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.