Browse By

Op-Ed: Can the UN legally impose a solution on Israel?

The EU and the UN want to substitute corporate imperialism for national imperialism.

A movement is afoot to get the UN to predetermine borders between Israel and the future 23rd Arab state and to recognize “East Jerusalem” as its capital. Such predetermination would be in violation of the Roadmap which calls for a negotiated solution where “negotiated” implies freedom to say “no”. And such predetermination would prejudge the outcome which the world never tires of telling Israel, no one can do.

I began doing research on the powers of the UN and on whether such UN predetermination would be ultra-vires its Charter. In other words, would it be legal by international law for the UN to dictate a solution. I wanted to know what the consequences might be for Israel. I have not yet gotten a good enough fix on these questions to give an opinion.

Regardless of the true meaning of the Charter, I fear that the UN would give the same answer that the Queen gave to Alice in Wonderland, “It means what I say it means”.

David Solway in The United Nations: Public Enemy Number Onerecommended that the US withdraw from the UN. He recites in a detailed way what is wrong with the UN and why it is the enemy of the US and freedom.

But his polemic left out a reference to the overriding purpose of the UN.

In 2001, John F McManus, the then president of the John Birch Society, gave a speech entitled The Plan to Have the UN Rule.

He quotes from a State Department official in 1945

“ there is no provision in the Charter itself that contemplates ending war. It is true the Charter provides for force to bring peace, but such use of force is itself war. The Charter is built to prepare for war, not to promote peace. The Charter is a war document, not a peace document.

“Not only does the Charter organization not prevent future wars, it makes it practically certain that we shall have future wars, and as to such wars it takes from us the power to declare them, to choose on which side we shall fight, to determine what forces and military equipment we shall use in the war, and to control and command our sons who do the fighting.”

While the Charter pays lip service to national sovereignty by pledging to maintain “the sovereign equality of all its Members,” for no one would have joined otherwise, it is all about limiting such sovereignty.

Thus joining negates sovereignty.

“No one can understand the reasoning behind self-defeating policies of the United States government without an awareness of the enormously harmful influence of the Council on Foreign Relations.

This organization has worked to destroy Americas national sovereignty and create a tyrannical world government ever since its inception in 1921. It members are the leaders in government, the mass media, the wealthy foundations, the military, religion, education, the corporate world, and other important segments of our nations life. They are betrayers from within, and their influence has spread to numerous other parts of the world.”

That is also what the UN intends achieving.

“The Charters main authors were Americans Alger Hiss and Leo Pasvolsky and the Soviet Unions Vyacheslav Molotov. Hiss was a secret communist and a member of the world-government-promoting Council on Foreign Relations. Pasvolsky was also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. And Molotov was an official of the murderous Soviet Union whose criminal leaders expected the United Nations to bring about a communist-controlled world.

These men surely did not want the nations of the world to remain independent. Instead, they wanted all to become subject to the authority of the United Nations, an organization they expected to control. And they wrote the UN Charter to accomplish that goal.”

A subsequent step along the way was the creation of the EU which overrides the sovereignty of its members. In fact it may have the illusion of itself being a democratic body with electorates all electing their representatives, in reality it is run by a permanent bureaucracy. In effect the Europeans have been disenfranchised by joining.

The supporters of world government need world problems, real or imagined, to justify world solutions. While the planet may or may not be warming, and if warming, may or may not be man made, what is important is that a world solution is needed. Never mind whether the suggested solutions would work, they would certainly involve the enlargement and power of world government and that is the point.

What is envisaged is a stateless world. The nineteenth century was the “age of nationalism”. Nationalism is blamed for most the wars which ensued. It is no longer a good thing. Political Zionism was born in that century. As nationalism went into disfavour in the twentieth century so did Zionism.

Imperialism is usually associated with nation states and is also decried. In fact in many ways nationalism resisted the imperialism


Click here for the Top 12 Moments in Jewish History...LET THE ADVENTURE BEGIN! »


Join the over 1.4 million fans of Jews News on FB…It’s NOT news unless it’s Jews News!

Powered by WordPress Popup