Can the UN impose a solution on Israel?

T. Belman. I have reposted this article from 2009 because it sheds light on the role of the UN in creating a World Government. As such it is really prescient.

The comments are also worth reading.

UN Charter: “To maintain international peace and security.”

By Ted Belman (first published in Dec 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.

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.

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”.

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.

But his polemic, left out 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 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, except for Zionists.

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 CE. 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. 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 three Israel Prime Ministers, Sharon, Olmert 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. But nobody believes this. 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.

February 20, 2024 | 41 Comments »

Subscribe to Israpundit Daily Digest

Leave a Reply

41 Comments / 41 Comments

  1. Israel must impose its own correction with the UN and the world at large, by correcting its massive error of accepting Muslims as ‘Palestinians’.
    Muslims hated the name ‘Palestine’ and begged Britain in 1947 not to call the land by this term. Britain refused this request. Then came an Egyptian born and raised Arafat who declared himself as a Palestinian with Soviet inducement. Instead of laughing her head off, Israel succumbed, enabling the world’s greatest lie as the world’s greatest truth. Thereby, if Israel occupies a single cubit of her land, she is illegally occupying the land of Muslim Palestinians. It was a terrific Soviet strategy; none need mention that Palestine was Judea and no Muslims yet existed for 700 years.
    But! It’s not too late, Israel can win this greatest battle: was Jesus illegally occupying Islamic Bethlehem? Was the British 2-state Mandate of 1948 a brutal farce? Could the Holocaust have happened as it did without Britain’s illegal partition and her White Paper? Say what!?

  2. Well, that was nice. A short walk down memory lane.
    The majority opinion seems to be that the UN can’t enforce its own resolutions, not even those of the UNSC. However, any country, whether a member of the UN or not, can try to enforce some strategy, with or without the admiration of the rest. The USA, hiding behind its very own CIA, has been enforcing policies all over the world, mostly in the murky depths of Mafia-like moves to coerce by intimidation or worse. Russia has been doing some of the same and China…
    The Muslim countries have also tried their hands at coercion although not quite as successfully. It seems that they all like to practice on the only stiff-necked state of the Jews, but that has only achieved partial success.
    Let’s hope it stays that way!

  3. Recalling UN Charter Article 80.
    UNGA 181 was created contrary to Article 80.
    Oslo was imposed on Israel contrary to Article 80.
    The UN has no reguard for its own Charter!
    As such it has no right to exist if it refuses to obey its own rules.

  4. Russian and Ethiopian Jews, if I remember correctly. And President George H.W. Bush facilitated the rescue of Ethiopian Jewry and spoke at the UN against the “Zionism is Racism” Resolution getting it reversed. All in 1991. Clearly Oslo was the price.

    Short term gains for longterm loss.

  5. I recently read that Rabin supported Oslo after the Madrid Conference thinking that if Israel gave away the store on her own, it would forestall more onerous concessions forced on her.

    I had read in the past that it was also a condition for loan guarantees from the US to resettle Russian Jews. Worst possible timing as the Arab states had cut off funding for the PLO because of its support for the Iraqi invasion and occupation of Kuwait. The PLO was on the ropes, hoist by its own petard, as it were, and the left wing Israeli government stupidly handed them a lifeline.

  6. As with Russia, the more reliant other countries become on Israel for gas and many other things, the less likely the UN could impose effective sanctions. Without that threat, only internal left wing subversion could give the UN what it wants.

  7. As this was written in the teeth of the Obama administration it is clear that there are limits to what the UN can do starting with finding an executioner – something that Members do not want to risk being and which the US would after VNam and IRaq prefeer to avoid.
    Another factor is that Israel is a tough nut and the Arabs and oil lobby even more so. Eisenhower might have shooed Israel into the 1949 Green Line in 1957 BUT since 1967 LBJ and others have not as the political price is too high. After all the complaints about the US supporting Israel if the US stopped, would any other US allies in NATO or anything else believe the US on anything?

  8. UN Charter… “but we are treaty-bound to do so if the Russians attacked, say, Latvia.”

    All words. Any nation can do as they please. A charter or treaty is just some words.

    What leader is going to say, ….yes I know I am leading my nation into a war we can’t win, will cost us our prosperity for three generations. And will result in many of your deaths…. but, but, but…. the treaty says…

  9. UN Charter: “To maintain international peace and security.”

    If that statement were true, it would be very nice. But it is not true and never was. The UN was created by the Rockefellers and the other elitists/globalists to serve as the focal point and eventually the headquarters of The New World Order/One World Government or whatever they might be calling it today. And what that is, in simple words, is a 21st Century version of medieval feudalism, with a tiny self-anointed elite in control of all the money/finances, all the resources, and all the military/police, for the sole purpose of further enriching themselves at the expense of the other 99.9999% of the world’s population, who will be nothing more than serfs, slaves without chains, and who will be a disposable resource whose only function is to serve and enrich their “masters” while being provided with just enough food and resources to survive and to continue serving that purpose. Sadly, we are well on our way toward that destiny.

    10
    1
  10. It is my opinion that all relationships, public or private, can be reduced to the fundamental question, “Who do you trust?”

    The UN was chartered ostensibly to provide a forum for the preservation and protection of the Westphalian order in which independent, sovereign, nation states would cooperate and live together in peace. This was the stated UN mission trusted and accepted by patriots and freedom-lovers worldwide.

    What I understand now is the UN is and always was the brainchild of globalists, and the instrument to facilitate and impose the NWO. Since its inception, the megalomaniacs seeking one-world government have increased their power and influence, and we are currently at the tipping point. Those who still believe the UN mission protects the Westphalian order are like those who still believe the Democrats in America protect the Jews. They don’t.

    Seemingly complex world events are simple to understand when viewed through the prism of globalism v. the nation state. The problem is that most people do not want to see the world through that prism because it forces them to see they are trusting the untrustworthy. It forces Israelis and Americans to realize their governments are run by globalists whose commitment to planetary governance sacrifices their national sovereignty and the sovereignty of individual citizens.

    The Book of Humanitarian Hoaxes: Killing America with ‘Kindness’ exposes the con. The Collapsing American Family: From Bonding to Bondage exposes the tactical plan. The globalists will never stop unless they are stopped, and the singular patriotic voice of Judeo-Christian resistance is coming from the most unlikely source – Archbishop Carlos Vigano!!

    The only solution the UN will ever impose on Israel is the FINAL SOLUTION! If left unchecked, the UN and its Agenda 2030 will facilitate not only the destruction of Israel, but the destruction of the United States of America and every other sovereign nation on the planet. This is globalist Armageddon.

    The United Nations is entirely untrustworthy unless, of course, you are a globalist, embrace one-world government, and desire a return to the feudal order of rulers and ruled. No thank you.

    12
  11. No one at the UN has objected to Iran goal of eliminating Israel (except Israel of course) from the map of the ME as far as I know!
    Iran is still an accepted member of the UN in spite of their stated position and goal!

  12. Errata:

    I listed Spain as a colonial power, which it was in small degree (controlling Spanish Equatorial Africa, northern Morocco and Spanish Sahara). An even more important colonial power, which slipped my attention, was Portugal — which had holdings from China to the Atlantic. Denmark and Norway also had overseas holdings.

  13. Up until recently, “World Government” has been set up and re-set at the conclusion of every world-wide conflict:

    A. The Thirty Years’ War, which devastated the Holy Roman Empire and involved the major powers of Europe, was concluded with the Westphalian treaties that defined our modern concepts of national sovereignty.

    B. The Napoleonic Wars, fought on four continents, concluded with the Congress of Vienna. This congress defined a set of protocols that became known as “Congress Europe”, which would govern relations between the great powers for the next century.

    C. World War I concluded with the establishment of the League of Nations, the forerunner of the UN

    D. World War II concluded with the establishment of the United Nations.

    The UN was one of several international institutions which were set up primarily to determine economic and political relations between the countries which had been principal players in World War II, A partial list would include:

    The victors:
    1. the US
    2. Russia
    3. the British Empire (thence Commonwealth)
    4. the French Empire
    5. the Republic of China

    Each of the above was given a vote in the UN Security Council. The UN also provided a mechanism for the defeated Axis Powers to re-join a peaceful World Order:

    6. Germany
    7. Italy
    8. Japan

    It also provided a mechanism for the peaceful dismemberment of the great colonial empires, including

    9. the Netherlands
    10. Belgium and
    11. Spain

    (Bible buffs will recognize these as possibke identities of the ten “toes” and “horns” of Daniel’s visions.)

    Under every international regime, one power strove to dominate. Up until the Thirty Tears’ War, it was the Hapsburg Dynasty that ruled both the Holy Roman Empire and the sprawling Spanish Empire. After the war, France became dominant; then, after the fall of Napoleon, Britain ruled, with challenges from Germany and its allies. After WWII, during the period of the UN, the US has been the dominant world power. Each of these periods of relative “world peace” ended in a contest for first place.

    In our day, a contest is mounting against American hegemony, I see three major contenders:

    a. the Muslim world, to which one might add the “Nonalighned” nations
    b. the Russo-Chinese (SCO) alliance, and
    c. the European Union aka the “Globalists”

  14. @ Buzz of the Orient:
    Hi, Buzz.

    As you pointed out, having nuclear weapons gives a country a certain clout. Even Israel, with perhaps 100-200 nuclear weapons, and the ability to deliver them via container-ship-based launchers as well as stealthy submarines, can threaten any country in the world (including the US) with a retaliatory strike. Others with this capability to date are North Korea, Pakistan, India, France, the UK, China, Russia and the US, and possibly others. Other countries, such as Japan and Sweden, are only a “screwdriver turn away” from developing this capability.

    When assessing military strategy, it is important to figure in the response a major power such as the US (or Russia, China or India) will make if they are attacked by a small nuclear power. If the US is attacked by a Pakistani missile, for instance, will they retaliate only against Pakistan, endangering India in the process? Or will they retaliate against China as well, as punishment for aiding and abetting Pakistan for wreaking massive casualties against US citizens?

    Because of factors such as this, a country’s nuclear clout really doesn’t figure in much to current military considerations. Did the Russians attack the Ukraine simply because the Ukrainians have nuclearly disarmed? I doubt it: Russia has far more to fear from a retaliation from the US, than it does for one from the Ukraine; and Russia has correctly figured that we will not respond for their behavior with nukes. We could respond with conventional weapons; and Russia is limited in how much they can provoke us because of this: We obviously have not responded militarily to Russian aggression in Georgia and the Ukraine; but we are treaty-bound to do so if the Russians attacked, say, Latvia.

    Conventional military clout, therefore, is more important, in practical terms, than nuclear weapons. In these terms, the match-ups are assymetrical. On the one hand, the US can deliver massive airpower anywhere in the world, backing it up, if need be, by tactical use of nukes. On the other hand, Russia has overwhelming superiority in armor, and could drive deep into Europe before we could stop them. The Chinese, likewise, threaten to quickly overwhelm neighbors like Taiwan or the Philippines (but not Vietnam, as they have already learned); but they would not be able to stand against the massive US retaliation that would ensue.

    The first line of attack the US has and will employ, of course, is economic. In this, Russia is very vulnerable, and even the Chinese are learning that they are no match for us.

    In view of the above, no rational world leader would seriously consider a 1:1 confrontation with the US. Even the Iranians have not committed their own troops to the fray, but have contented themselves with proxy wars against us and our allies in the Middle East.

    Zechariah 14 does predict a nuclear exchange in the last days, when “brother will fight against brother”. This will be a case of the best laid plans of mice and men going awry; and it will be horrible.

  15. If the US quits the UN, there will no longer be a pro-Israel veto. Of course Obama has already established that a Democrat government is capable of betraying Israel and may well throw Israel to the wolves of the Arab bloc and its pandering nations anyway. In my opinion whoever has the “bomb” is capable of employing sufficient threat to maintain power. In this regard, the USA is not the only nation in the world that can “rule the world”. Because of the power to retaliate, any nation with the “bomb” holds the threat of devastation.

  16. @ Michael S:
    In light of what I wrote above, the fate of Israel will not really be decided in the UN; it will be decided in Washington and in Jerusalem. While the political and military situations in places like Gaza, Syria and Saudi Arabia are of tactical importance, the strategic battle is happening in the US. What Putin does in Syria, or what Khamenei does in Yemen are of marginal importance: What matters are decisions by the Israelis themselves, the tweets of Donald J. Trump, and the Democrat/ media/ Hollywood/ 9th Circuit/ globalist billionaire war against him.

    I have said that the US is the only world power that matters in the end, as it alone has the clout to carry out what it wishes. Of course, others are #2 but try harder, such as China, Russia and (chuckle suppressed) the EU. They will keep trying; but for the moment, and for the forseeable future, the President of the US is effectively the President of the World.

  17. The United Nations includes the three top military powers of the world: the US, Russia and China. Of these, the US is more powerful than the other two combined; and all the other powers in the UN, collectively, can be considered militarily insignificant.

    No matter what the UN charter says, when it comes to actually carrying out any resolution against Israel, the US has effective veto power. What’s more, even without a UN resolution, the US is sufficiently powerful to do anything it wishes.

    The UN is therefore irrelevant in practical terms. Its military consists, effectively, of rape-and-pillage peacekeepers from places like Burundi, once called “military tourists” by a national leader, whose main purpose is to send remittances back home to keep their families alive.

    I fully expect the UN (or some similar “United Goyim” organization), at some time in the future, to pass a security council resolution to attack Israel; and it will be carried out if and only if it has the full support of the US. That is not likely to happen under President Trump; but it may happen under his successor. Legal niceties such as the Balfour Declaration will not even be seriously considered.

  18. Trump is actually considering pulling the USA totally out of the UN as he considers it useless.

    Whether he does this or not the UN will not be able to impose borders on Israel. The Security Council in theory could try this but it would be vetoed even if the other members of the Security Council were interested in doing so. I do not believe Russia or China would be interested in doing this either due to territorial disputes they also have.

    The General Assembly has no power to anything but give their views via resolutions they have no legal power.

  19. The Whole question is nonsensical. The UN has no authority to impose borders on anyone. Israel’s existing international borders are laid out in the peace and border-agreements with Egypt and Jordan. Judea and Samaria are located inside Israel’s internationally recognized border.

  20. Barack Obama’s undiplomatic response to Netanyahu brings up again the question of what authority the UN has to cancel the liberation of Judea, Samaria and East Jerusalem by the Jewish People. I have written a lengthy opinion on this and have upgraded it. The last full length version appears at SSRN.com/abstract=2385304. There are four factors that suggest that the UN lacks authority to require the Jewish People to leave Judea, Samaria and East Jerusalem. First, in July 24th, 1922 52 states in the League of Nations approved the Palestine Mandate. If you look closely at the San Remo Resolution you will find it is an agreement to form a trust. What is placed in trust? The national or collective political rights to self-determination. Both the Arab People and the Jewish People sought, in 1919 at the Paris Peace talks, to obtain these national rights. The Allied Principal War Powers agreed to place them in trust. Under the trust, the Jews were given the right to settle in all of Palestine — later reduced to all west of the Jordan. When a state recognizes another state there is no need to use a special form of recognition according to Article 7 of the 1933 Montivideo Convention. So it seems to me that states approving the Palestine Mandate were approving not only the initial settlement provision but also the placing in trust the collective political rights that went to the Jews as a cestui que trust, but were also approving the term of the trust. The term is not explicit in the Palestine Mandate. Under Article 22 of the League Covenant, and the terms of the Mandate it appears it was to go to the Jewish People, but only after they attained a majority of the population in the area in which they were to rule and had the capability of exercising sovereignty. The Montevideo Convention did not occur until 1933 but it codified existing customary international law. Now here’s an interesting thing — a trust is a legal document that is self-executing unless the trustee or any other party put up a claim for it. On May 14, 1948 the UK abandoned its trusteeship over these collective political rights. Shortly thereafter, Israel, acting on behalf of the Jewish People asserted its claim. It was intended initially to be supported by the partition plan. But that died at birth.
    But the trust survived the resignation of the trustee and supports the Jewish People’s claim.
    As the claim doesn’t rest on the Partition Resolution, the 1948 boundary, i.e. the Green Line, was the then defined territory for the state of the Jewish People although many people still think that it is the Partition Resolution that supports Israel’s sovereignty. It was only a recommendation that died at birth.
    There are several other legal theories. One is the doctrines of acquired rights and the law of estoppel espoused by Howard Grief in his comprehensive book of some 700 pages. Another is the question of whether Article 80 of the UN Charter limits the authority of the UN to take action to diminish the Jewish People’s rights. In 1967 when the Jewish People liberated the territories, they met the second standard and the collective political rights to the territories vested too.
    Israel, as Netanyahu has said, it the state of the Jewish People. It is the Jewish People’s State under International Law and when he gets his government organized we will likely see a Jewish State Bill that will give the Jewish People the collective political rights and all citizens the individual political rights preserved in the Balfour Decclaration, the San Remo Agreement and the Palestine Mandate.
    I forgot to say that the intention of the settlors of a trust is the lodestar of its interpretation. if the evidence of that intention is judicially admissible. The term of the trust is noted in a memorandum of the British Foreign Office dated December 19, 1917 and in the briefing documents brought by American diplomats to the Paris Peace Talks and by other evidence stated in my legal memorandum. I have been asked to present my views in a conference to be held in Jerusalem on June 20 and 21 that is being sponsored by Hebrew University’s Law Faculty and by Columbia Law School. It is called Legalities and Legacies: The Past, Present and Future of the Palestine Mandate in International Law.

  21. Ted, with respect, what the members of UN can do within the guise of the UN and outside that body, they are two different things. The USA has waged war around the planet without UN involvement, just as one example. Long ago it was written that the heads of the nations would meet in the great city and rail against Israel, and later combine to invade Israel. Its also written that a people whose language we do not know ( Iran ) would invade and conquer Israel, the men killed and women raped. They would then divide the land with ropes and plant things to grow. The few who would be left alive will either hide in caves for a year or be resident in Jerusalem ruled by foreign nations for a year, then the moshiach would be given permission to begin his work.

  22. @ ebyjeeby:Not so. The UN can’t create a state. But they can order sanctions against Israel but the US Congress will never sanction Israel. They can also order military strike but this is not likely. They can kick us out of the UN. And so on.

  23. I thought Ted wrote this article today until I saw the last line about the 2012 elections! Obama will never lead the US out of the US, hopefully the POTUS after will. I know that’s a long shot… Sure is needed, though.
    I still want to know – Can the UN impose a TSS on Israel legally? Or would it only be another resolution to be ignored? After reading this, I guess it can do whatever it wants and if member nations back it, then send in a military force to enforce it. This is horrible news.

  24. The Alice in Wonderland approach was also used by the Soviet dezinformatsia in drafting the preamble of the PLO charter which had as its axiom the existence of a “Palestinian Arab Peoople”. It referred to these “Palestinian Arab People” three times. Humpty Dumpty said, “What I tell you three times is true.” The only other corroboration for these invented people was the affirmation of the first 422 members of the Palestinian National Council, created contemporaneously in 1964 when the PLO Charter was drafted in Moscow.

  25. Iron Curtains, Rhetoric & Reality

    “The United Nations Organization must immediately be equipped with an international armed force… a force for action, a true Temple of Peace.”

    “We are engaged in the process of creating a European unit in the world organization of the United Nations… one of several continental units, the pillars of the world instrument for maintaining security.”

    The quotes are from Winston Churchill, the first from paragraph 10 of his speech, “The Sinews of Peace,” March 05, 1946 delivered at Westminster College, Fulton, Missouri, often termed the ‘iron curtain’ speech; the second quote from “the Council of Europe,” delivered at the Council in Strasbourg, August 17, 1949.

    The mass expulsions and extermination of European Jewry was a fact lord Churchill did not find noteworthy in this characteristic speech, perhaps because it was he, as Prime Minister who had enforced the ban on immigration of Jews to the Promised Land while the einsatzgruppen and crematoria were working in Europe [3]. Allowing Jews to enter the Promised Land, — as Britain was mandated, that is, required to do by the League of Nations – might have threatened its plans for a client Arab Federation from Persia to the Mediterranean. Indeed, study shows that sabotage of the League of Nations in order to unify Europe under Germany the better to pressure America into alliance and even fusion with Britain was a primary British strategy from 1920 – 45 that then was continued with Russia as the bugbear [4]. All the more reason to take hegemony from Germany and give it to the bear and then give it back to a new Europe, “the greatest of continents…”

    Read more

  26. TO HELL WITH THE UNITED NATIONS
    By Professor Paul Eidelberg

    The United Nations is the most pernicious, malevolent, and corrupt organizations on earth. Israel should quit this den of iniquity.

    “Praiseworthy is the man who walked not in the counsel of the wicked, and stood not in the path of the sinful, and sat not in the session of scorners” (Psalm 1:1.)

    The UN’s Anti-Israel Vendetta Read More

  27. @ Yidvocate:
    Yidvo,

    I did read most of Ted’s article, and said as much. You, on the other hand, apparently didn’t read my entire, short comment before responding. Go to hell.

  28. I stopped reading partway through

    Dear Bland,

    You really should consider reading an article before commenting on it.

    Your comments would be much more credible that way.

  29. Ted,

    I stopped reading partway through, after reading the part where you tie in the Council on Foreign Relations with a more scholarly article about the UN. The CFR is embellished with unashamedly pro-Israel personages such as John Bolton, along with very conservative Republicans such as former VP Dick Cheney. What’s more, the group has no “teeth” to do anything of substance, other than to provide a forum for a pretty broad-based, bipartisan group. I concede that the very EXISTENCE of a group of leaders from around the world, gathered together on a regular basis for mutual consultation, provides an atmosphere of “conspiriacy” to promote “One World Government”; but that, so far as I can see, is the extent of the matter. The existence of the UN itself is an even more concrete step in this direction, with or without any connection to the CFR.

    The role of the CFR in world affairs is certainly a worthy topic for discussion; but in the present case, it only seems to weaken your discussion of what I would presume is your main concern: “Does the UN, or doesn’t it, have the authority to determine Israel’s borders?”