Palistine has a right to exist as does Israel.Perhaps China,Russia or even Iran can give some money to UNESCO and fill the breach.

Arjay. I agree with you that Palestine has the right to exist, as does any other legally (internationally recognised) constituted state. This is a political position held by me personally, but whether my political views have a legal effect is another matter entirely; I may also have a political view supportive of gay marriage, euthenasia or the banning of any form of leaf blower use on a sunday morning. Whilst not wishing to trivialise the gravity of the suject matter here, without the requirement of appropriate law, we have chaos. Is it 107 or 129 votes? a simple enough question surely.
I can only presume the appropriate UNESCO legal team were on sabatical at the time the resolution was accepted? A challange to the constitutional validity of this action must surely have been anticipated or is this an excuse to challenge the morality of American domestic policy.
Again I agree with Arjay, in that those countries who voted in favour of the resolution would surely have been prepared to make up the shortfall of funds??

So hurting people who are recipients of assistance from UNESCO is ok in David Singers mish-mash morality.

It is not UNESCO who will suffer, David it is the people who receive benefit from the activites of UNESCO who will suffer.

Surely as a lawyer you considered that notion before you launched this latest propaganda exercise, didn't you?

David in the west we believe the ends never justify the means.

As a lawyer you should know that. Why do you show support for views opposite to those you accept as a lawyer?

David you understand what you are ranting against?

UNESCO<

The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization is a specialized agency of the United Nations.
Its stated purpose is to contribute to peace and security by promoting international collaboration through education, science, and culture in order to further universal respect for justice, the rule of law, and human rights along with fundamental freedoms proclaimed in the UN Charter.

Why don't you support an organisation that wants to futhur peace and security, David?

One could rightly assume, with their withdrawal, neither the US nor Israel has that objective as a priority.

Right David?

How ironic that David Singer a pro-Israeli advocate in Australia should be concerned with the legality of the recognition by UNESCO of Palestine. Israel is the biggest rouge state in the UN and consistently disobeys UN laws and resolutions.

Its record on human rights is appalling least of which is the illegal siege on Gaza, the stealing of Palestinian land to build illegal settlements in the West Bank. Ethnic cleansing of Jerusalem where Palestinians families who have occupied their homes for hundreds of years are tossed out for the latest Jewish arrival from Brooklyn.

It commits piracy in international waters indiscriminately killing the occupants of ships bringing humanitarian aid for Gaza. It arrests Palestinians without charge and throws them in their filthy prisons where they aren't permitted representation or to see their families. They are often tortured and held indefinitely to be used as bargaining chips when they want to negotiate the return of one of their captured soldiers.

They use the most obscene weapons on civilians, weapons where UN legislation has banned their use. They assassinate Palestinians around the world. They spy on friend and foe alike cynically using their diplomatic immunity to steal passports and other legal documents for their spies.

I could go on and on of the illegalities of this uncivilized state but I would need a book. As for returning to the Oslo accords and the Bush's road to peace Israel has made totally unacceptable preconditions that make a resumption of peace talks impossible.It also has broken a promise at Oslo to cease building settlements.

Mr Singer your concern for the legality of the UN should start by bringing Israel to account for its innumerable breaches of UN law. Palestine joining UNESCO harms no one. Israel's illegal and unwarranted attacks on Lebanon and Gaza and the mass murder of their civilians is illegal and has far more consequences on peace in the Middle East which day by day is becoming an illusion.

So.... UNESCO, fundamentally, is an agency that perports to " Further Universal respect for Justice, the rule of law and human rights" ... So is it 107 votes or 129 votes?

Must look up my definition of 'rant';
is it the Singer piece or a diatribe incorporating "Rogue state, Illegal seige, piracy, ethnic cleansing, Indiscriminate killing, torture, Assasination, Unwarranted attacks and mass murder". Do hope the kalashnikof was being fired into the air whilst that was written!

'Onya' Singer, just keep comming back for more....

Singer is an apologist and propagandist for the Israeli Propaganda Dept with was set up to go on forums like this and post lies.
Even seen him say anything about the land theft, water theft, murder and the rest by the settlers most of whom seem to be from the US,the bible has a lot to answer,but Mr Singer never sees that,bet your praying Ron Paul don't win the Republican nomination in the US eh Dave.
David would rather have a serial liar,and dogy crook like Gingrich,a man like most if not all politicians in the US and here who when the Israeli lobby speaks and says jump they say how high

This is tedious, some 'balance' on Online opinion is long overdue, some Palestinian propaganda please!

I wonder why Singer et al bother to run their pro-Zionist line, after all Israel has the US on side, America is much more reliable than God.

If the USA does something smart and tortures a few terrorists to get vital information, or executes a few terr leaders with Predator strikes, the psuedo-intellectuals on OLO jump around in self righteous apoplexy, screaming that the USA is breaking the rules.

Stand by for a deafening silence from Arjay and Julianutter when UNESCO breaks its own rules. From Arjay and Julianutter's perspective, it is OK to break the rules as long as you are helping Palestine

David Singer

Jews and Arabs have intermingled for millennia without trouble and, in the last couple of centuries, enter the ‘superpowers’, one after another, State entities spring out and the two peoples find themselves regimented, armed and at each one’s throat.

No one and certainly no association of States like the defunct ‘League of Nation’ reborn as ‘The United Nation’ or its agency ‘UNESCO’, can do anything to stop this war between the Jews and the Arabs, only the people themselves can say “it’s enough” and throw away all weapons.

States, which essentially are bureaucratic structures manipulated by Politicians, cannot possibly come to a decision of the simplicity that an honest person makes when he/she says NO; I do not wish to fight anyone, knowing the permanent scorn, ridicule and misery reserved for his/her decision.

And the great Australia had no few war objectors (they were called conscience objectors) to the American invasion of Vietnam; to me, the only respectable human beings.

It is just that conscience and humanity that no Politician can possibly muster.

Mr Singer has no doubt the ability to stimulate heated reactions to his statements, often with extreme polarization. He serves no benefit towards any peaceful consensus and contributes nothing of a constructive nature to further the objective of reconciliation in this disturbed region. By continually propagating the concept of non-existence of the Palestinian identity, he is complicit in condemning the whole region to perpetual conflict. Just as 7 miliion Israelis are not going to disappear, nor are the 4 million Palestinians living in Gaza and the West Bank. This problem has never been two-dimensional, and all in black and white, with “goodies” and “baddies” on separate sides. Those who see this as such suffer from an immature understanding of the Middle East. Those that attack Mr Singer with an equally anti-Israeli vehemence are also complicit in detracting attention from far worse abuses of human rights and the perpetuation of mass killings in other countries of the Middle East. Significantly, today’s article in OLO, “Sudan’s Criminal Regime Continues Genocidal Violence” (David Robinson) attracted no comments whatsoever, whereas Mr Singer’s article has already produced numerous ones.

Prompete,
UNESCO doesn't just'perport(s)(sic) to " Further Universal respect for Justice, the rule of law and human rights"

it actually

'contribute(s) to peace and security by promoting international collaboration through education, science, and culture in order to further universal respect for justice, the rule of law, and human rights along with fundamental freedoms proclaimed in the UN Charter

Lego you mysognist racisst,

Wnen the US undermines itself in undertaking actions totally against all it proports to stand for (or breaking it's own rules)... well of course we'll object ... which is much more than is tolerated by Israeli supporters and in Israel.

Lego the mysognist racist

Tell me, what are UNESCO's rules?

In your abject intolerance we'll see you've jumped into a self-made abyss of ignorance ... as usual.

Sit down and be quiet ... it's best for you.

Bempec

there is a fundamental difference. Israel proports to be like westerners ... the Sudanese don't. When they claim to hold the same values as me but continue their disgraceful behaviours then I'll object just as vehemently.

I simply condmen all who perpretrate violence and slaughter equally. Israel takes it further and claims it is western behaviour to be condoned because it is western values that support such.

That's why I vehemently reject Singers propaganda. If others do this, and they don't, then I'd be just as veherment in my condemnation. Wouldn't you?

And of course LEGO and Singer would not be talking about the terrorists in IDF army uniform,or the Lebanon Christians who under Sharon murdered Palestinians in the refuge camps in Lebanon.
Or the Israeli settler terrorists who murder Palestinian farmers tending their land,the only terrorists in Lego and Singers world are Palestinian not the semi fascist Israeli state sponsored kind

Sorry folks I'm not sure what the big deal is.

As with any Singer article the truth is always found in its omissions. Nothing different here.

The US regularly picks up its bat and ball and either threatens to leave UNESCO or actually departs for extended periods. It completely withdrew both its contributions and membership from 1984 to 2003, that is a period of nearly two whole decades.

Plus it has form threatening the body to protect Israel's interests. In 1974 UNESCO actually tossed Israel out on its ear. It held its ground until in 1977 the US threatened to withhold $40 million in funds.

One can only hope they stick to their guns this time. Please let justice hold, there is so little of it on display right now for the Palestinian people.

csteele,

so many posts on olo with so little humour.

I loved your post and had a real belly laugh.

your humour must be a great companion

Dear oh dear David Singer,

Further omissions.

You are going to have to explain to me why on earth you think a two thirds majority wasn't achieved in the UNESCO vote to include Palestine into its membership. The results were;

107 in favour.
14 against (including Australia I am ashamed to say)

I make a 107 to 14 result well above the two thirds majority required.

Oh I see, you want to include the abstentions? Well yes there were 52 of those. What? You want them tacked on the negative sided? Can't be done old boy, suggest you see a lawyer on that one (Had wondered why you didn't give the breakdown in your original article).

You might get away with it if the Articles II (2), (3) had called for an 'absolute two thirds majority', since that would require a two thirds majority of all members, not just those who voted, but they don't so you don't.
http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=15244&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html

This is not a 'clear breach' of anything and the 'strange silence' you claim to have “descended over UNESCO since I first raised the question” I would wager could be one of embarrassment;

'Yes Ms Bokova, he is actually a lawyer as he claims, apparently got his degree at an Australian University'.

Please don't embarrass us any further David, the shame of having my country vote against this is a difficult enough burden.

Dear imajulianutter,

Thank you I think.

“your humour must be a great companion”

Well he does do most of the drinking.

Hi Juliannthenutter (singularly appropriate name), you bad speller, I suppose that you are a paragon of virtue who never violates your own moral code for a bit of self interest, now and again?

You are so morally pure, that whenever I read one of your posts, I visualise you standing in front of a pulpit with a chorus of singing angels behind you. There was once a time when educated people laughed at the morally pure. But today's crop of educated elites all want to be moral puritans themselves.

The yanks are violating their own moral codes because some religious nutters from the Middle east flew four aeroplanes into buildings and killed 3000 innocent men, women and children. Unlike you, the yanks are smart. The yanks can figure out that civilised rules of engagement do not apply when combatting suicide bombers who want to mass murder your civilian population to make a political point.

The terrorists who committted that atrocity are Arabs and Muslims, who hate beer, bikinis, female equality, sexual liberation, and Israel. That is why I say we should all drink more piss, applaud the topless girls on Bondi Beach, burn our bras, screw ourselves silly, and support the Israelis.

Anyhoo, the yanks arn't really kicking the sheet out of captured terrorists, they are "outsourcing" by "rendering" the terrorists to countries where interogation techniques are more "traditional", and letting threm kick the sheet out of the scumbags.

Good on them. Give them another kick for me, boys.

Well no, it is time the shills for Israel in the US shut up and let the Palestinians have their legal rights.

Dear LEGO,

"Give them another kick for me, boys."

Way to reinforce a stereotype with that last post my friend.

I reckon it would be a long shot but if you haunt enough bars you might latch on to some crew doing a little interrogating, and if you were to keep applauding their work, buying them beers and leering at enough young women with them you might score an invitation to a session.

If they were feeling particularly friendly you might even get asked if you wanted a crack. Seeing your obvious hesitation they would show you the 'dirty little terrorist' handcuffed naked to a chair with a black hood secured over his head.

'He can't hurt you' they would say reassuringly 'and he can't even see you. Your anonymity is safe. We worked him over earlier, go ahead, give him one for the good guys.'

As you moved toward the man you would see him stiffen in fear, 'Wow, a scumbag terrorist scared of me' you would think and that would embolden you. Your first kick would be a quick dart in and out, ill aimed and fearful, but it would feel good. Then they would come thick and fast, powered by all your hate, screaming and swearing at the top of your lungs, aiming for the head, the genitals, the kidneys and the small of the back. The other interrogators would have to pull you away, trying not to notice the bulge in the front of your pants, and you would be laughing and hooting and wanting high fives. 

Hell you would sleep like a baby that night.

See digressions are easy but lazy so let's in the future try and stick to the topic.

Singer,

You've bought out the worst in your supporters again.

What's it like to know your rantings bring only the hoots and grunts of support from the worst cowardly ehibitionist racist mysognists among us?

What's that feel like?

Wow - 20 responses and only one - csteele - has even tried to argue I have got it wrong.

Why has UNESCO simply not given me csteele's explanation after I made my claim to UNESCO two months ago,patted me on the head and sent me on my way?

The answer is obvious - csteele has got it wrong.

If you look at the two articles csteele refers to - Articles II (2) and II (3)- you will see why UNESCO has fallen strangely silent

To get admitted as a member under article II (2) - the state needs a two thirds majority vote. There are 194 members in UNESCO and so a majority of 129 is needed. Palestine got 107.

To get admitted as an associate member under article II (3)- the applicant needs a two thirds majority of the members present and voting. Had Palestine applied for associate mebership the 107 votes would have been sufficient.

This constitutional blunder will cost UNESCO about $225 million in suspended American payments up to 2012-2013. Many UNESCO humanitarian programs will be abandoned or seriously curtailed. This horrendous fall out affects every member state of UNESCO.

The 87 States that voted against, abstained or simply did not turn up may have something to say once the illegality of the decision and UNESCO's cover up in failing to do anything when brought to its notice is exposed.

I feel very strongly about this abuse of process and the effect that will be felt all over the world.

I have started a petition to get UNESCO to review its decision. So far 600 people from 19 countries have signed it in the past eight days.

If you want to see American funding of 22% of UNESCO's annual budget restored - then I believe one way this can be achieved is for all of you, your family, friends and associates to mobilise and sign and circulate this petition which you can find at:

http://www.change.org/petitions/unesco-review-palestines-unconstitutional-membership

If you don't care if UNESCO curtails its projects world-wide - don't sign.

Simple choice for you inveterate writers.

*Sigh*

Dear David,

I am hardly wrong on this issue.

Article I (2) reads “states not members of the United Nations Organization may be admitted to membership of the Organization, upon recommendation of the Executive Board, by a two-thirds majority vote of the General Conference.”

It doesn't read 'absolute majority' or 'majority of the members present', it says quite specifically “ two-thirds majority vote”. Please note the word VOTE!

Article 1 (3) is even more specific. “Territories or groups of territories which are not responsible for the conduct of their international relations may be admitted as Associate Members by the General Conference by a two-thirds majority of Members present and voting”.

Please note the words 'present and VOTING'. The members have to be both present and voting, A two-thirds majority of those filling these criteria will pass the resolution.

By convention an abstention is usually a non-vote, not to be counted in any manner toward the result.

Perhaps the Wikipedia reference might help you understand.

There are two kinds of two-thirds majority: the simple or the absolute.

“An unqualified or simple two-thirds majority requires that the number of votes in favour must be at least twice the number of votes against. Abstaining votes or neutral votes are not considered in a simple two-thirds majority.”

“A absolute two-thirds majority requires that at least two-thirds of the entire membership of a body vote in favor.”

“In parliamentary procedure where a two-thirds majority is required, rather than speaking of a two-thirds majority the unambiguous phrases such as "two thirds of those present and voting", "two thirds of those present" (which has the effect of counting abstentions as votes against the proposal), or "two thirds of the entire membership" ("two thirds of those members duly elected and sworn" in American politics) are used.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-thirds_majority#Two-thirds_majority

Article I (2) refers to an “unqualified or simple two-thirds majority” that doesn't consider abstaining votes.

Article 1 (3) is represented by the unambiguous phrase "two thirds of those present and voting".

I really shouldn't have to be spelling this out for you.

Everybody stereotypes, csteel, because stereotypes are the way that people form concepts in their minds.

If I was to say that there was a bird sitting on your car, what would you visualise? A penguin or an ostrich? No, from the context of the situation you would form a stereotpe of what you think a "bird" is, in this case, a small feathered creature with a beak.

Claiming that sterotyping is wrong, just happens to be one of the most stupid concepts ever dreamed up by the anti everything drop kicks like you, who pretend that they have superior morals and intelligence than everybody else. People make stereotypes in order to think, csteel. Claiming that stereotyping is wrong, is exactly the same as saying that thinking is wrong.

Which pretty well sums up your mindset.

I was trained as a soldier to kill people, my dear csteel. I have never had to do it, but I think that I am one of the 1 in 6 men who can do it, and do it without without going to pieces afterward through Post Traumantic Stress disorder. People like me constitute the natural soldiers without which no society can survive.

It is probably a genetic inheritance. My father was in the 2/14th battalion who finished off every wounded Jap they captured on the Kokoda Track because it was a practical military necessity. He probably didn't like doing it, but he knew why it had to be done, he knew the fate of every Australian captured by the Japs, and he knew what was at stake.

Why you feel sorry for captured terrorist scumbags who want to mass murder your own women and children so that they can screw 72 virgins in heaven is beyond me. I think that such an attitude is taking your compulsive need to feel morally superior to everyone else a bit too far.

Dear LEGO,

I refuse to believe I was really that subtle but I will explain anyway. I was not making a case against stereotyping rather that your post served to fulfill the stereotype of the cowardly nature of racists.

I purposely had the victim hooded to preserve the anonymity you seemed so keen in preserving the last time we spoke.

Actually I think you did get it otherwise you wouldn't have responded with all that macho crap.

Yours really is a kind of attention deficit disorder. I get the sense you would happily drop a fart at a funeral because someone else was getting all the attention.

Look mate I get there are all kinds in this world and being aware there are people like you out there is probably useful, but you just need to dial it back. Doing some digging and strive to add some useful facts and arguments to topics rather than just bursting in and mouthing off because it quickly gets bloody tiresome.

Dear David Singer,

I'm sorry but I had allowed myself to get distracted and completely missed the fact you had conceded half my argument.

You original article read;

"UNESCO only has itself to blame for finding itself in this predicament - since the decision to admit Palestine as a member of UNESCO on the affirmative votes of 107 of its members could be in clear breach of Articles II (2) and II (3) of the UNESCO Constitution - which appear to require a majority of 129 votes for any such resolution to have been passed."

You now concede;

"To get admitted as an associate member under article II (3)- the applicant needs a two thirds majority of the members present and voting. Had Palestine applied for associate mebership the 107 votes would have been sufficient."

But David why couldn't a little 'I was wrong' have been included? You led instead with "The answer is obvious - csteele has got it wrong."

Unsporting to say the least.

Jeez Singer,

you really are losing it.

Inveterate — adj

1. long established, esp so as to be deep-rooted or ingrained: an inveterate feeling of hostility

2. ( prenominal ) settled or confirmed in a habit or practice, esp a bad one; hardened: an inveterate smoker

3. obsolete full of hatred; hostile

As a propagandist aren't you supposed to try to win us over ... how does abusing us help your cause?

And David you cannot hide from this fact.

Some of those 20 posts you've quoted support you ... they are the ones from the racist, mysognist trained killer, who seems to think the only terrorists in this world are muslim.

20 men in Australia have now been convicted of terrorism offences, Julianthenutter, how many of them do you think were were Christians, Buddhists and Hindus?

Could you name just one non Muslim suicide bomber terrorist?

I know that you hate Nazis, so why you then defend Muslims is beyond me. When it comes to leibenstraum, ethnic cleansing, genocide, racism and total intolerance, the muzzies could even teach Der Fuehrer a thing or two. As a matter of fact, Hitler even praised the Muslim religion, saying that it was a warriors religion.

And naturally, the Muzzies to this day love Der Fuehrer.

If 20 Nazis had been convicted of terrorism offences in Australia, you would be running around in red faced apoplexy claiming that this absolutely proved how dangerous Nazis were. And if Sydney's Nazi Gruppenfeuhrer said that non nazi women were all "cat meat" sluts who deserved to get raped, you and your friends would be marching down George street demanding that Nazism be banned.

But with Muslims, you apply a diferent standard. Could you please explain why?

Presumably, this video would please LEGO
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=TlrYVB8XzQQ

#To csteele

The following quoted by you from Google supports my contention:

“In parliamentary procedure where a two-thirds majority is required, rather than speaking of a two-thirds majority the unambiguous phrases such as "two thirds of those present and voting", "two thirds of those present" (which has the effect of counting abstentions as votes against the proposal), or "two thirds of the entire membership" ("two thirds of those members duly elected and sworn" in American politics) are used.”

The words "two-thirds majority vote of the General Conference" in article II (2) of UNESCO's constitution clearly don't mean the same as the words "two thirds majority vote of members present and voting" in article II (3).

If there is any claim of ambiguity by UNESCO:

1. What is the ambiguity and why have they refused to point that out to me?
2. Why does UNESCO refuse to even discuss the issue with me?
3. Why doesn't UNESCO seek an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice to clear up any claimed ambiguity?

Meantime UNESCO is going cap in hand trying to raise $225 million in lost revenue to maintain existing funding of projects all around the world - when they have the possibility to have the decision to admit Palestine reversed by the ICJ and that $225 million immediately released.

Have you signed the petition to have UNESCO seek such a solution in an attempt to stop the bleeding?

Here is the petition link again:

http://www.change.org/petitions/unesco-review-palestines-unconstitutional-membership

Please let me know when you have signed it.

Indeed I would urge all OLO readers who are concerned at the disastrous consequences of this unlawful decision - to sign the petition and post here to let me know you have done so.

690 people have signed the petition so far. Please join them.

I think it is time Israel started to respect international opinion and gave themselves some kudos as potential peacemaking international citizens, by voting to allow Palestine in! And impartial observers in to the so-called occupied territories, to see just how they are honouring agreements already made.
As for those endless rockets fired from the strip. Half a dozen drones patrolling that airspace around the clock, would effectively and very quickly eliminate the problem, I dare say, without inflicting unnecessary collateral damage; or an entirely disproportional response to a few rockets; and or, suicidal nutters, who don't care who they kill.
Israel should now understand; that they very urgently need to keep those few friends they still have; and, act decisively to resolve all their differences with their neighbours.
Perhaps if we were all to click our heels and give a stiff arm salute to the current Israeli PM; he and the citizens he leads; might begin to see who he and they are beginning to resemble, with their endless occupation.
Is there any real intention to quit? Ever?
Their recalcitrance only ever helps their worst nightmare; a nuclear armed Iran and almost guaranteed mutual annihilation; and, land so toxic; that they won't be able to give it away!
If the land belongs to the sons of Abraham; then it also belongs to the Palestinians and therefore, can't be simply confiscated!

Oh my dear David Singer,

My face is a definite shade of blue.

This is now getting a little sad, made even more so by the fact you profess to be a lawyer yet are so bound up in this as a supporter of Israel that you are blind to what is before you.

Please, just for a moment, try and view this dispassionately. 

"The words "two-thirds majority vote of the General Conference" in article II (2) of UNESCO's constitution clearly don't mean the same as the words "two thirds majority vote of members present and voting" in article II (3)."

To any reasonable person the difference is that absentee or proxy voting would be acceptable in fulfilling Article II (2) while Article II (3) demands that the votes are only counted from members who are actually present.

Neither rule negates the fact that two-thirds majority VOTE is still required.

On this thread you have acknowledged you were wrong on Article II (3) yet your petition still reads;

"Palestine's admission as a member of UNESCO on 31 October 2011 is illegal - since the two-thirds majority of members required to admit Palestine under articles II(2) and II (3) of UNESCO'S Constitution is 129 - not the 107 member States that actually voted for Palestine's admission."

For you as the petition's author to leave the wording as it stands is dishonest and misleading, especially as you have dropped the word 'vote'.

How about retaining some self respect and removing it altogether? Every day it remains condemns you further.

690 people out of 23,000,000 is pretty pathetic support from Australians David.

They could all be like Lego.

Your spiving and spruiking is flushing out the worst among us David.

Keep it up.

There seems to be no one else but the magnificently principled lego and Bempec in here openly prepared to support your propaganda stances.

And Bempec mate the problems of the Palenstinian people in Lebanon would be solved overnight with the 'right of return' ... as has been the case in all wars in the western world. And of course the Israeli terrorists tried to solve it once by massacuring them in the camps. Did you support that policy also?

This campaign of propaganda is becoming more and more laughable.

You must be getting really desperate David. And I love the way you never respond to me. Your stonewalling simply confirms you haven't the answers... you know I'm right

#To csteele

Rather disingenuously - you fail to state the following sentence is also included in my petition:

"UNESCO must review its decision or seek an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice to legally validate its admission of Palestine."

I gave UNESCO a detailed submission of my claim on 1 December which it has said it does not intend to answer.

UNESCO's wall of silence convinces me that UNESCO has no answer to my submission. No doubt UNESCO is hoping the issue will simply disappear off the radar.

Well it won't.

700 people from 19 nations around the world now agree with me after just 10 days - many of whom must be very concerned at the consequential damage being caused to UNESCO in implementing its humanitarian programs world wide as a result of America suspending its contribution of 22% of UNESCO's budget.

By the way - the withholding of dues from the United States has now left UNESCO with a $167 million deficit for 2012-2013. The figure just keeps going up.This funding would be restored if Palestine's admission was found to be unlawful.

Determining whether what was done was lawful or not should therefore be the concern of everyone - including yourself.

Again I invite OLO readers - including you - to sign the petition.

Here is the link:
http://www.change.org/petitions/unesco-review-palestines-unconstitutional-membership

'700 people from 19 nations around the world now agree with me after just 10 days'

Singer are you serious?

Now it's not 690 from Australia, it's now 700 from 19 nations.

Hohohohohohoho

Does that mean you expect
1400 from 19 nations after 20 days.

OR 700 from 38 nations after 20 days

OR 1400 people from 38 nations after 20 days

OR

hohohohohohoho?

laughable!

Hey Lego are you going to condemn muslins as the only terrorists after the first car bomb goes of that kills a nuclear scientist or any scientist in the US?

You never considered that did you? Which just goes to show that not only are you racist and mysognist but also just plain stupid.

Yep I am having great fun at yours and Singers lack of intellect.

Dear David,

You claim; "UNESCO's wall of silence convinces me that UNESCO has no answer to my submission. No doubt UNESCO is hoping the issue will simply disappear off the radar."

No, the silence is because they have no case to answer and their hope is that the nuisance called David Singer will just go away.

"Determining whether what was done was lawful or not should therefore be the concern of everyone - including yourself."

No, the lawfulness of the decision is self-evident to all except those who are so blinded by their anti-Palestinian zeal they have become oblivious to the obvious.

I actually do feel a little sorry for you David, you have dug a rather deep hole for yourself and placed a huge amount of cred on the line. I think part of you realizes you have fluffed this one but you have decided the only course open to you is to keep digging.

Ouch!

Oh Mr Singer, so this is all about money-who is going to put in what US darenot-how jewish!

# To csteele

In my book UNESCO'S silence indicates it has no argument to my claim -nor can it otherwise justify the legality of its decision.

The easiest way to make me go away is surely to give me good reason to do so - not to remain silent and allow my claim to remain unanswered.

You at least had a try - unconvincing as it is. Yet UNESCO with its huge bureaucracy - including a large legal department - has not put forward anyone to challenge my claim.

Is that how UNESCO should behave?

Given that funding of 22% of UNESCO'S budget has now disappeared - but could be reinstated if a review of the Palestine decision led to its reversal - why does UNESCO continue to stick its head in the sand and not take action to review the lawfulness of Palestine's admission to UNESCO?

Those tens of millions of people world-wide who will see UNESCO programs - aimed at improving and prolonging their lives - being cut or abandoned - should be asking UNESCO the same question.

So should you - if you care for those who are affected .

Think again.

You can sign the petition here:
http://www.change.org/petitions/unesco-review-palestines-unconstitutional-membershi