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!