The resolution very likely was phrased in a loaded way or had some bit that was dubious
These resolutions are publicly available on the UN website, are typically quite short, and actually quite easy to read in general. This one in particular is only 11 pages long, which includes skippable boilerplate. So this assertion is relatively easy to back up and doesn’t need to rely on assumptions, and it can actually be quite fun to read one of these resolutions; you get to feel like a proper journalist or scholar or something. So I would suggest you give it a read and seek out the bit that you find most objectionable.
Personally, based on not much more than gut feelings and historical precedent on similar distributions in votes, am a bit more uncertain than you about the reason behind this distribution. If we take the Palestine cease fire vote in the UN of December 2023, for example, you have a very similar distribution. And I know for a fact that that was an earnest, unobjectionable resolution, that was only voted down by the US because it was in their material interest to do so, and voted down by US client states (or abstention) because they’re client states. But on the other hand, we also have the obvious context of Russia using this exact language as an excuse for their illegal invasion of Ukraine, so it’s entirely conceivable that there’s a section in there that says sth like “and thus, Russia shall invade Ukraine, and we’re all cool with that”. As such, I’m on the fence, and I’ll read the resolution later. But do give it a go yourself! It’s a very satisfying exercise
Do let me know if you have the time to read it. I’ll do the same if I find some myself.
Precisely the Russian rhetoric on and around the Ukrainian war was what got me suspicious.
It could be that western countries just generally are not against nazis or neo-nazis and actively shoot down resolutions against negative things about nazis. That is not however my experience at all, or the de facto state of the law in many countries, such as Germany, that very strongly condemn any nazi associations or symbolism as unlawful. Do note that they also abstained for this one. There’s a reason for that, and while I could be entirely off base, I’m pretty sure it’s not that the western democracies just like nazis and Russia for example is just so nice and honorful to dare go against the western consensus on liking nazis.
These resolutions are publicly available on the UN website, are typically quite short, and actually quite easy to read in general. This one in particular is only 11 pages long, which includes skippable boilerplate. So this assertion is relatively easy to back up and doesn’t need to rely on assumptions, and it can actually be quite fun to read one of these resolutions; you get to feel like a proper journalist or scholar or something. So I would suggest you give it a read and seek out the bit that you find most objectionable.
Personally, based on not much more than gut feelings and historical precedent on similar distributions in votes, am a bit more uncertain than you about the reason behind this distribution. If we take the Palestine cease fire vote in the UN of December 2023, for example, you have a very similar distribution. And I know for a fact that that was an earnest, unobjectionable resolution, that was only voted down by the US because it was in their material interest to do so, and voted down by US client states (or abstention) because they’re client states. But on the other hand, we also have the obvious context of Russia using this exact language as an excuse for their illegal invasion of Ukraine, so it’s entirely conceivable that there’s a section in there that says sth like “and thus, Russia shall invade Ukraine, and we’re all cool with that”. As such, I’m on the fence, and I’ll read the resolution later. But do give it a go yourself! It’s a very satisfying exercise
The problem is likely the many references to the Durban Conference: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Conference_against_Racism_2001
From the article:
edit
Several NGOs, including Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights, disassociated themselves from the language of the NGO Forum’s Declaration that dealt with Israel and with Jews.[5][26] The Palestinian Solidarity Committee of South Africa reportedly distributed copies of the antisemitic forgery The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.[27]
Do let me know if you have the time to read it. I’ll do the same if I find some myself.
Precisely the Russian rhetoric on and around the Ukrainian war was what got me suspicious.
It could be that western countries just generally are not against nazis or neo-nazis and actively shoot down resolutions against negative things about nazis. That is not however my experience at all, or the de facto state of the law in many countries, such as Germany, that very strongly condemn any nazi associations or symbolism as unlawful. Do note that they also abstained for this one. There’s a reason for that, and while I could be entirely off base, I’m pretty sure it’s not that the western democracies just like nazis and Russia for example is just so nice and honorful to dare go against the western consensus on liking nazis.
Its true though no matter how you feel about it. Proven by real scientific evidence.
You can try to disprove it if you feel its wrong but you probably won’t be able to.