Stephen Lendman

Photo: Ban Ki-moon (L), Foreign Minister of South Korea, shakes hands with United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan (R) after a meeting in the General Assembly at U.N. headquarters in New York. (October 5, 2006)

The UN Charter's Preamble states:

"WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED

● to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and
● to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and
● to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and
● to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom...."

The body affirms international support for tolerance, peace and security, and resolve to promote universal economic and social advancement.

However, since its 1945 founding, it's failed on all counts, even though some of its agencies (like UNICEF, WFP, UNHCR and UNESCO) at times provide aid in areas of health, education, food assistance, refugees, social development and more.

It's never enough though, timely, or with resolve to support troubled people adequately in times of need.

Moreover, global wars raged every year post-WW II to the present. The UN's been unable or disinterested in stopping them. One of its fatal flaws is structure, hamstrung by its dominant member, America. It can and does veto measures other member states support, notably when contrary to its imperial interests.

Read more »

Timothy Bancroft-Hinchey

Photo: Abdul Ilah Khatib, UN special envoy for Libya (L) and UN Secretary General, Ban Ki-moon. Mr. Khatib reported to the UN Security Council that a solution 'lies with the Libyan people themselves.' Mr. Ban apparently disagreed...

The United Nations Organization is no more or less than an umbrella for humanitarian intervention after disasters and catastrophes, a forum for discussion of issues pertaining to cultural heritage and a useful tool to channel developmental approaches. As a law-making body, the Libya Question has shown that the Organization has lost all legitimacy.

The people of the world community are not stupid. Those who still believe the biased and controlled media (certainly very few after the Libya Question) may be duped but these days, despite draconian measures and sinister and criminal acts of cyber terrorism, hacking, blocking access to independent media resources and threats, people have the means at their disposal to get themselves informed.

This is not a cause, it is a victory for those of us who have fought for an independent media over the last decade. Like all victories, it must be protected and its legacy cherished and the second we allow freedom of expression to slip, we have lost the battle and reactionary forces will sweep things back to where they used to be. There, is, however, another cause and that is an international justice system whereby the rules of international law apply and are enforced with the same set of weights and measures on all, and this means NATO as well as African countries or Serbia. This means respect for the law, it means respecting the terms of international agreements and conventions and it means accountability for all when such terms are violated.

On September 15, 2011, this is not the case. For those in the world community who accept that laws are made to be broken and accept that the law of the jungle should be applied, where the strongest bullies the rest by force, then do not bother reading on, just scroll down to the note at the end. Others who want a civilised world where criminals are held accountable, please read on.

Read more »

Gilad Atzmon

Those who monitor the Hebrew press and understand the Jewish State may be slightly puzzled to find out that while in the Hebrew press there is only just a little and insignificant attention to the current Palestinian leaders' drive for statehood, the Israeli English media outlets are saturated with news about the prospect of a pro-Palestinian resolution in the UN next week.

If you want to understand this clear discrepancy between the Jewish Hebrew press and English outlets, then here it is--we are dealing here with a clear split within the Jewish collective psyche.

I guess that some may be surprised to learn that Israel and most Israelis actually want the Palestinian initiative to go ahead and to succeed. They want a Palestinian State because this is the only solution that would save the ‘Jews only State’ from a demographic meltdown.

Recent polls in Israel prove that the majority of Israelis are very excited about the ‘Two State Solution’. Not only are the Israelis not threatened by the idea of a Palestinian State, they actually love it, for it would settle their reality within a framework of international law. Also, you may want to bear in mind that Kadima party, that won the last two elections in Israel, has been and still is, devoted to ‘disengagement’, a clear separation between the ‘Jews’ and the Palestinians by means of Israeli unilateral withdraw. In other words, a Palestinian statehood achieves the exact same goal; it removes Israelis from any responsibility to territories it once occupied and destroyed. It is obvious that some elements in Israel oppose the Palestinian UN initiative: I guess that Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman is not too happy about it. West Bank settlers may also be very angry but for some reason, even they are relatively quiet these days.

Read more »

Khalid Amayreh

With Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu recognising, though fairly belatedly, that the Middle East is undergoing a real political earthquake of historic proportions, Israel is showing signs of confusion in face of what the Israeli media is calling "the new strategic situation in the region".

Israel had hoped the "Arab Spring" would be a passing cloud that would leave the basic regional geopolitical order more or less unscathed. However, with the latest crises between Tel Aviv on one side and both Cairo and Ankara on the other, the former is beginning, though slowly and reluctantly, to realise that the arrogance of power is largely inexpedient, unduly provocative and detrimental to Israel's standing and interests.

The storming of the Israeli embassy in Cairo at the weekend and outbreak of a serious "mini-crisis" of relations with the largest Arab country was an ominous development that Israel didn't want to foresee due to a prevailing psyche that discounts even looming dangers and treats adversaries with contempt, including their grievances.

Reacting to the embassy incident in Cairo, however, Netanyahu described the incident as "serious and dangerous". Bemoaning the "severe injury to the fabric of peace" between the two countries, Netanyahu said Israel would undertake the utmost efforts to maintain peace with Egypt.

Nonetheless, the Israeli premier failed to make any connection between the criminal treatment Israel has been meting out to Palestinians and rising anti-Israeli sentiment across the Arab and Muslim world. "We must maintain security and advance our interests," he said.

Israeli leaders, including Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, have perhaps recognised that Israel, at least for the time being, has to keep a low profile in the hope that this "murky phase would pass with minimum losses for Israel". It is a change, at least in discourse, from last week when Lieberman threatened Turkey with doom and gloom, including arming and training PKK rebels. The sabre rattling drew strong reactions from Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmed Davutoglu.

Read more »

William A. Cook

Israeli Jews watching with glee as Gaza burns...

Gilad Atzmon’s insight into the organism created by the Zionist movement in his book, The Wandering Who?, is explosive; it tears the veil off of Israel’s apparent civility, its apparent friendship with the United States, and its expressed solicitude for western powers—Britain, Canada, Australia, France and Germany—exposing behind the veil, the assassin ready to slay any and all that interfere with its tribally focused ends.

In February of this year, Atzmon characterized Islam and Judaism as tribally oriented belief systems rooted not in “enlightened individualism,” but rather in “…the survival of the extended family.” These belief systems have nothing to do with personal liberties or personal rights; they have to do with securing the realm of their respective “ways of life.” But unlike tribalism in Islam, tribalism in Judaism “can never live in peace with humanism and universalism”. “Both religions stand as systems that provide thorough answers in terms of spiritual, civil, cultural and day to day matters.” In this regard, “…both Islam and Judaism are more than just religions: they convey an entire ‘way of life,’ and stand as a thorough attempt to answer crucial questions regarding being in the world…”

The Wandering Who? is a personal journey of a man born in Jerusalem, raised in the Jewish ‘way of life,’ infused with the myths of the founding of the Jewish state; “Supremacy was brewed into our soul, we gazed at the world through racist, chauvinistic binoculars. And we felt no shame about it either”. Inducted into the Israeli military during the 1980s he served in Lebanon, and, in his late teens, experienced an epiphany caused in good measure by careful listening to voices beyond the wall that encircled him in the ghetto that is the Israeli state. This epiphany forced a distinction in identity versus identifying, between self-reliance and obedient servant to an ideology, a distinction that recognized Jews as people, Judaism as a religion, and Jewishness, an ideology that determines identity politics and a resulting political discourse.

Read more »