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?