The Corruption of the United Nations

The following is a shortened version of my presentation to the United Nations Youth & Students Association at LeicesterUniversityon 11 February 2007. The subject for debate was “The UN in the world today – relevant or relic?”

I’d like to begin with a question of my own for you all; and I’m sorry there is no prize for the first right answer. Who said the following: If the Zionists continue their pressures, they will succeed in putting the UN out of business.”

[Nobody in the audience or other speakers knew the answer]

On the matter of the UN in the world today – “relevant or relic”, my view is that, with the exception of some of its specialised agencies, mainly those dealing with global poverty in all of its aspects, the institution has become an irrelevance. And generally speaking there is no mystery about why this has happened.

The UN is notas many citizens presume a self-standing institution with a mind of its own. It is the sum total of the conflicting interests and hypocrises of the governments of the member states, and the five major powers with a veto in particular.

But there is much more to it. The truth is that the UN was corrupted almost from its beginning.In the wake of the obscenity of the Nazi holocaust, the corrupting force was Zionism….. Now before I go further, and in order to leave no room for me to be misunderstood or misrepresented by anybody of sound mind, it’s necessary for me to do here what I do on every public platform, and that is to point up the difference between Judaism and Zionism. They are not, as Zionism asserts, one and the same. They are total opposites.

Judaism is the religion of Jews, not theJews because not all Jews are religious. And like Christianity and Islam, Judaism has at its core a set of moral values and ethical principles.

Zionism is a secular, colonialist ideology which created, mainly by terrorism and ethnic cleansing, a state for some Jews in the Arab heartland, Palestine. It was thus an enterprise which made a mockery of Judasim’s moral values and ethical principles, and which continues to demonstrate Zionism’s contempt for international law.(And that partly explains the title of my latest book,.zionism: THE REAL ENEMYOF THE JEWS).

Knowledge of the difference between Judasim and Zionism is the key to understanding.It explains why it is perfectly possible to bepassionately anti-Zionist(opposed to Zionism’s colonial enterprise) without being anti-Semitic (anti-Jew) in any way, shape or form. And it explains why it is wrong to blame all Jews everywhere for the crimes of the few,the hardest core Zionists in Israel.

Now let’s return to the question of who said “If the Zionists continue their pressures, they will succeed in putting the UN out of business.”

It was Harry S. Truman, the 33rdPresident of the United States of America.

The context in which he said it – actually he wrotethose words in a memorandum that was not declassified until 1971 – can be summarised as follows.

Britain had made a mess of Palestine and walked away, dumping the problem of what to do about it into the lap of the UN. The Palestine problem then became the first test of the UN’s authority and integrity. If it could resolve the conflict of interests in Palestine by diplomatic and political means, or even by enforcement action, the hope that had been invested in the UN as the political institution to oversee the creation of a more fair and just and peaceful world would be justified and given a boost. If it failed, the outlook was fora continuation of jungle law, with might, as ever, prevailing over right.

On the 28thof April 1947, the General Assembly was convened to discuss what to do. It eventually recommended, for approval or not by the Security Council, a PARTITION plan. It proposed that 56.4%of Palestinebe given for a Jewish state to people, many of them recently arrived alien immigrants, who constituted 33%of the population and owned 5.67%of the land.

It was a proposal for injustice on a massive scale. And that’s why it would nothave been approved by the necessary two-thirds majority if all the member states of the General Assembly as it then was had been allowed to vote in accordance with their consciences– in accordance with what they knew to be right and wrong.

Page 1 of 4 | Next page