The US's decision to cease funding the UN's Unesco organization is fundamentally unjust.

It's my position that the US did NOT act ‘unjustly' in ceasing to continue to fund UNESCO. In other words, the US is justified in not continuing to fund UNESCO, as it is a necessary reaction to a broader issue. I accept the definition of ‘unjust'. I simply find usage of the word ‘moral' to be unnecessary. Saying something is right or fair summarizes a point of view. I know what these words represent, and will not use semantics to debate them. My opponent believes it's NOT right that the US cut UNESCO funding, for one, because it harms people. My opponent and I agree that harming people is not ‘right and fair'. It is my responsibility then to show how it is not harming people, or that the harm is due to the motivations of others. Is this action (UN vote) motivated by something ‘right and fair'? Will it lead to something better for the Palestinians? Will it lead to the stated goal of a Palestinian state with rights and security for Palestinians? If no: Then the action can't be considered right and fair as it perpetuates the conflict. Something far less ‘just' than what my opponent is accusing the US of. A) Not reflective of US Values My opponent points out the evolution of society dictating what is considered to be moral. This consideration of morality is reflected entirely by popularity (To points of moral absolutes regarding laws of slavery and racism. This is reflected in the flaws of the US constitution, showing it, and societies evolve to new standards). This ‘new view' isn't the case regarding these laws or public opinion on Israel (the latter to be proven in this round). Thus my opponent's argument doesn't apply. The US may find laws allowing consumption of beef to be immoral in 300 years. But that time has yet to arrive, in either case. Ai) Laws are illogical Aii) Public Support Ai)<<"Timothy Wirth…states "the implications of this [withholding funding] are really dangerous for the United Nations and the United States".>> My opponent neglects to state that Timothy Wirth is the head of "the UN foundation". By citing this article to point to the laws in context does not mean I endorse all statements within the article. Risks regarding private business and legality of such will secure other options, like direct funding and alternative options that will mitigate the lack of the established bureaucratic method, thus will not likely hinder US business interests substantially long term. Even if it creates difficulty, these actions are intended to end the escapade now, before escalating into what would be a far greater inconvenience to US interests as it snowballs. This will be shown in the latter part of this round. Aii) Public support <<"However, I would…contend this…in 1991 and 1994, perhaps it can be said that the US people did support such a stance, but a whole 20 years later?">> < > My opponent lays the validity of this section on these statements. If it can be shown that US public opinion is consistently in support of Israel the past 20 years, the argument is negated. http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org... This link provides a detailed table showing clearly where US public support stands. Gallup has done monthly opinion polls on this since the 60's. It can be seen by the table, overwhelming public opinion for Israel has never come close to shifting into support for Palestinians/Arabs. [2] The US public didn't feel a unilateral Palestinian bid for statehood at the UN was in the best interest then, and equal to greater support for Israel would indicate a similar stance now. In my opponent's final attempt to make this point he blatantly uses ‘selective data points' to imply waning/fluctuating support for Israel. (I'm not accusing my opponent of doing this intentionally. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt, but will prove the point is outright dishonest) The data in the table confirms my opponent's numbers yet show they are statistical abnormalities followed by a return to expected (typical) statistical norms. To illustrate the egregiousness of this ‘selective data' argument: He points to the results (though doesn't specify) of -Gallup poll OCT 1982-, results: 32% Israel- 28% Arabs, yet neglects to point out that one month before this, the results were 41-12. The six months following: 40-17, 49-12, 49-12, 49-12, 43-20, and 37-15. Looking at the rest of the data no one could conclude what my opponent has misrepresented. This, unfortunately, speaks for itself. He concludes: <<"This is very important…the brevity and inconsistency of US support for Israel…how the status quo from 20 years ago…cannot reflect the current stance today.">> This has now been debunked. US public support for Israel remains consistent without ambiguity. <<"This is why I believe that the US lacks the ‘political' and ‘social' justification to enact the laws.">> Perhaps my opponent now reconsiders. Regardless, this contention has been resolved, and will hopefully be dropped. B) My opponent dropped most of this, and subsequent arguments that paint US as bigoted/mean-spirited. I assume this is due to the laws being cited, showing this action was NOT the US being simply reactionary, as asserted. C) "…no question that UNESCO will manage to be ‘active' in spite of losing 20% of its funding…means that it will be 20% less effective." The effects of UNESCO in my opponent's definition of ‘Palestine' would be negligible. The loss of effectives on a global scale is an unfortunate result that I will have defended as justified by the end of this debate. My opponent argues my assertion that UNESCO could reconsider this vote: <<<"They have no choice…the decision did, does and will lie with the world stage.">>> An Executive board lets the vote proceed. They voted 40-4 (14 abstains). At this point, the results of the proper vote were a forgone conclusion. It'll be interesting to see how executive boards of other UN organizations vote knowing the US stands by its core values. If they fear support wane from their greatest benefactor (and Canada [2]) then the US maintaining its position may prevent the charade from going further. We can't know the results until the next executive board votes. Which may be followed by another, and so on, perhaps until someone finally asks the question: What's the point? I hope my opponent offers an answer that presents a path to statehood with rights and security for Palestinians. Otherwise, US citizens are justifiably concerned about endless litigation that has no coherent, positive goal. D) These aren't contradictory. If it's being implied that the US is violating a law, please cite it. E) Palestine is Tiny I accept my opponent's definition of Palestine, though I don't generally agree and think my opponent is mistaken for using it in the context of this debate. Furthermore, I would like to point out that the ‘maps' my opponent links, have been debunked as propaganda. Here are five sources/opinions/illustrations proving as much: [4][5][6][7][8] On the actual point about ‘tiny Palestine', it doesn't make a difference. The UNESCO vote is not an isolated incident that the US can allow because its cost will be minimal. It's intended to prevent the continuation of an effort that is counter-intuitive to a stated goal. The action created a disincentive for this ruse to continue. Should threats of defunding be considered, we can hope one less route devoid of meaningful steps toward justice for Palestinians can be eliminated, and one step closer to a substantive one. In summery, I believe I have negated all my opponent's points and shown that the US has acted in an effort to prevent a greater unjust action. This effort is intended to stop this costly and lengthy charade, and the laws/policy have now proven effective in doing so, "Palestinians drop plans to Join other UN agencies." [3] (Sources in comments)