“The UN Charter is a war document, not a peace document.”

By Ted Belman. (Dec 23, 2009)

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.

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

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 of Hearts gave to Alice in Wonderland, “It means what I say it means”.

Yesterday, David Solway in The United Nations: Public Enemy Number One recommended 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.

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 America’s 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 nation’s 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 Charter’s main authors were Americans Alger Hiss and Leo Pasvolsky and the Soviet Union’s 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. Nevermind 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 of others. The powers that be, such as CFR, see the doing away with nationalism as doing away with the resistance. In effect they want to substitute corporate imperialism for national imperialism.

Islam has no trouble with a stateless world. In fact it seeks a world caliphate in which Islam is supreme. The Caliphate is important, not the state.

When noticing how Islamification is aided and abetted by the US and EU governments against the wishes of their citizens, I am reminded of the alliance between the Rome and the Catholic Church in the fourth century AD. The Catholic Church as an agent of Rome, used to suppress the people in the name of God thereby removing popular resistance to Rome. With the fall of Rome, the Church went on to align itself with the ruling aristocracies and monarchies. During the age of colonialism, the Church was an active partner.

Similarly Islam is a tool to harass and intimidate the people in the service of the rulers.

“Allah” gave Mohammed the rallying cry and justification for conquering the world. Islam maintains itself by a brutal suppression of freedoms. The people are entirely disenfranchised. Thus Islam and World Government are comfortable bedmates and fellow travellers.

Pres. Obama is totally supportive of the Caliphate and of the UN. He is working to empower them both. His policies include:

1. World nuclear disarmament
2. Reduction of the US military and role as the world’s policeman to be replaced by an international force.
3. Embracing the UN and even UNHRC.
4. Whitewashing Islam

Will the American people take Solway’s advice and get the hell out? Remains to be seen.

So what does all this mean for little Israel? With few exceptions Israel has no friends among the nations. The US so far has been willing to to stand by Israel by using its veto in the Security Council or supporting her right to self defense in the Lebanon War and Gaza War. But that support comes with a price, namely that Israel capitulates to the Arabs and accepts their terms for peace.

The last four Israel Prime Ministers, Sharon, Olmert, Livni and Netanyahu all came up through the ranks of Likud. All have accepted the inevitability of succumbing to American pressure and each tried to salvage what they could for Israel.

Netanyahu, the current Prime Minister, was forced by Obama to institute a 10 month settlement freeze, after which according to Netanyahu, construction will fully commence. Nothing is being said as to what happens at the end of this period to the peace process.

It is inconceivable that the world will give up its efforts to get Israel to withdraw to the greenline and share Jerusalem. Whether we are talking about the Roadmap, Ananapolis or a future Conference in Moscow which is currently being talked about, the end result is clear.

Obama has conceded the “Israeli goal of a Jewish state with secure and recognized borders that reflect subsequent developments and meet Israeli security requirements”. But these borders have been predetermined by Obama to be “based on the 1967 lines, with agreed swaps”. Slim pickings, indeed.

Should Israel refuse such a deal, whether by the current government or by a revolt by the people, she will of course be saying, give us your best shot. This will include sanctions and expulsion from the UN.

There is also the possibility of military intervention by the UN. McManas comments on this.

Chapter VII of the Charter begins with Article 39 by proclaiming that:

“the Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of peace, or act of aggression… and shall decide what measures shall be taken….” So the UN shall make the decision as to whether and when it shall act militarily. Then, in Article 42, the UN Security Council is authorized to – “… take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and operations by land, sea, or air forces of Members of the United Nations.”That’s no guarantee of peace, it’s a blueprint for war. Clearly, a nation that balks at being controlled by the UN will be deemed to be a threat to the UN’s definition of peace. And the UN has authority under this section of its Charter to wage war to accomplish its idea of peace.

Serbia learned that lesson.

But before it comes to that, Israel would respond by talking the battle to the American people and to the US Congress, their extension. It is a battle that Obama prefers not to fight especially in the lead up to the 2012 elections.

December 31, 2022 | 9 Comments »

Subscribe to Israpundit Daily Digest

Leave a Reply

9 Comments / 9 Comments

  1. Did I mention I was a sometime lobbyist at the Council of Foreign Affairs? I usually played one of the weddding ceremonies upstairs but sometimes I played in the lobby, especially like now during the Holiday season.

  2. Treaties never work in Israel’s favor because they are never interpreted as written, in the end, when it is in Israel’s interest for them to be. All these permanent international bodies and treaties should be nullified. Just two examples of many: Res. 242 called for relinquishing “territories” in exchange for peace. Not “the” territories. A lot of effort went into making that distinction which went out the window immediately. Israel should never have signed it, at all. The UN peace keeping forces quickly withdrew in 1967 when Nasser told them to. Israel had withdrawn ten years earlier from the Sinai on the understanding that those peace keeping forces would keep the peace.

  3. But, the reality is that the UN is too corrupt, disunited, unmotivated, and inept to field an army capable of waging a war without the U.S. leading it. The Korean War was only a UN war because the Soviet ambassador went mysteriously missing on the day of the Security Council vote. I wonder if anybody has ever tried to find out what happened? Imagine if the same thing had happened on the eve of the Vietnam War? Would it have turned out differently? Is it a testament to the devious skillfulness of Eisenhower, as opposed to the blunt clumsiness of JFK and LBJ?

  4. Regardless of who was Communist or not the UN Charter is the actual embodiment of Pres Wilson’s idea to try and put some order into the international relations which otherwise are a matter of might is right and the goodies win ie those who win are good.

    As such there are lists of what to do in Ch 6 and 7 etc when order breaks down and it makes sense to recommend a way through or out of a problem. HOWEVER it does not follow that suggestions are “the law” until accepted by the parties. Besides a frontier is by definition mutually agreed in treaty or convention.

    The classic precedent is 181 in 1947 that offered a reasonable compromise over Palestine – including borders. BUT the Arabs refused partition on principle and since missing the catch have also found nits to pick in that particular proposal. As politics is the art of the practical the suggested 181 did not work and is “caduque” in Arafat’s odd choice of a French legalism – expired and so irrelevant by changed factors and variables. So is the 1949 Green Line of the Armistices as supplanted by the peace with Egypt and Jordan and the PA and other Arab rejections of the June 67 Israeli offer to withdraw to the Green Line for a peace treaty and the end of the conflict and its claims.

    The UN is welcome to propose any Palestine solution it cares to but on Arab precedents it will not necessarily stick given the Arabs and their friends are chanting “From the River to the Sea…” Let them hang in their own rope.

  5. As long as Israel is content not to rock the boat on this issue, it is of no consequence. At the end of the day, there are lots of Arabs living west of the Jordan river and no-one will evict them. They may be convinced to leave if the Israelis are stupid enough to pay them to do so, but I doubt that will solve any international problem.
    Giving up land under any agreement means that the terror will really take over. Trying to take it back will only bring the USA, Russia, the EU and the other Arab countries to Israel to “help” the poor Palis. So, don’t rock the boat, which is what Netanyahu has been doing for years now.

  6. But does “legal” have to do with the actions of the UNO, or the foreign ministries of any country in the world, except possibly for the fools who run Israel as if the world at large were some sort of courtroom?

    Arnold Harris, Outspeaker

  7. International Law Officially Recognizes Jewish Claims in Judea and Samaria

    Despite dubious claims to the contrary, Israel has international law on its side. Contrary to claims made by Palestinian leadership and others in the international community, international law fully recognizes Jewish claims in Judea and Samaria. These areas were part of the Palestine Mandate, which granted Jews the right to settle anywhere west of the Jordan River and to establish a national home there.

    History reminds us that the Palestine Mandate, supported by all 51 members of the League of Nations at the time, and codified in international law, is recognized as legally valid by the United Nations in Article 80 of the UN Charter. In addition, the International Court of Justice has reaffirmed this on three different occasions.

    While some people argue that the Palestine Mandate became obsolete following its termination in 1947, international legal scholars claim otherwise. According to Eugene Rostow, a Dean of Yale Law School, “A trust never terminates when a trustee dies, resigns, embezzles the trust property, or is dismissed. The authority responsible for the trust appoints a new trustee, or otherwise arranges for the fulfillment of its purpose.” While the Palestine Mandate ceased to exist in Israel and Jordan when Israel and the Hashemite Kingdom obtained independence, Rostow maintains that “its rules apply still to the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, which have not yet been allocated either to Israel or to Jordan or become an independent state.”
    This international law expert adds that the Armistice Lines of 1949, which are part of the West Bank boundary, “represent nothing but the position of the contending armies when the final cease-fire was achieved in the War of Independence. The Armistice Agreements specifically provide, except in the case of Lebanon, that the demarcation lines can be changed by agreement when the parties move from armistice to peace.” Simply put, international law does not consider the 1967 borders the internationally recognized borders of the State of Israel.
    Israeli legal claims to Judea and Samaria are strengthened by the fact that no other sovereign nation state claims this territory as her own. Both the Ottoman Turks and the British Mandate renounced their claims to the Land of Israel decades ago, including Judea and Samaria. Furthermore, Jordan’s annexation of Judea and Samaria following Israel’s declaration of independence was never internationally recognized, since it amounted to an act of aggression. Both the UN Security Council and UN General Assembly declared at that time that Israel was a peace-loving state in the 1948 war.
    Professor and Judge Stephen M. Schwebel, who served as President of the International Court of Justice, explains that the principle of “acquisition of territory by war is inadmissible” must be read together with other principles, “namely, that no legal right shall spring from a wrong, and the Charter principle that the Members of the United Nations shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State.” In other words, territories acquired through wars of aggression don’t hold validity, which effectively repudiates Jordanian claims to Judea and Samaria. Observers argue too that the fact that Jordan has officially renounced her claims to Judea and Samaria and signed a peace agreement with Israel without gaining back these territories seals the water-tight case for Israel’s jurisdiction there.
    The situation, however, is different when a country reclaims lands that originally belonged to her as part of a war of self-defense, as Israel did in 1967. “Where the prior holder of territory had seized that territory unlawfully, the state which subsequently takes that territory in the lawful exercise of self-defense has, against that prior holder, better title,” adds Professor Schwebel. ”Between Israel acting defensively in 1948 and 1967 on the one hand, and her Arab neighbors acting aggressively in 1948 and 1967 on the other, Israel has the better title in the territory of what was Palestine, including the whole of Jerusalem, than do Jordan and Egypt.” To see more : http://unitedwithisrael.org/international-law-officially-recognizes-jewish-claims-in-judea-and-samaria/

  8. Ted for anyone who is not aware or put doubt of Israel’s modern claims to the land it controls please see the following.

    Article 80 of the UN Charter, once known unofficially as the Jewish People’s clause, which preserves intact all the rights granted to Jews under the Mandate for Palestine, even after the Mandate’s expiry on May 14-15, 1948. Under this provision of international law (the Charter is an international treaty), Jewish rights to Palestine and the Land of Israel were not to be altered in any way unless there had been an intervening trusteeship agreement between the states or parties concerned, which would have converted the Mandate into a trusteeship or trust territory. The only period of time such an agreement could have been concluded under Chapter 12 of the UN Charter was during the three-year period from October 24, 1945, the date the Charter entered into force after appropriate ratifications, until May 14-15, 1948, the date the Mandate expired and the State of Israel was proclaimed. Since no agreement of this type was made during this relevant three-year period, in which Jewish rights to all of Palestine may conceivably have been altered had Palestine been converted into a trust territory, those Jewish rights that had existed under the Mandate remained in full force and effect, to which the UN is still committed by Article 80 to uphold, or is prohibited from altering.
    As a direct result of Article 80, the UN cannot transfer these rights over any part of Palestine, vested as they are in the Jewish People, to any non-Jewish entity, such as the “Palestinian Authority.”

    Among the most important of these Jewish rights are those contained in Article 6 of the Mandate which recognized the right of Jews to immigrate freely to the Land of Israel and to establish settlements thereon, rights which are fully protected by Article 80 of the UN Charter.

    Will it matter to Obama or the French if they violate the UN Charter? Probably not. Israel needs to assert its rights. It needs to make clear if this happens it will annex Area C and there will be no more negotiations except for cooperation in A/B as to security.