarm 1y ago
    > This is one interpretation of that phrase. And I could always say "the final solution" is referring to my math homework. In the context of the Palestinian occupation, intifada ALWAYS is meant as violent. There is no other interpretation. Pretending that it doesn't is both bad faith and classic taqiyya.
    - kennywinker 1y ago
      > The First Intifada was characterized by protests, general strikes, economic boycotts, and riots[1] Sounds like violence was a small component of the first intifada. So, tell me again how it always means violence? And also how did you get from violence against israeli occupation to violence against all jews? [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globalize_the_intifada https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globalize_the_intifada

nine_k 1y ago

This should be the top comment. I greatly doubt it's going to be.