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...