David. Why would the continuance of programs for the betterment of literacy, gender equality and clean water acquisition in third world countries be of the least concern od interest to organisations and their affiliates who are prepared to use suicide bombs in restaurants and throw rockets at school busses to promote a cause (however justified). The notion of either domestic or international law is of no concequence when the end can justify the means. 'Never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity'.

Yeah David to we Westerners the ends never justify the means. As a western trained lawyer you should know that.

Why don't you apply that principle.

We Westerners never attempt to punish those who haven't earned punishment.

Why punish 'Hundreds of millions of people in third world countries (who)stand to suffer as these (UNESCO) programs (in literacy, gender equality and clean water) are curtailed or abandoned'

That's a typical and disgusting Israeli attitude.

Why wouldn't you punish those countries who voted to include Palestine in UNESCO?

Too hard?

It's obvious in your thinking any western attitude is precluded becausae of your blatant errant political propagandising..

Yea, let's bully those who can't fight back.

Why don't you campaign to punish these countries and their leaders who voted to admit Palestine.

Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Argentina, Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Chad, Chile, China, Congo, Costa Rica, Cuba, Cyprus, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of Congo, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Honduras, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Luxembourg, Malawi, Malaysia, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Russian Federation, St Lucia, St Vincent and the Grenadines, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Seychelles, Slovenia, Somalia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Syria, Tunisia, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Vietnam, Yemen, Zimbabwe.

Now there is some power among that lot that could crush Israel isn't there?

Your attitude is just bloody cowardly.

Lets see now, of the countries listed above who voted for the inclusion of the 'as yet non-state' of Palestine, knowing full well the consequences of that vote to the funding arrangements of UNESCO and the consequent budjet hole, that would be a bit over $20m each. Chicken feed for such a noble jesture. 'Put ya money where ya mouth is fellas'.

Just another load of old rubbish and a bit of a rehash of his last load of tripe,hows the propaganda dept David still paying by the word by the looks of it,though I see you have a friend as well now.
Israel has turned in a semi Fascist state,no worries for you though David,even the courts are racist,the real terrorists are the IDF and the settlers,hey but that's OK with David and friends whats a few Arabs in the way of Israels Manifest Destiny.
Unfortunately for David and the bible is the literal truth brigade,who seem to reside in the US which oddly enough is where a lot of the Settlers come from,do they keep their US passports so they can head home when things get hard,the rest of the world is seeing through the BS regularly supplied by the Ministry of propaganda and its cohorts like David,are they still locking people up for telling the truth about Israel and its nuclear bombs David.
How long before we get a diatribe about the SBS show the Promise old son or is that left up to others threatening censorship on anyone who deviates from the Israeli line,by crying to their tame gutless politicians in the senate to try and stifle it,Israel is losing friends fast David and you know it,

It appears to me that there is only one opinion when it comes to Palestine's membership to UNESCO and that is of a Zionist Australian Jew. The Palestinian opinion and how they see the results of their membership to UNESCO doesn't seem to exist nor do their plans for the future. I suppose Online Opinion will be looking to Mr Singer to inform us as to what are the Palestinian plans for the future.

This bias is unacceptable and below most Australian Arab expectations of a serious publication that seeks out the opinion and expectations of both sides to a serious problem at the UN.

Mr Singer must realize if he can overcome his tendency to write Israeli propaganda that the Oslo Accord is dead it was killed off by Netanyahu who reneged on the principle agreement of no more settlement building in the West Bank. It also was in Bush's Road to Peace.

I can not believe the printing of two pro Israeli articles back to back without a single word from the Palestinian side. I have always enjoyed reading the articles and comments of Jewish and Arab opinions and felt that all in all Online Opinion was balanced in its treatment of this highly sensitive issue. Today I see that I was wrong and more pro Israeli propaganda bleeds out of an already biased media. I didn't expect this of you Graham I thought you were a professional and serious editor I guess I was wrong.

Johm Ryan,

'though I see you have a friend as well now'
if you are refering to prompete you've missed Singer's previous only supporter the self professed racist and alleged mysognist (althought there is massive doubt about the alledged)Lego.

Expect his unbecoming appearance in due course.

Ah yes how could I forget that even village propaganda idiots have friends

David. csteele had a good point in challenging the actual substance of your original post on this subject. Your reponce:

"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."

As I understand it, Palestine would need recognition as a legally constituted and 'recognised' state before it could be admitted subject to article II (2). Without this status admission would only be possible through article II (3) ?

Surely it would be in the best interests of the Palestinian peoples to pursue the path of
Legitimate statehood and then make application through the 'usual' channels.
I too would like to see the legitimacy of two states with peace and security assured both.

To Prompete

I have only been addressing the constitutional issues concerning the number of votes required for Palestine's admission to UNESCO up to now.

I agree with you that there are serious questions to be answered as to whether Palestine even qualifies to be admitted to UNESCO since in my view it is not a State within the meaning of the criteria set out in the Montevideo Convention.

The UNESCO Constitution required the Executive Board to first recommend the admission of Palestine before the contoversial vote in the General Conference was taken.

I can only assume at this stage that the Executive Board decided Palestine qualified as a State to enable its application to go to the vote at the General Conference.

On 2 December last I asked UNESCO to supply me with a copy of the Executive Board's recommendation to the General Conference and any reports that formed part of that recommendation.

UNESCO has so far not supplied me with copies.

Cover up? Arrogance? - I don't know why access to these documents should be denied.

Just another reason to sign my petition to get a review of what went on.

Anyone can log on to and sign the petition here:
http://www.change.org/petitions/unesco-review-palestines-unconstitutional-membership

$225 million in lost funds until 2013 - to help tens of millions of people world wide - could hinge on what comes out of such a review.

Apparently UNESCO - and some vocal OLO readers - are happy to see these global victims offered up as sacrificial lambs to avoid a review of a decision which could well be unlawful if looked at by the International Court of Justice (ICJ).

That is not my view.

Ulis,

"I can not believe the printing of two pro Israeli articles back to back without a single word from the Palestinian side"
I can,
If you consult the archives, you would see that David Singer's pro-Zionist propaganda 'articles' have appeared regularly on this site for months, expressions of pro-Palestinian opinion are very rare indeed.

On reflection, I think that we've been wrong to treat this drivel seriously and to 'give it oxygen'.

Ah the international court of justice,now this is a new one from our Israeli propaganda spouting friend,would this be the same court that has or had arrest warrants out for more than a few Israeli leaders,wonder what you were saying about it then David,bet it was not very nice.
Until Israel withdraws all the illegal settlements which means ALL of them and goes back to the 1967 lines things are just going to get worse,you are supporting a racist semi fascist state old son,you think the Arabs are racist,quite a few of your own side are as well.
Ah those Russians and US settlers then we have a PM in Israel who is a renowned liar and the mad religious right,get to the back of the bus woman,if an Arab said that incandescent rage from the Israeli lobby, but because its a religious Israelis silence,we await your usual thing I,m anti Semitic but as far as I know the Arabs are a Semitic people as well.
I believe that there was a book written that casts doubt over the whole racial make up of the state,and allso some archeology has found that both Arabs and Jews descended from common ancestors in that part of the world,now if that's true where does that leave you David

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..

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.

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 ...)

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

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...

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.

To cteele

The American law has been there to ensure there would be a penalty if the PLO sought to take unilateral action outside the Oslo Accords. That has happened and the law has been triggered. The PLO knew America's position and so did the 194 members of UNESCO before they voted.

Sure lobbying America to repeal the law is an option that has already been undertaken by UNESCO and those efforts will continue. My assessment is that UNESCO is knocking its head against a brick wall.The law will not be amended - especially in an election year. If I am wrong - then I am wrong.

I am sure UNESCO is spending a lot of money in delegations flying to Washington, staying in the best hotels and running up big bills in restaurants. The money would be better spent going to the International Court for an advisory opinion.

If UNESCO is not prepared to discuss my detailed submission what else can I infer but that they agree with my submission? I even warned them that is what I would assume if they continued to remain silent. They have. They have had my detailed submission since 2 December.

If you are so sure of the merits of your case and that my opinion is "bollocks" - why are you so afraid to see UNESCO go to the ICJ and have that view confirmed? Or are you perhaps a little uncertain that I might just have an argument that is accepted by the Court and that Palestine will be outed from UNESCO because the provisions of the Constitution were breached?

Do you disapprove of illegality or do you think it should be condoned?

Finally you need to do better than making this wild assertion:

"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."

Rather than relying on your memory go do some research and point out where I alleged this.

Dear David,

You should refrain from calling on others to do research when yours is so wanting. Tom Lantos' legislation on Palestine was adopted in Feb 1990. The Oslo accords came out of the Madrid conference of 1991, were finalized in 1993 and signed months later. Not even close my friend.

The law was and still is punitive bullying.

As you have not replied to my offer to sign your petition you obviously accept it (your rules) and I am working on a pro forma letter to send to all those who are contactable on your list. I will stick to the facts of course. 

Finally to me bothering to delve back through our numerous exchanges. That would only happen if you categorically deny having claimed I was a propagandist for terrorists. The possibility of tripping you up yet again would possibly be worth it but even that is becoming a little old hat.

To csteele

So that we don't waste each others time might I quote from Human Rights Brief the following:

"The funding withdrawal was triggered by the 101st Congress’s passage of the Membership of Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) in the UN Agencies bill. The Obama Administration is struggling to find a way around this statute that prohibits U.S. funding to any UN agency that accords the PLO the same standing as member states. The statute was passed in 1990, before the signing of the Oslo Accords between Israel and the PLO. The Oslo Accords granted international recognition to the PLO as the legitimate representative of the Palestinian people. However, it is unlikely that Congress will amend this law and resume funding UNESCO because of a desire in the U.S. to cut government spending,"

Stop working on your pro forma letter. I wouldn't send it even if you were the next to sign my petition at http://www.change.org/petitions/unesco-review-palestines-unconstitutional-membership.

It is an outrageous suggestion that I breach the privacy of those who signed and will sign the petition.Is that the kind of thing you would do?

However if you give me a letter with your full name and address on it then I am happy to post it on the petition website http://www.change.org/petitions/unesco-review-palestines-unconstitutional-membership together with my response if I think one is required.

Why put the onus on me to categorically deny an allegation of yours which you state is "from memory". Dig it out or withdraw it

Dear David Singer,

The quote you cite runs contrary to your initial assertion that "The American law has been there to ensure there would be a penalty if the PLO sought to take unilateral action outside the Oslo Accords."

You were wrong again yet did not have the good grace to acknowledge it. Instead you inferred getting the facts right was wasting each other's time.

I'm not so flippant about facts so I will again ask you to alter the wording of your petition to reflect the fact you have conceded "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 membership the 107 votes would have been sufficient."

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."

It needs to be changed now since every minute it remains goes directly to your credibility.

I'm not sure what kind of lawyering you do, and who knows you may well be very good at your particular speciality, but international law and voting procedure surely can't be among them. Time to let it go.

To your petitioners and some of the reasons given for signing.

"There is no country today called Palestine and there are no peoples called Palestinians." - Ann Bar-neder

"I am signing this petition because it is time the UN is held accountable for their anti-Israel bias. It must stop. It must change." - Shirley Gerace

"Palestine does not exist, and the Palestinians are just Arabs, like many others" - George Frueden

"Support Israel" - Tom Struick

"The only purpose(s) of the palestinians move to UNESCO is that they wish to steal Jewish heritage and convert it to islamic faux history, in order to complete the theft of Jewish land in Israel." - Shoshana Sumray

Cont..

Cont..

"The UN and Unesco are and all way be Arab lover."- irit steiner

"The land in question belongs to the Jews for many reasons! #1 being their G-d given right!" - Susan Cohen

I'm not getting a great a great sense of concern for those who might be affected by the withdrawal of UNESCO funds.

By the way I wasn't asking you to contact your petitioners, I am more than capable of doing that myself, and in return I am happy to be your 2001st signature.

As to a signed letter complete with my full name and address for posting on your site I think we just might be able to work something out, It would be most important if I am forced to add my name to the others. I feel it is only fair to ask that you do the same with your reply i.e. full name and address, and that I get to view it before posting. When we are both happy with each others offering then and only then should they be published.

In the meantime I will start my counter campaign since obviously I would rather not be in a position to have to fulfil my commitment to sign at the 2000 mark. Shall we put a time limit of until the end of February?

As to asking me to withdraw a statement I think you will find that it requires a denial from you to have any weight. Give it and we will go through the process otherwise suck it up.

Finally I have put up with you inserting the link to your petition in every post but to do it twice in the one go is over the top. You are obviously looking to create as many links as possible to assist with rankings, a good idea so don't mind if I start doing it too.

www.btselem.org

To csteele

I have better things to do with my time than play shenanigans with you.

When you make an allegation you have to prove it. You are not prepared to do so. If that is your idea of how the law works - then any further correspondence is a complete waste of time.

My suggestion: Why don't you start your own petition attacking my petition when you can post whatever you like whenever you like. I am sure it will make interesting reading.

In the meantime I will concentrate on UNESCO seeking a review by the International Court of Justice on the unlawful admission of Palestine as a member state of UNESCO and hope that many more people will support my petition.

If that application is successful then 22% of UNESCO's budget will be immediately reinstated for the benefit of scores of people world wide - both to improve as well prolong their lives.

If not - then UNESCO will have taken an honorable step to try and resume that funding and the provisions of the UNESCO Constitution will
have been judicially clarified in relation to future applications for membership.

You and any others who agree with these objectives are more than welcome to sign it by clicking on:

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

Hey David,

it's ok to take your bat and ball but mate you've left your dummy behind.

To imajulianutter

Indeed I have left my dummy behind ... you.

Have you signed the petition yet? Click here to do so ...

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

..on the other hand I forgot - you can't. It requires you to put in your real name and address.

Enjoy my bat and ball.

I await with considerable interest the responce from the appropriate UNESCO representative detailing the legality or otherwise of the vote taken. I despair for those who have lost the valuable and life saving resources available through UNESCO. I continue to seek an opinion piece from a Palestinian representative justifying this particular approach to enjoining with the world community at the cost to those losing the services of UNESCO.
To muse on the cricket analogy above, perhaps the way to win the game is to 'play the ball, not the man'?

Only brainless morons can be conned into signing petitions that have as their aim the deliberate harm to others.

Keith Kennelly

ECM 570 Royal Esplanade Manly

Brisbane.

Now show you really have let go of your bat and ball and answer some of my many questions.

'... to we Westerners the ends never justify the means. As a western trained lawyer you should know that.

Why don't you apply that principle?'

"We Westerners never attempt to punish those who haven't earned punishment.

Why punish 'Hundreds of millions of people in third world countries (who)stand to suffer as these (UNESCO) programs (in literacy, gender equality and clean water) are curtailed or abandoned'"

'Why wouldn't you punish those countries who voted to include Palestine in UNESCO?'

Since you've never ever attempted to answer any of my many questions and on this sole occassion have only responded by way of a personal attack on my courage, integrity and intellectual ability, I'll take that as plainly indicative of your lack of decency and that you are unwilling to accept any degree of criticism or in this case to be in the least at all self-critical.

How clever you've shown yourself to have been.

To Keith Kennelly(alias imajulianutter)

Firstly I appreciate your outing yourself by removing your anonymity. This should be a standard requirement for all on line sites.

Secondly - you are entitled to your views as I am to mine - and we are each free to disagree with each other after reasoned and rational debate based on fact - not generalistions made without substantiation.

Thirdly - I find your idea of "We Westerners" to be morally offensive and exhibiting notions of superiority that are best left in the sewers. For that reason I don't intend to respond to that part of your post.

Fourthly - your claim - that my petition has the deliberate aim to harm others - is denied.

The petition was started because of UNESCO's refusal to consider my detailed claim that its admission of Palestine as UNESCO's 195th State was unlawful.

That claim was made on 1 December and it was not until 31 December that UNESCO said it did not intend to comment on my claim.

That UNESCO could be so dismissive in a situation where so many people around the world were affected by that decision to admit Palestine - was insulting and arrogant in my opinion.

UNESCO's decision has had serious implications for the lives of scores of millions of people around the world that cannot be ignored and somehow need to be addressed.

UNESCO is not effectively doing this - although it is the flagship for this global community in many areas affecting their daily lives.

Its feeble attempts to set up an Emergency Fund and to lobby America to change its domestic laws have had minimal effect in the last three months.

As I have stated repeatedly on OLO - I believe UNESCO should not be above the law and should not be seen to be above the law.

Whilst UNESCO continues to adopt its current position of sitting on its heels and doing nothing to clarify the legality of its decision - I will continue to highlight its irresponsible stance.

Firstly
an apology is owed, an expression of appreciation is not an apology for calling into question my courage, integrity and intellectual ability ... it's an example of using cowardly weasel words to deny and fudge.

Secondly
‘...- you are entitled to your views as I am to mine - and we are each free to disagree with each other after reasoned and rational debate based on fact - not generalistions made without substantiation.’
It's accepted, and embodied in our laws, and right across the western free world that we are all entitled to our own views and are free to disagree and debate ... without qualification. Your adoption of the qualification ‘after reasoned and rational debate based on fact’ indicates you think that somehow views must be based on someone’s ideas of what is rational and reasoned and of what is fact. That smacks of an attempt at censorship.
Which leads me to ask: How specifically do you want to determine what is rational and sane and what are fact?
Great caution is needed in that sphere. There is a whole body of western work, thought and discussion, in many diverse fields from Psychology through Religion to the Law, on those notions. I doubt you’d be able to answer my question sufficiently to justify your statement, which was clearly indicative of a need for censorship and the control of thought, expression and discussion. (and the anti-thesis of everything western).

Thirdly
‘ - your claim - that my petition has the deliberate aim to harm others - is denied.’
It is irrational to deny my claim when you yourself say

‘If that application is successful then 22% of UNESCO's budget will be immediately reinstated for the benefit of scores of people world wide - both to improve as well prolong their lives...’

I simply ask: Why do you think the Palestinians won’t be hurt by a reversal of UNESCO’s decision?

All your legalistic jargonising is mere weasel words in an attempt to smokescreen and fudge the fact you are trying to deny a whole people international acceptance of their nationhood.

Finally
‘... - I find your idea of "We Westerners" to be morally offensive and exhibiting notions of superiority that are best left in the sewers. For that reason I don't intend to respond to that part of your post.’

Philosophical discussion in the west, of ideas in regard of the principles surrounding means and ends is extensive. It has become a core western value which features in and permeates our society and laws. That you find my use of the term westerners morally offensive and an expression of superiority odd in the extreme, for westerners are defined by their morality and outward displays of the thoughts, ideas and principles that make up western philosophy. That you attempt to criticise me because I dare use such a term is astonishing.

It leads me to ask: On what basis do you lay claim to be western?

Now forget your use of weasel word excuses for not responding ... they are not at all, appropriate, meritorious nor creditable.

Now let’s see the true extent of your intellect rather than your expertise in mere propagandising and wordmongering.

And by the way I think you have debased the philosophical basis of our justice system and are now, standing in the dock, accused of trashing the system that you as a lawyer are supposedly a ‘pillar’ as I note you offered no explanation nor defense of your support of those who would punish innocents.