UN Charter: “To maintain international peace and security.”
Can the UN legally impose a solution on Israel?
By Ted Belman
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”.
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.
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 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.
Pingback: UN Charter: “To maintain international peace and security.” | JewPI.com
Pingback: Tweets that mention Israpundit » Blog Archive » UN Charter: “To maintain international peace and security.” -- Topsy.com
Ted, research is great. Unfortunately, law has become arbitrary. The people who now have control will do what the hell ever they please. Words mean what they say they mean, or mean nothing whatsoever—whichever they choose. Everything has become dependent upon their will. Resistance will be the last line of defense.
Randy are you saying what it sounds like? What are you really saying here?
There are various types and degrees of resistance. I advocate the proper resistance, to the proper degree, at the proper time and place against the proper enemy—a relentless but just resistance. Thus, resistance can mean a lot of different things depending much on what is necessary. There is a time for all things under the sun.
Even Emily Post wasn’t that proper.
Pingback: Moshe Phillips
Whatever happened to the nascent idea of forming an “Anglosphere” alliance? The alternative is to form an alliance of truly democratic countries… as long as one can clearly define such an entity.
The UN brings to mind the quote from Groucho Marx, that “I would never join any club that would have me as a member.”
Ted,
Old charters and past statements mean nothing. If we can hold the land it is ours. If not it will be taken away. It’s that simple. A US veto in the UNSC would be helpful but not likely under Obama. If he is swept out in three years this is likely to change. In the end, Israelis, not anyone else will determine their fate, which includes their borders.
We ain’t doing a very good job of it. Maybe we should let some other bungling moron try. They can’t top our fools. Every retreat since Oslo has been Israels idea and decision. Of course America can’t be more Catholic than the Pope and they are only too happy to take credit or blame as the case may be and cheer from the sidelines.
The problem is that Obama rejects alliances with democracies, preferring to align the United States with dictatorships and terrorist movements. Therefore, the solution is to expel the democracies from the United Nations so that they cannot interfere with Obama capitulating to the tyrants.
Besides, how can you resist loving the UN when it makes Sudan chairman of the Human Rights Council? The United Nations is the most morally upright organization since the Hell’s Angels.
I don’t think they make those anymore—got any other ideas?
If you fight you win. The real question is, can you keep yourselves from giving it away?
Yamit (Uncle Nahum), Ayn, Randy I said this a number of times.
Israel needs to physically take control of her territory which includes of course all of Jerusalem (especially the Temple Mount).
I don’t see any nation, UN or whoever taking any military or physical action against Israel.
Listen Israel is no banana republic.
Israel maintains a skilled and sofisticated IDF with the capability of fending off anyone.
Lets put it this way, Israel is a world power and I don’t see any government taking her on.
Oh, there will be a war of words, so who gives a fuck.
Yeah… I hesitated before I wrote that. The Orwellian way of doing things these days is to call yourself, “The Peoples’ Democratic Republic of …..” hold “general elections” and call yourself “democratic”.
Forget it. A bunch of (relatively) good guys should get together and form a Club of Relatively Good Guys. Then they should exclude anyone they damn well please.
rongrand:
You sound so… well… Glaswegian. I really appreciate that.
ron, this one I had to look up in the dictionary.
It turns out a “Glaswegian” is someone who tosses a Norwegian through a closed window.
All that is happening now with the global elitists is like ‘Doctors of Strange-Love’, with a subtitle, ‘How I Came To Love The New World Order’
After pondering how we got here, I posted this today,
A “New World Order” or the edge of the abyss?
http://skarbutts.wordpress.com/2009/12/23/a-new-world-order-or-the-edge-of-the-abyss/
Well done.
The real villain is “John Maynard Keynes”.
Major devaluation in 2010.
Real-estate bubble to financial markets collapse to monetary crisis with debasing of U.S Currency.
Last will be credit market collapse.
Consuming without producing then borrowing to cover consumption us unsustainable. Soros is correct.
Look for commercial real-estate to collapse and take the banks and credit card companies with them
I would leverage against the $ first and foremost getting out from under any dollar linked assets. Watch for Global flight from the dollar.
By your new Schwinn today before they become scarce and very pricey.
According to Investor’s Intelligence, advisers are more optimistic now than at any time since the 2000 top.
Was this rally from the March 6 low merely an Elliot Wave II corrective move that precedes apocalyptic doom?
A countertrend bear market sucker play that will produce a bull market of hopelessness and despair?
Only yamit knows for certain.
http://www.market-harmonics.com/free-charts/sentiment/consumer_confidence.htm
http://www.market-harmonics.com/free-charts/sentiment/consumer_sentiment.htm
http://www.europac.net/videoblog.asp?a=watch
http://www.europac.net/videoblog.asp?a=watch
some things can be predicted with a degree of confidence.
some things can be predicted with a degree of certainty.
madness and Feigelas are always unpredictable. Here our subject is both mad and a feigela. Throws game theory down the toilet.
Now he thinks you’re Peggy Lou? Are you? Are you frightened by his threats? Here, I fed you straight lines. GO FOR IT!
some things can be predicted with a degree of confidence.
some things can be predicted with a degree of certainty.
madness and Feigelas are always unpredictable. Here our subject is both mad and a feigela. Throws game theory down the toilet.
Now he thinks you’re Peggy Lou? Are you? Are you frightened by his threats? Here, I fed you straight lines. GO FOR IT.
That correctly sums it up…
And when these same Norwegian terrorists try to blow up their airport, they run TOWARD them, not away from them, just to get a better crack at them…
Onward…
You must be a Hollywood producer.
When I wrote for the film industry, we were allowed to reference Norwegian terrorists, or Mongolian terrorists, or Canadian terrorists, or – preferably – American terrorists.
Anything but Arab terrorists because, as you know, Arab terrorists are a myth.
There is just no such thing, so pretending they exist reeks of Islamophobia.
Just ask Rob Reiner, the aptly named “Meathead” whom I have the misfortune of knowing all too well.
He’ll tell you, loudly and passionately: “There are no Muslim terrorists!”
I have no fear of hell because it can’t possibly be worse than Hollywood.
After all, the residents will doubtlessly be the same.
I’ve dealt with a few people like that; people who essentially say, “There’s no such thing as good and evil.”
My approach has to tell them, in an eye-to-eye manner, that when their asses are up for grabs; when one of the “non-terrorists” is coming at them with the serious intent of cutting their worthless throats, at that point they will mysteriously recognize the difference between good and evil.
Incidentally, I was to some extent baiting you. A couple of years ago (if my memory serves me correctly), a few doctors (yes, doctors) of Pakistani origin (the “Norwegians”), tried to run a Jeep loaded with propane and other flammables into Glasgow Airport while it was packed with mostly women and children going on spring vacation. (Glasgow is a pretty little city inside a small country called Scotland.) The natives couldn’t wait to disassemble them, even while they were being burned by their own flammables. There was no shortage of “volunteers” who ran at them to take them apart. It seems that despite having grown up in this city, they hadn’t noticed that it was extremely bad form to try to kill women and children in the airport of said city. The men could take care of themselves, as they quickly demonstrated.