The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > UNESCO Commissioner spells out global fallout from Palestine decision > Comments

UNESCO Commissioner spells out global fallout from Palestine decision : Comments

By David Singer, published 18/1/2012

Should politics take precedence over the law? That is the question UNESCO needs to face.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All
Dear David Singer,

The horse is dead my friend and you can do us all a favour and stop flogging the poor thing. You have refused to accept the legal, traditional and universally accepted definition of the phrase 'two thirds majority vote' and normally I would say that is your prerogative, but you are providing a rather unflattering example to the rest of the world of the standard of the Australian legal profession and as such I am getting a touch embarrassed. Please desist.

I am also sickened by the price paid by the US and now my country in supporting a government hell bent on continuing a repressive, brutal, illegal, dispossessing, apartheid of a subjugated people. Our sense of justice has been disfigured by your ilk and I resent it thoroughly.

To me part of that disfigurement is illustrated in the passing into law by the US a prohibition on funding any UN agency, no matter how effective, that has the temerity to admit Palestine into its ranks.

I was curious, as we all should be, as to how such a law could come about. It was introduced in the 101st Congress and reads;

Membership of the Palestine Liberation Organization in United Nations Agencies.

“(a) Prohibition.--No funds authorized to be appropriated by this Act or
any other Act shall be available for the United Nations or any specialized
agency thereof which accords the Palestine Liberation Organization the
same standing as member states.

“(b) Transfer or reprogramming.--Funds subject to the prohibition
contained in subsection (a) which would be available for the United
Nations or any specialized agency thereof (but for that prohibition) are
authorized to remain available until expended and may be reprogrammed
or transferred to any other account of the Department of State or the
Agency for International Development to carry out the general purposes
for which such funds were authorized.”

Cont..
Posted by csteele, Sunday, 22 January 2012 10:40:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Cont..

I had imagined a Republican would have been its sponsor. I was wrong, it was instead a Democrat Representative from California's 11th and 12th districts, Tom Lantos.

Tom is no longer with us having passed away in 2008. He was by all accounts a staunch supporter of human rights which made his promotion of the bill all the more puzzling until one learns he was the only Holocaust survivor serving in Congress.

Yet even he, especially toward the end, recognised the injustice of the Palestinian situation. Steve Clemons wrote in the Guardian in a piece titled ''Remembering Tom Landtos';

“But over the last year, particularly after the Lebanon-Israel war, Lantos shifted. He began to speak more frequently about the plight of the Palestinians both as refugees in other Arab states and within Israel and the occupied territories - and knew that the methodologies of engagement he often called for in relieving stress and hardship for other beleaguered people was not being done for Palestinians. And to my surprise and delight, Lantos shifted into an earnest supporter of credible deal-making between Israel and Palestine,”.

So my question to you Mr Singer is whether the $80 million the US had made available to give to UNESCO now be “transferred to any other account of the Department of State or the Agency for International Development to carry out the general purposes for which such funds were authorized.” in accordance with part (b) of the bill? These were obviously Tom's wishes.
Posted by csteele, Sunday, 22 January 2012 10:41:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To csteele:

PART 1:

I am glad to see that your opinions are based on genuine research rather than vague generalisations that are not worth the dignity of a reply and have nothing to do with the subject matter of my article.

Yes - I would expect that America will start to direct at least some of its withheld UNESCO funding as the legislation provides - if its stoush with UNESCO is not ended. I would be critical if it did not. Any decision to do so is discetionary however rather than the mandatory obligation to pay such moneys to UNESCO.

In my view this legislation is not going to be overturned in the near future.

There is no point then in trying to raise the American legislation and the late Tom Lantos to divert the thrust of my article and previous articles on UNESCO and its future ability to fund its global programs - because of what I claim to be its unlawful admission of Palestine.

UNESCO has lost 22% of its budget. - FACT

That is a huge blow to the ability of UNESCO to carry out its global programs.- FACT

Where UNESCO spends its money is not necessarily going to be where America directs its suspended UNESCO dues. - FACT

What possibilty then exists for UNESCO to get that money back?

I know you and I do not agree on the legality of Palestine's admission to UNESCO. - FACT

I don't know UNESCO's view. They still refuse to reply to my detailed submission.- FACT.

In the absence of a response I can only assume they agree with my detailed submission.

Assuming however they agree with you - does that mean you and UNESCO are right and I am wrong (which regrettably you try to justify by the use of the insulting and denigrating phrase - "providing a rather unflattering example to the rest of the world of the standard of the Australian legal profession?")

Stick to the issue - not attack the person who has raised it. This demeans you - not me.

(to be continued ...)
Posted by david singer, Monday, 23 January 2012 8:37:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To csteele

PART 2:

Whenever there is a conflict of legal views - the usual way to resolve that conflict is by seeking a judicial ruling. That will determine whose view is to be accepted.

$100000 is my estimated cost of approaching the International Court of Justice to resolve the legality of Palestine's admission to UNESCO.

I am not flogging a dead horse.I do not make this inane assertion about you - as you continue to maintain your opinion despite the counter arguments I have made to you.

UNESCO is continuing to bleed as the loss of 22% of its budget continues to bite it as each day passes and it fails to take a relatively easy step that just might restore that funding.

Then again it might not - if my opinion is judicially determined to be wrong.

But isn't an investment of $100000 to gain a possible $225 million to 2013 worth a try? And what about the on going loss of that revenue or more on an annual basis after 2013? What about judicially interpeting what the Constitution means so this does not become an issue with future applications for membership?

I guess you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink.

If UNESCO refuses to take the opportunity to test my opinion - then it won't be a dead horse - but it will become very sick and soon become a shadow of itself.

That is its decision to make.

I have been endeavouring to point out the irresponsibility of UNESCO in failing to take that course of action.

Gosh - the delight you would have in rubbishing me should my legal opinion not be upheld - (which of course happens to one lawyer in every case)- should be incentive enough for you and all those other "Singer haters" on OLO to sign the petition and get their social networks to do likewise.

Come on girls and guys - sign up now at:
http://www.change.org/petitions/unesco-review-palestines-unconstitutional-membership
Posted by david singer, Monday, 23 January 2012 8:39:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear David,

I don't want to get trapped further in the legal minutiae because it is bollocks, a creation of your desperation to deny any toehold of legitimacy to the Palestinians.

You are like a lawyer debating the humanity of lethal injection over the firing squad while totally ignoring the crime of capital punishment. To you the question of whether state should be a taking human life would be just a diversion.

It is the same here. You call my questioning the providence of the anti-Palestinian law of the US a diversion when it is instead central to the issue. Why shouldn't we ask why a two decade old law such as this should remain on the books. There is no other country that saw fit to enact such legislation. Why shouldn't lobbying efforts be directed towards the US to rethink theirs?

The blame for the US withholding its funding needs to be laid directly at its own feet, not that of the Palestinians who are seeking a non-violent, diplomatic solution to their plight, nor at the feet of UNESCO who has conducted itself with integrity against powerful vested interests.

You claim; "In the absence of a response I can only assume they agree with my detailed submission."

My response? What illogical tripe!

Cont...
Posted by csteele, Monday, 23 January 2012 12:07:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Cont...

You further claim "you continue to maintain your opinion despite the counter arguments I have made to you". But here is the truth, you haven't made those counter arguments at all, not even attempted to do so. I spelt out very clearly my reasoning of the obvious yet there was nothing in response.

I don't hate you David, I don't know you well enough for that, in fact I'm hard pressed to think of anyone I truly hate. What I do hate is the disingenuous manner with which you conduct your campaign. While I won't claim you have zero concern for the plight of those who will miss out on UNESCO funds as a result of the US's actions it is like a firefly compared the searchlight beam of your anti-Palestinian zeal. Anyone who thinks this is not the driving force of your petition doesn't know you and for you to say; "But isn't an investment of $100000 to gain a possible $225 million to 2013 worth a try?" when what you really mean is "But isn't an investment of $100000 to stymie any Palestinian legitimacy worth a try?" is a prime example.

So here is the deal, I will agree to be the 2001st signature on your petition if you will permit me to contact, where possible, those who have already signed up to put my case as to why they have been mistaken.

If you are so sure of the merits of your own case then this should be a problem.

Finally to your;"Stick to the issue - not attack the person who has raised it. This demeans you - not me.". 

Very early in our exchanges you accused me from memory of being a propagandist for terrorists. You set the ground rules, live with them my friend because it's a little late and frankly unbecoming to be claiming victimhood status now.
Posted by csteele, Monday, 23 January 2012 12:09:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy