Oh please...
You miss the point: The Unesco does not care all that much about who lived where thousands of years ago, beyond preserving that knowledge. The Unesco is about preserving archeological sites today. Ancestral claims are not an excuse for... well, anything. If you actually look at the UNESCO piece the uproar is about, you'd read about how it considers Jerusalem the site of the three monotheïstic religions etc. It just refues to refer to the place as exclusively jewish, as the UN refers to the sites mentioned as being part of the nation of Jordan. This refers to an issue from the eighties.
From the
Wikipedia page on UNESCO (
emphasis mine):
UNESCO pursues its objectives through five major programs: education, natural sciences, social/human sciences, culture and communication/information. Projects sponsored by UNESCO include literacy, technical, and teacher-training programmes, international science programmes, the promotion of independent media and freedom of the press, regional and cultural history projects, the promotion of cultural diversity, translations of world literature, international cooperation agreements to secure the world cultural and natural heritage (World Heritage Sites) and to preserve human rights, and attempts to bridge the worldwide digital divide. It is also a member of the United Nations Development Group.
UNESCO is
very much involved in cultural history, and hey, guess what! That has to deal with "who lived where thousands of years ago", which—if discarded—renders the entire point of archaeological sites moot. Please quit spouting nonsense.
#Butwaittheresmore!
It refers to these areas in their Jordan names...
Later on, in the Controversies section:
In October 2010, UNESCO's Executive Board voted to declare the sites as "al-Haram al-Ibrahimi/Tomb of the Patriarchs" and "Bilal bin Rabah Mosque/Rachel's Tomb" and stated that they were "an integral part of the occupied Palestinian Territories" and any unilateral Israeli action was a violation of international law.
Different date, different sites, different issue—but look at the names. Both are referred to in two ways - by their Arabic-in-English (i.e. Arabic transliterated into English letters) Islamic names as well as their English Jewish names (although the Hebrew-in-English Jewish names, such as "Me'arat HaMachpelah" and "Kever Rachel", respectively, are omitted for some reason, but whatever). So precedent exists for UNESCO acknowledging both the Jewish and Islamic historical significance of such locations (rendered language notwithstanding).
...according to International Law, Jordan still owns the region.
This is an aside, but I'd be very much interested in seeing how International Law gets translated to mean that Jordan has a legitimate claim to the region. After all, they captured and occupied that region in an offensive war they initiated to eradicate the newly-formed State of Israel in 1948.
But getting back to the issue of the thread, let's say that's why the names are as they are—because Jordan owns said region. What region are we referring to? What you call the "West Bank", or what was known for thousands of years as Judea and Samaria? Guess what—both "al-Haram al-Ibrahimi/Tomb of the Patriarchs" and "Bilal bin Rabah Mosque/Rachel's Tomb" are located in that same region, just like the Temple Mount/whatever-it's-called-in-Arabic. So why does UNESCO refer to the Temple Mount exclusively by its Islamic name, and exclude the Jewish name?
Finally, let's look a bit further on in Wikipedia, at the paragraph specifically referring to the issue of this thread (again, emphasis mine):
On 13 October 2016, UNESCO passed a resolution condemning Israel for purported "illegal aggression" against the Palestinian people, while subsequently denying that the Temple Mount had any connection to Judaism, referring to the holy site exclusively by its Islamic names. After receiving "vilification" from numerous Israeli politicians and diplomats, including Benjamin Netanyahu and Ayelet Shaked, Israel froze all ties with the organization. Netanyahu was quoted as saying, “To say that Israel has no link to the Temple Mount is like saying that China has no link to the Great Wall or that Egypt has no connection to the Pyramids”. On 14 October 2016, Ban ki-Moon and the Director-General of UNESCO highly criticized the draft-declaration, declaring that Judaism, Islam and Christianity have clear historical connections to Jerusalem and any attempt to deny the links between Judaism, the Temple Mount and the Western Wall were an affront to history and made the struggle for peace a more difficult one.
So please, quit your attempts at
pretending this issue was illegitimate affronting history and making the struggle for peace a more difficult one.
The controversial resolution starts by affirming the “importance of the Old City of Jerusalem and its Walls for the three monotheistic religions,”
So Sandwich, even the sources you have provided prove that your original starting claim and the title of this entire thread is bull****. Can you actually make a coherent argument about why Jewish people are upset? Cause if you're deliberately misrepresenting the argument from the first post (and even your sources are deliberately misrepresenting the argument), I see no reason for anyone to pay any attention to this.
Let's look at the context for that line:
The controversial resolution starts by affirming the “importance of the Old City of Jerusalem and its Walls for the three monotheistic religions,” but then goes on to accuse Israel — which it consistently calls “the occupying power” — of a long list of wrongdoings.
The text “firmly deplores the continuous storming” of the Al-Aqṣa Mosque/Al-Ḥaram AlSharif — Muslim names for the Temple Mount compound and the mosque located there — “by Israeli right-wing extremists and uniformed forces.”
It also decries Israeli works in the Western Wall Plaza, which it terms the al-Burak plaza after the Muslim name for the site.
The Western Wall, the outer retaining wall of the Second Jewish Temple, is the holiest site where Jews today can pray, and sits at the bottom of the Temple Mount, Judaism’s holiest spot.
The Al-Aqsa Mosque, regarded by Muslims as the third-holiest site in Islam, sits atop the Mount, known to Muslims as the Haram al-Sharif, along with the Dome of the Rock.
Or, as stated far more succinctly in even the left-wing, liberal
Ha'aretz article:
The resolution asserted that Jerusalem is holy to the three monotheistic religions: Judaism, Islam and Christianity. However, it includes a special section dealing with the Temple Mount, which says the site is sacred only to Muslims and fails to mention that it is sacred to the Jews as well. In fact, it mentions neither the Hebrew term for the site – Har HaBayit – nor its English equivalent, the Temple Mount. The site is referred to only by its Muslim names – Al-Aqsa Mosque and Haram al-Sharif.
Do I need to spell the issue out for you any further?
Experience with these threads has told me to assume that whenever Sandwich posts something about Israel, it's almost always slanted to the point of being ridiculous/flat out wrong. 
Even reading the article seems not worth my time - just assume the opposite.
Thanks - your thoughts and opinions mean
SO much to me (hint: continue assuming the opposite).
