This whole issue is laughable, and actually reveals more about the way Israelis think than anything else.
The UNESCO resolution only:
1. Named it as an endangered heritage site.
2. Decided under which nation it should be regarded.
Israelis seem outraged by number 2.
They seem to be implying that considering it Palestinian means that Jews have no connection to it. This is quite the bizarre interpretation. This projection reveals so much about how Israelis conflate nationality with ethnicity and religion. A site can easily be Jewish and Palestinian. There is nothing contradictory there, Palestinian is an inclusive identity that literally anybody could be a part of, you don't have to be a special religion or ethnicity.
Second of all, under any peace deal or arrangement, Israelis should be able to visit with no problem. Same as Palestinians should be able to visit their holy places inside "Israel proper" as well.
Third of all, Al-Khalil is a Palestinian city. It is inhabited almost exclusively by Palestinians. Those not, are a relatively minuscule amount of illegal settlers. Not even in the most broad interpretation of international law can anyone claim that it is a part of Israel. Is Israel the custodian of every Jewish site in the world? Does it get to exert control/sovereignty over Jewish sites in other countries?
Is this what Israel wants? Control over it? Then, if this is the case, will it hand over control of Muslim and Christian sites inside Israel to the Palestinians? If no, why not?
When you ask about it this way, it becomes clear how obtuse and greedy Zionist objections are. It is not merely about the sites, it is about acknowledging Palestinians and their existence.
Again, the UNESCO resolution said literally nothing about its importance to anyone. This rhetoric was simply created to draw attention away from the expansionism and entitlement Israelis feel towards everything between the river and the sea.
How dare those Palestinians exist, and a site in Palestinian territory, inhabited by Palestinians, is in fact, considered Palestinian.
"Point 20: Hamas believes that no part of the land of Palestine shall be compromised or conceded, irrespective of the causes, the circumstances and the pressures and no matter how long the occupation lasts. Hamas rejects any alternative to the full and complete liberation of Palestine, from the river to the sea. However, without compromising its rejection of the Zionist entity and without relinquishing any Palestinian rights, Hamas considers the establishment of a fully sovereign and independent Palestinian state, with Jerusalem as its capital along the lines of the 4th of June 1967, with the return of the refugees and the displaced to their homes from which they were expelled, to be a formula of national consensus."
So while they don't see it as legitimate or just, they are willing to follow the national consensus, which is the 1967 borders. How they justify that ideologically is up to them. This is an effort to save face. This is why it sounds so contradictory.
But like I have shown multiple times in the article, Hamas has been willing to settle for 2 states for a while now.
I am not demanding anything. These are my criticisms of the group. I have read their about us page, and they really have no concrete end goal or image.
I'm not sure why you keep picturing me as a person who wants to pigeonhole organizations into positions. It's none of my business, they can do as they will. But I can criticize as I wish, as well. I'm not pushing anyone into anything.
I do feel their work is counterproductive in some ways, but productive in others. I feel they have potential. But honestly, if they want to keep going this way, wanting to maintain a "big tent", then they sacrifice effectiveness/purpose for that pursuit, because they'll never actually be able to set an agenda past just demonstrating.
I never brought up JVP, and I have criticisms of that group as well.
As for Derfner, I wouldn't know. I haven't read his book yet, so I can't comment. Not sure how that is relevant.
Not going to even comment on boiling down the conflict only to the occupation, but if your sole goal of your organization, your whole reason for existence, is ending an occupation, not including the occupied people in some way is in this sense is orientalist. Because you're campaigning for a situation that affects them primarily, while excluding them from the decision itself.