This is nonsense. If millions of dollars of UNESCO funding are at risk, it is because certain parties are so desperate to see Palestine denied any form of recognition at all, even by a peripheral body such as UNESCO.

David Singer,

you have no credibility while you steadfastly refuse to answer my questions regarding your support for the punishment of innocents.
It is a fundamental value in the west for us not to indulge in that type of behaviour.
Again I ask you:
Why support punishing '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 instead support punishment of those countries who voted to include Palestine in UNESCO?

Anyone who signs your petition is supporting the punishing of innocents.

It is no great wonder UNESCO is ignoring you.

David Singer, it seems to me that your concern for the loss of financial support for those UNESCO projects is really a minor consideration to you. Your real concern is that the Palestinians have done something to get up your nose and you don't want them to get away with that, do you?

David

#To Jeremy, imajulianutter and VK3AUU

My concern is that what UNESCO did was not in accordance with its Constitution. I gave UNESCO my reasons on 1 December. UNESCO has not responded.

I accept the jurisdiction of the International Court to determine whether Palestine's admission to UNESCO was lawful or unlawful.

The question you critics should all be asking is - why is UNESCO not prepared to do the same? - especially as its decision has cost it 22% of its budget which will be automatically restored if the Court finds UNESCO acted unlawfully.

Pardon me for believing the UNESCO Constitution is to be observed at all times - not broken.

That has obviously been an alien concept for all of you - as your posts indicate.

If you however now agree with me - then you can sign the petition at:
http://www.change.org/petitions/unesco-review-palestines-unconstitutional-membership

900 other people from 25 countries have so far agreed with me by signing the petition- and their numbers are increasing every day.

I fail to see the point in denigrating Singer for posing a reasonable question to the UNESCO secretariat: was the admission of 'Palestine' in accordance with the constitution of the organisation? a simple yes or no would surfice. Can we neither denigrate nor 'punish' either the Palistinian proponents or the member states who voted in favour of that admission; they were fully aware of the economic consequences of that vote with regard to American domestic law, they are neither ignorant or idiots.

I would have thought those states voting in favour of admission would have considered a plan 'B' that would have had the effect of covering the inevitable funding shortfall that resulted in their vote.

It appears to me that they have done the Palistinian cause ('Palistinian statehood' - to which I agree) no favour in trying to short cut the UNESCO constitution in this manner, if in fact they have. When considering the monies at stake, I would think that 100k would be a cost effective way of having the issue resolved?

So, because the US is acting in character, like a spoiled spiteful bully and withholding funds due, UNESCO has to cravenly cave to their demands??
No comment on the inhumanity of the US administration using aid as a lever, a weapon, but then, what is new about that?
All because the wrong people won the wrong election?
So much for supporting Palestinian rights to self determination and a clear demonstration (if one was needed) of who/what pulls the strings.
I am still always amazed when supposedly intelligent people like Singer give their support to such utterly nasty behaviour.

If a country did not want Palestine admitted, then they could have voted that way.

The constitution states "two-thirds majority of Members present and voting" Abstentions are not considered as votes. Only 14 votes against out of 121 votes.

Only 914 out of 100,000 signatures. Now that isn't a two third majority!

#To Prompete

Thank you for bringing some rationality back into the discussion.

However UNESCO simply saying "Yes" or "No" to my detailed submission is not good enough - so far as I am concerned.

UNESCO needs to detail where it disagrees with my submission and clearly state the reasons why - to see whether we can reach common ground to resolve any differences of opinion.

If UNESCO says nothing - I can only conclude it cannot rebut my arguments.

I told UNESCO this is the conclusion I would draw unless they notified me to the contrary. UNESCO remains silent.

Plan "B" has been formulated by the establishment of an Emergency Fund but so far has failed to recoup less than 50% of the lost funding of $72 million in 2011.

This Fund will continue to be ineffective to recoup the lost funding expected to be $188 million in 2012-2013.

For an investment of $100000 UNESCO can find out whether it can recoup this money and similar bi-annual amounts in the future.

It appears to be reluctant to do so because it fears the Court might find Palestine's admission did not comply with the Constitution.

Putting UNESCO's future on the line - and the millions of people who rely on it - by maintaining a possibly unlawful decision breaching UNESCO's Constitution - seems to be a totally irresponsible course of action to pursue.

#To Therzal

The American law that mandated America suspending its contribution of 22% of UNESCO's budget is 20 years old - and was known at the time the UNESCO vote on Palestine was taken.

The only lifeline that can save UNESCO from financial disaster is that the UNESCO decision on Palestine may be declared to be unlawful.

By all means - work to have that law changed if you think that law is bad. UNESCO is lobbying to get it changed. Any chance of success in my opinion is extremely unlikely in this election year and indeed beyond.

UNESCO needs to learn one thing from this continuing fiasco - ignore the law at your own peril.

To Stezza

You state:

"The constitution states "two-thirds majority of Members present and voting"

No it doesn't.

The constitution specifically states:

"..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."

A majority of 129 votes was required to admit Palestine under this clause and only 107 votes were received.

However the clear intent of this clause may have been varied by a later general clause that states:

"Each Member State shall have one vote in the General Conference. Decisions shall be made by a simple majority except in cases in which a two-thirds majority is required by the provisions of this Constitution, or the Rules of Procedure of the General Conference. A majority shall be a majority of the Members present and voting."

If it does - then the vote was adequate.

My view is that this general provision cannot alter the clear words of the specific provision - especially when one reads the clause relating to the admission of Associate members which requires:

" 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,"

Clearly the Constitution requires different voting procedures for admission to membership or associate membership.

Applying the general clause would negate the different specific requirements for membership and associate membership.

Only a judicial ruling can clarify the apparent inconsistencies that these clauses create.

Then there is the issue of whether Palestine possessed the legal attributes to qualify as a State. UNESCO has refused to provide me with a copy of the recommendation of the Executive Board which should have dealt with this issue.

The 914 signatures received in support of my petition far exceeds the contrary views against signing the petition expressed by about 10 readers of OLO.

Perhaps you might even now be persuaded to sign the petition to clear up this mess by clicking on:

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

My apologies, the relevant part of the constitution is in fact:

"..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."

We seem to differ in whether abstentions are considered as votes. They obviously do not. Thus the General Conference had a total of 121 votes. Now if the wording was "by a two-thirds majority of the General Conference." Then the meaning would be different. Then again only lawyers can decide this, and who cares what they think?

Perhaps all of these 1,178,889 signatures on this petition come from these 10 readers of OLO? Just in case you change your mind.

http://www.avaaz.org/en/independence_for_palestine_en/?rc=fb&pv=99

#To Stezza

Nice that you now acknowledge that the clause quoted in your earlier post does not exist in UNESCO's constitution.

Even nicer that you acknowledge that there could be inconsistencies in some of the clauses in UNESCO's constitution that only lawyers can decide.

That is all I have been seeking to do with UNESCO since 5 November - but they don't want to discuss it with me.

You ask - Who cares what lawyers think?

I would hope everyone - especially those who live in countries where the rule of law and not the law of the jungle prevails.

You can get 20 million signatures on your petition but it won't help make Palestine the world's next nation unless it complies with customary international law as codified in the Montevideo Convention.

The vetting committee at the United Nations apparently came to that conclusion when rejecting the PLO application to admit Palestine as a member of the UN.

Why UNESCO took a different view to the UN is indeed very interesting. Of course UNESCO is withholding the information I requested to let me see why they did.

Had UNESCO adopted the approach of the UN - then UNESCO would not be in the dire financial straits in which it now finds itself.

At the risk of sounding boring I repeat the old saying - ignore the law at your peril.

UNESCO is learning this lesson in the hardest way - and on present indications the penny has still not dropped yet.

Better for UNESCO to swallow its pride and urgently seek an advisory opinion from the International Court to clarify the legality of its decision - and if reversed - to secure the resumption of US funding.

If however UNESCO's decision is confirmed - then the proper interpretation of the clauses in the Constitution will be resolved and Palestine's admission to UNESCO will stand.

After you calmly reflect on the merit of this suggested course of action - you might like to sign my petition which is urging UNESCO to do just that.

Here is the link again:

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

"Nice that you now acknowledge that the clause quoted in your earlier post does not exist in UNESCO's constitution. "

Yes it does, it just referred to admission of associate members. My mistake.

However, abstentions are not considered as votes, so the General Conference had a total of 121 votes. Your mistake.

I asked my Palestinian friend what he thought of lawyers deciding his right to have a nation. He certainly doesn't think much of that. You don't want to know what he would think of you.

Do you think posting the same thing over and over again will change peoples opinion? Oh wait, I'm talking to David Singer...

Dear David Singer,

Seems repetition is the flavour of the month so allow me.

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".

Cont'

Cont'

You have conceded in your own words that "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.

Tick Tock.

As to your last piece I must admit nearly falling off the chair. You had given the impression that either you or supporters of this cause were going to stump up the $100,000 to take this to the International Court of Justice but I see you want UNESCO to pay for it? To challenge their own decision? Mate, you would have to explain to me why that isn't just plain delusional.

If you want to challenge it get the funds yourself, UNESCO needs every dollar it has left after a patently unjust law of a bullying nation stripped it of vital funds.

To your petitioners. They have proved to be a fascinating lot including a doctor in Texas, a blind and gay artist, a coffee shop owner, a lovely Dutch lady, and even an Israeli lawyer. I am getting replies from one in every two I contact and there will be some I'm sure I will stay in touch with.

Being a little busy has meant I'm not able to give this the attention it deserves but there has been good agreement that the petition should be altered to reflect your concession about Article II (3) so how about it?

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4166395,00.html

Thanks for the link Stezza

http://www.avaaz.org/en/independence_for_palestine_en/?rc=fb&pv=9

'Do you think posting the same thing over and over again will change peoples opinion?'

Gobbels had a similar opinion.

#To csteele

Repeat your viewpoint as often as you like It only goes to prove we each have different opinions that can only be finally resolved by a judicial ruling.

Sorry - I'm not stumping up a cent. UNESCO has the problem of getting out of the quicksand into which it has stumbled - not me.

I have offered my advice free of charge to try and help UNESCO save itself - and will continue to do so if they want to listen. They obviously are not keen to find out if what they did was unlawful. They are being incredibly naive and stupid. The resulting chaos will be on their heads the longer they hold off going to the ICJ.

You have offered nothing constructive - other than encourage UNESCO to do nothing. Come up with a creative suggestion to match your undoubted intellect to help UNESCO out of the mess it is in.

The status quo is intolerable.

Wow - are you that worried by the growing number of signatures on my petition that you are now trying to write to the 900 persons who have signed so far to persuade them to withdraw their signatures?

Why don't you post a list of the people to whom you have written, your letter to them and their reply?

Why is it relevant that they may be doctors, blind or gay,coffee shop owners, Dutch ladies or Israeli lawyers ? Don't their opinions count?

Look - I will just post the link to the petition site here again - so you will have the opportunity to write to a few more people once they sign:

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

OLO readers - this is your opportunity to become friends with #cteele by signing my petition - an offer you won't surely want to miss. Go for it.

Glad to see I have at least been able to help #csteele - if not UNESCO.

#To Keith Kennelly (alias imajulianutter)

Irrelevant post - as usual. I don't think #csteele will like you rapping him over the knuckles and comparing him to Goebbels.

Dear David Singer,

UNESCO didn't stumble into any quicksand instead it marched forward with a principled stance on the question of the inclusion of Palestine into its ranks, true to its constitution and its charge. A two thirds majority vote was recorded and Palestine duly admitted, despite the body knowing the potential consequences.

I for one am proud of it.

I am not proud of the US's actions nor Israel's in announcing the withholding of tens of millions of Palestinian custom dollars and the intention to build another 2,000 settler homes in the West Bank in direct response. In fact it would be fair to say I am disgusted, particularly by Israel and also with myself for being blind for so long to what that government had become.

I think you once described me as one of the 'Arab's biggest propaganda successes' or something to that effect. I'm just not prepared to take crap from either side any longer but will say Israel has by far the biggest shovel at the moment.

While we are on propaganda I have been fairly circumspect about whom I contact from your petitioners. I am particularly looking for those who show strong social justice ethics on other issues since I'm interested in why they would support your efforts.

Take for example latest person to grace your site, one Linda Cedarbaum of San Francisco. The first thought is that someone from the West coast might be fairly Liberal in their outlook and a far cry from the retired Jewish Florida folk or the rabid Creationist Christians out of Texas who seem to feature quite prominately among your proponents.

A quick look at her voting record on change.org showed support for petitions on 'Help end slavery in our supply chains', 'Tell House Republicans: Hands off Social Security and Medicare', and 'Tell EPA: Protect us from toxic mercury, arsenic and lead pollution'. Sure there was one about 'Tell the Governor of NY: Stop the extradition of an innocent Jewish Mother from NY to MD', but that wasn't a deal breaker by any means.
http://www.change.org/members/1567835

Cont'

Cont'

Linda's Linkedin account also started off promising enough, a nice enough looking lady who professed to be a writer and consultant. All good so far. A quick skim of the 'Overview' reveals training and work as a psychotherapist dealing with children, even a stint with the Red Cross.
http://www.linkedin.com/in/lindabreinercedarbaum

Not bad. Or at least until one focusses a little more on her current position as Board President at blueStar. The penny didn't drop until I opened the link.

“blueStar empowers the next generation of Israel advocates and leaders. We produce posters, videos, and educational programs for teens, college students, and adults.

Each year, nearly 80,000 Jewish American high school graduates enter college mostly unprepared to deal with the anti-Israel environment on many campuses. Our goal is to change that starting with teens in the San Francisco Bay Area.

The Write On for Israel two-year educational program gives young people a background in Jewish and Israeli history, and teaches the critical thinking skills and tools necessary for them to become powerful Israel advocates, spokespeople and opinion leaders - before they reach college.”

Wow.

I will not be bothering the good Ms Cedarbaum.

You said; “You have offered nothing constructive - other than encourage UNESCO to do nothing.” not true at all. I have sent them a letter of support for their actions and encouragement for them to stay the course against some very strident and inflammatory criticism.

Further I am preparing a more detailed submission on your submission to Mr Neil Ford since I am not sure he is familiar with your background and I feel it would be helpful. I will post its contents here when I send it.

I am also lobbying in my own little way to have Australia match Iceland's $100,000 to the UNESCO emergency fund, something I'm sure you support because of your professed deep concern for those who will suffer from the funding shortfall. Can I put your name down?

To #csteele

Revealing the personal details of the other 899 signatories to my petition will sure keep you occupied for probably the rest of your unnatural life.

Better hurry up with your obsessive adventure. Others could be signing at this moment and you will be continually chasing your tail.

Just looked - indeed the number is now up to 921!!

Join their ranks by signing here:
http://www.change.org/petitions/unesco-review-palestines-unconstitutional-membership

By the way ... what about telling us who #csteele is? Male? Female?Black? Gay? coffee shop owner? Dutch? organizations you work for? rabid creationist Christian? Jew hater?

Expose yourself in the same way you apparently enjoy exposing others.

What is good for the gander should surely be good for the goose (you)

I loved your choice statement:

"UNESCO didn't stumble into any quicksand instead it marched forward with a principled stance on the question of the inclusion of Palestine into its ranks, true to its constitution and its charge. A two thirds majority vote was recorded and Palestine duly admitted, despite the body knowing the potential consequences.

I for one am proud of it."

Those 107 states that voted for Palestine's admission had no idea of the potential consequences of their decision - which I will detail in my next article which I hope to send to OLO today.

I hope you hang your head in shame if OLO publishes it - and you can take time out from your distasteful sleuthing activities to read it.

Why would Australia - who voted NO - now contribute $100000 to help UNESCO out of a financial crisis that Australia foresaw would occur?

Then again - you may have unwittingly sown the seeds for a great idea.

Why don't you lobby the Australian Government to put up the $100000 to fund a cash strapped UNESCO going to the International Court to determine the legality of UNESCO's decision to admit Palestine?

Start a petition. I will be the second to sign it - after you.

If you are too modest to sign first since it was actually not your idea entirely.. then I will do so.

David, based on your calculations, can you tell us the percentage of countries who voted 'No'.

You still haven't addressed the fact that your basic math are wrong.

Abstentions are not considered as votes, so the General Conference had a total of 121 votes. Simple as that.

#To Stezza

Thank you for actually wanting to discuss the subject matter of my article.

The Constitution specifically requires a two-thirds majority vote of the General Conference to admit non-member states of the UN to UNESCO. The words "present and voting" do not appear in that clause but they do in the clause relating to the admission of Associate members - which indicates that the voting requirements differ in each case...

The General Conference is comprised of 194 members. Two-thirds equals 129. Palestine only got 107. Motion lost

Now there is a later general clause that could be taken to mean that the two thirds majority is of those "present and voting". In that case there were 121 who were present and voted. Two-thirds equals 81. Motion carried.

I don't think the second interpretation is correct. If it was - it would take away the differentiation between the vote needed to admit members and the vote to admit associate members.

That is my opinion. A court might take a different view.

But it needs to be resolved - because if I am right Palestine will be out of UNESCO and 22% of UNESCO's budget will be restored.

If I am wrong - then Palestine's admission will be confirmed - as will the way the Constitution should be interpreted to avoid any problems with future applications for membership.

Given the range of issues this decision has raised - spending $100000 getting it judicially resolved seems like money very well spent.

Hope you might now agree and sign this petition:
http://www.change.org/petitions/unesco-review-palestines-unconstitutional-membership

Thanks for avoiding my questions.

You said "The Constitution specifically requires a two-thirds majority vote of the General Conference to admit non-member states of the UN to UNESCO." Now concentrate hard, and focus on the word 'vote', see how this word implies that it has something to do with the process of voting? Now that you have admitted that abstentions are not considered as votes, you will see that your math is incorrect. By applying your incorrect logic to the "No" votes you will see the error in your way.

It would take a lawyer to be able to ignore the fact that the majority people in the world, and the majority of countries which to see an independent state of Palestine, and instead focus on the wording of a rather irrelevant law. then again, what else are you good at?

It is also interesting to note that you state:

"if I am right Palestine will be out of UNESCO and 22% of UNESCO's budget will be restored. If I am wrong - then Palestine's admission will be confirmed - as will the way the Constitution should be interpreted to avoid any problems with future applications for membership."

So if UNESCO does do as you wish, and spends this money to prove itself correct, the the 22% funding will not be restored. Interestingly it seems that this money is withheld not due to the fact that some people differ in the interpretation of the constitution, rather it is because the US is punishing UNESCO for recognizing the Palestinian state. So either way they will lose this funding. Palestine will be an independent state and there is nothing you and your lawyer friends can do about it.

#To Stezza

You wanted my maths. I gave you my maths.

Now - what are your maths?

If they differ from mine - who would you suggest resolve the impasse?

You accuse me of focusing on "the wording of a rather irrelevant law".

The UNESCO constitution - irrelevant? Give us a break. It governs everything UNESCO does and UNESCO must always act in accordance with it.

Of course the "wording of that rather irrelevant law" also stipulates that "states not members of the United Nations Organization may be admitted to membership of the Organization"

Was the applicant - Palestine - a "state"?

The meaning of this wording may be irrelevant to you as well. It is not to me.

Again - who do you suggest decide?

Going to the Court will result in a win for UNESCO - whichever way the Court rules.

Why would UNESCO not spend $100000 to get to that position - given the financial crisis that has enveloped it since making its controversial decision?

If you haven't got a better idea then I suggest you again reconsider signing the petition at:
http://www.change.org/petitions/unesco-review-palestines-unconstitutional-membership

UNESCO member states= 194
UNESCO members present= 173
Abstentions= 52
Number of votes= 173-52= 121
"No" votes= 14
"Yes" votes= 107

Percentage of "Yes" votes = ["Yes" votes / Number of votes] x 100= [107/121]x100= 88.4% > 66.6%

"Why would UNESCO not spend $100000 to get to that position - given the financial crisis that has enveloped it since making its controversial decision?"

Perhaps because that would be spending money to prove to people like you that they are correct, and would not result in a resumption of funding. Why don't you put your money up if you think you are right? I won't bother debating this with you further as it is your job to debate endlessly with no outcome, and my job actually requires me to produce something useful.

#To stezza

So - we disagree on the maths.

Who decides who has got it wrong? Do we just agree to disagree?

I note you are very silent on the question of whether "Palestine" is a State and qualifies to be admitted to UNESCO.

I would guess you probably disagree with me when I say it doesn't - because in my view it does not comply with the provisions of customary international law as codified in the Montevideo Convention.

To you that would probably be irrelevant as well.

So who decides this issue? Do we again just agree to disagree?

These issues require urgent judicial resolution - given the circumstances UNESCO now finds itself in.

Your claim that UNESCO should not be spending money to prove to people like me that they are correct - ignores the fact that possibly I might be correct and they might be wrong.

Isn't the slightest possibility of recouping $188 million in 2012-2013 and similar amounts every two years thereafter worth an investment of $100000?

I am sure there are lots of litigation funders who would relish the opportunity to take on this case for UNESCO for a 20% share of any additional funds flowing to UNESCO.

Maybe UNESCO believes I might just be correct - since they have chosen to refuse to discuss my detailed submission given to them two months ago.

You gave me your maths in a few days.

Why has UNESCO got a problem giving me the same answer as yours - and also justifying the basis on which the Executive Board recommended that Palestine qualified to be admitted as a member state?

I hope you don't work for UNESCO.

Doing nothing in the current crisis - as you suggest - will put your job at real risk of disappearing.

Once more - I post the link to the petition for you to sign:
http://www.change.org/petitions/unesco-review-palestines-unconstitutional-membership

Dear David Singer,

You said "Revealing the personal details of the other 899 signatories to my petition will sure keep you occupied for probably the rest of your unnatural life."

I don't think providing a link to a person's LinkedIn account is revealing personal details, especially when they are supplied by that individual precisely for unrestricted access.

The reason for pointing out where Ms Cedarbaum's sympathies lie is to illustrate that she is quite typical your petitioners who notably are far more concerned with serving Israel's interest than those of the defunded peoples and projects around the world. In fact I would venture to say that 90% would fall into this category, though probably not 'Customer Support' from Cupertino, California. I hope you don't count it in your tally.

As to my 'unnatural  life' it is always heartening to see cracks in your veneer and you even managed to slip 'Jew hater' into the post.

Regarding my 'obsessive natural'. I'm afraid I have only had the time to research and contact one or two a night. It is impossible  doing this on site so it is the best I can manage.

Finally I have promised to sign your petition if you reach 2000 by the end of the month and have already said I will put my full details up then. As you say what is good for the goose...

David 'sign this petition' Singer,

You wanting to discuss the legalities is simply a smokescreen for hiding the fact you are wanting and urging people to harm innocents.

Isn't it David?

That is what I've claimed you are doing on many previous occassions and you keep cowardly running away from the obvious answer.

You as a lawyer have absolutely no credibility until you defend yourself on this issue as it is a fundamental of our democratic and legal systems that we don't punish innocents.

#To csteele

Breathtaking reply!!

Whilst you spend the next eighteen months doing your intrusive and forensic analysis into 900 people who signed my petition, I hope you will have enough time to count the millions of people who will suffer as they see UNESCO funding withdrawn from programs designed to improve their lives.

By the way - your work load has increased.

There are now more than 1000 people who have signed the petition.

I don't intend to respond to any of your future posts until you withdraw and apologize for your unconscionable behaviour - other than to state "persona non grata"

#To Keith Kennelly (alias imajulianutter)

How many innocents will be harmed by this unlawful decision of UNESCO? Ten million? 50 million? 100 million?

We can only wait and see what unfolds as UNESCO cuts its programs to make up for the loss of $260 million until 2013.

Wake up and try to understand what is happening at this very moment to people all around the world whose lives have been changed by UNESCO's decision.

If you can come up with a better suggestion than mine then let me into the secret.

In the meantime take the time to think about signing this petition:

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

So I have become one of David Singer's persona non gratis individuals.

Thus I have joined the millions of Palestinians who exist under brutal Israeli rule, the millions more who live in wretched refugee camps, and the tens of thousands who rot in Israeli jails.

You sir do me great honour.

Thank you.