Sunday 7th of September 2025

setting the terms for the behaviour of nations 80 years ago....

 

There is only one treaty in the world that, despite its limitations, binds nations together: the United Nations Charter. Representatives of fifty nations wrote and ratified the UN Charter in 1945, with others joining in the years that followed. The charter itself only sets the terms for the behaviour of nations. It does not and cannot create a new world. It depends on individual nations to either live by the charter or die without it.

 

The United Nations Turns Eighty

By Vijay PrashadTricontinental: Institute for Social Research

 

The charter remains incomplete. It needed a Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948, and even that was contested as political and civil rights had to eventually be separated from the social and economic rights. Deep rifts in political visions created fissures in the UN system that have kept it from effectively addressing problems in the world.

The UN is now eighty. It is a miracle that it has lasted this long. The League of Nations was founded in 1920 and lasted only eighteen years of relative peace (until World War II began in China in 1937).

The UN is only as strong as the community of nations that comprises it. If the community is weak, then the UN is weak. As an independent body, it cannot be expected to fly in like an angel and whisper into the ears of the belligerents and stop them. The UN can only blow the whistle, an umpire for a game whose rules are routinely broken by the more powerful states. It offers a convenient punching bag for all sides of the political spectrum: it is blamed if crises are not solved and if relief efforts fall short. Can the UN stop the Israeli genocide in Gaza? UN officials have made strong statements during the genocide, with Secretary General António Guterres saying that ‘Gaza is a killing field – and civilians are in an endless death loop’ (8 April 2025) and that the famine in Gaza is ‘not a mystery – it is a man-made disaster, a moral indictment, and a failure of humanity itself’ (22 August 2025). These are powerful words, but they have amounted to nothing, calling into question the efficacy of the UN itself.

The UN is not one body but two halves. The most public face of the UN is the UN Security Council (UNSC), which has come to stand in as its executive arm. The UNSC is made up of fifteen countries: five are permanent members (China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States) and the others are elected for two-year terms. The five permanent members (the P5) hold veto power over the decisions of the council. If one of the P5 does not like a decision, they are able to scuttle it with their veto. Each time the UNSC has been presented with a resolution calling for a ceasefire, the United States has exercised its veto to quash even that tepid measure (since 1972, the United States has vetoed more than forty-five UNSC resolutions about the Israeli occupation of Palestine). The UNSC stands in for the UN General Assembly (UNGA), whose one hundred and ninety-three members can pass resolutions that try to set the tone for world opinion but are often ignored. Since the start of the genocide, for instance, the UNGA has passed five key resolutions calling for a ceasefire (the first in October 2023 and the fifth in June 2025). But the UNGA has no real power in the UN system.

The other half of the UN is its myriad agencies, each set up to deal with this or that crisis of the modern age. Some predate the UN itself, such as the International Labour Organisation (ILO), which was created in 1919 and brought into the UN system in 1946 as its first specialised agency. Others would follow, including the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), which advocates for the rights of children, and the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), which promotes tolerance and respect for the world’s cultures. Over the decades, agencies have been created to advocate for and provide relief to refugees, to ensure nuclear energy is used for peace rather than war, to improve global telecommunications, and to expand development assistance. Their remit is impressive, although the outcomes are more modest. Meagre funding from the world’s states is one limitation (in 2022, the UN’s total expenditure was $67.5 billion, compared with over $2 trillion spent on the arms trade). This chronic underfunding is largely because the world’s powers disagree over the direction of the UN and its agencies. Yet without them, the suffering in the world would neither be recorded nor addressed. The UN system has become the world’s humanitarian organisation largely because neoliberal austerity and war have destroyed the capacity of most individual countries to do this work themselves, and because non-governmental organisations are too small to meaningfully fill in the gap.

With the disintegration of the Soviet Union, the entire balance of the world system changed and the UN went into a cycle of internal reform initiatives: from Boutros Boutros-Ghali’s An Agenda for Peace (1992) and An Agenda for Development (1994) and Kofi Annan’s Renewing the United Nations (1997) to Guterres’ Our Common Agenda (2021), Summit of the Future (2024), and UN80 Task Force (2025). The UN80 Task Force is the deepest reform imaged, but its three areas of interest (internal efficiency, mandate review, and programme alignment) have been attempted previously (‘we’ve tried this exercise before’, said Under-Secretary-General for Policy and Chair of the UN80 Task Force Guy Ryder). The agenda set by the UN is focused on its own organisational weaknesses and does not address the largely political questions that scuttle the UN’s work. A broader agenda would need to include the following points:

  1. Move the UN Secretariat to the Global South. Almost all UN agencies are headquartered in either Europe or the United States, where the UN Secretariat itself is located. There have been occasional proposals to move UNICEF, the UN Population Fund, and UN Women to Nairobi, Kenya, which already hosts the UN Environment Programme and UN-Habitat. It is about time that the UN Secretariat leave New York and go to the Global South, not least to prevent Washington from using visa denials to punish UN officials who criticise US or Israeli power. With the US preventing Palestinian officials from entering the US for the UN General Assembly, there have been calls already to move the UNGA meeting to Geneva. Why not permanently leave the United States?
  2. Increase funding to the UN from the Global South. Currently, the largest funders of the UN system are the United States (22%) and China (20%), with seven close US allies contributing 28% (Japan, Germany, the United Kingdom, France, Italy, Canada, and South Korea). The Global South – without China – contributes about 26% to the UN budget; with China, its contribution is 46%, nearly half of the total budget. It is time for China to become the largest contributor to the UN, surpassing the US, which wields its funding as a weapon against the organisation.
  3. Increase funding for humanitarianism within states. Countries should be spending more on alleviating human distress than on paying off wealthy bondholders. The UN should not be the main agency to assist those in need. As we have shown, several countries on the African continent spend more servicing debt than on education and healthcare; unable to provide these essential functions, they come to rely on the UN through UNICEF, UNESCO, and the WHO. States should build up their own capacity rather than depend on this assistance.
  4. Cut the global arms trade. Wars are waged not only for domination but for the profits of arms dealers. Annual international arms exports are nearing $150 billion, with the United States and Western European countries accounting for 73% of sales between 2020 and 2024. In 2023 alone, the top one hundred arms manufacturers made $632 billion (largely through sales by US companies to the US military). Meanwhile, the total UN peacekeeping budget is only $5.6 billion, and 92% of the peacekeepers come from the Global South. The Global North makes money on war, while the Global South sends its soldiers and policemen to try and prevent conflicts.
  5. Strengthen regional peace and development structures. To disperse some of the power from the UNSC, regional peace and development structures such as the African Union must be strengthened and their views given priority. If there are no permanent members in the UNSC from Africa, the Arab world, or from Latin America, why should these regions be held captive by the veto wielded by the P5? If the power to settle disputes were to rest more in regional structures, then the absolute authority of the UNSC could be somewhat diluted.

With the genocide unrelenting, another wave of boats filled with solidarity activists – the Freedom Flotilla – attempts to reach Gaza. On one of the boats is Ayoub Habraoui, a member of Morocco’s Workers’ Democratic Way Party who represents the International Peoples’ Assembly. He sent me this message:

What is happening in Gaza is not a conventional war – it is a slow-motion genocide unfolding before the eyes of the world. I am joining because deliberate starvation is being used as a weapon to break the will of a defenceless people – denied medicine, food, and water, while children die in their mothers’ arms. I am joining because humanity is indivisible. Whoever accepts a siege today will accept injustice anywhere tomorrow. Silence is complicity in the crime, and indifference is a betrayal of the very values we claim to uphold. This flotilla is more than just boats – it is a global cry of conscience that declares: no to the siege of entire populations, no to starving the innocent, no to genocide. We may be stopped, but the very act of sailing is a declaration: Gaza is not alone. We are all witnesses to the truth – and voices against slow death.

https://scheerpost.com/2025/09/06/the-united-nations-turns-eighty/

 

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT.

 

         Gus Leonisky

         POLITICAL CARTOONIST SINCE 1951.

taking over.....

 

The new Israeli map proposing to annex 80% of the West Bank, explained
Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich released a map proposing to annex over 80% of the West Bank. He's not far off from the rest of the Israeli political establishment — even the "pragmatic" opposition.

BY QASSAM MUADDI

 

More than 80 percent of the occupied West Bank would become part of Israel, according to a new annexation proposal drafted by Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich on Monday. 

The hardline Minister presented a map showing all of the West Bank as a part of Israel, including Bethlehem, the Jordan Valley, and the entire Palestinian countryside, while only six Palestinian cities — Jenin, Tulkarem, Nablus, Jericho, Ramallah, and Hebron — were marked as isolated ghettoes. Smotrich said that if the Palestinian Authority (PA) opposes his plan, Israel would “uproot it like it did with Hamas.” Smotrich also called on Netanyahu to implement his proposal if he wished to “enter history as a great leader.”

On the same day as Smotrich’s presentation, Israeli forces arrested the mayor of Hebron, Tayseer Abu Sneineh. Hebron is the largest Palestinian city in the West Bank and is home to 800,000 Palestinians. Some 500 messianic Israeli settlers have been imposing their presence in the city’s old town since the 1980s, and Abu Sneineh is known for his role in a Fatah cell that planned and carried out the shooting of six Israeli and Jewish settlers in the city’s old town in 1980, locally known as the “Dabuya Operation.” After his initial arrest, Abu Sneineh was later released in a prisoner swap in 1983 alongside other members of the cell.

 

Abu Sneineh’s arrest came days after Israeli media outlets reported that Israel’s Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, was considering the establishment of a tribal “emirate” in Hebron, separate from the Palestinian Authority, which first surfaced in the pages of the Wall Street Journal last July. 

Local Palestinian media speculated as to whether Abu Sneineh’s arrest was possibly a prelude to removing potential sources of local opposition to annexation, especially given Abu Sneineh’s background and his status as a consequential local nationalist figure in Hebron.

These events, in addition to a number of other developments in the lead-up to the Smotrich proposal, have catapulted the issue of Israel’s potential annexation of the West Bank to the top of the Israeli government’s agenda, and have left millions of Palestinians in the West Bank unsure of their future.

The background

The Israeli cabinet met last Sunday for the second time in two weeks to discuss options for the annexation of parts of the West Bank. It was followed by a meeting between Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Saar and U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio last week, in which Saar informed Rubio of Israel’s intention to “impose Israeli sovereignty” on the Palestinian territory, according to the Israeli news site, Walla.

Meanwhile, Israel has been engaging in a show of force against the PA by launching several raids on major West Bank cities that make up Area A under the Oslo Accords, which comprise about 18% of the West Bank and are supposed to be under PA jurisdiction. The Israeli army launched the largest military raid in years on Ramallah last week, occupying the city center of the PA’s de facto capital with hundreds of troops accompanied by Israeli media crews for over three hours. The very next day, the Israeli army launched a similar raid in Nablus, the second most important PA center of power.

Although Israel claims that its latest moves to annex the West Bank are a response to the announcement by several European states that they intend to recognize Palestine as a state, Israel’s annexation of the West Bank has been years in the making. 

In 2019, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu pledged during his election campaign to annex the Jordan Valley. The first Trump administration allegedly stopped Israel twice, in January and June of 2020, from formally announcing annexation.

However, the same Trump administration announced its “Deal of the Century” plan in 2020, which included the annexation of most of the West Bank, including all of the Jordan Valley. Trump also recognized Israel’s sovereignty over illegal settlements in the West Bank, the occupied Syrian Golan heights, and over all of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. Palestinians overwhelmingly rejected it.

Israel’s current plan of annexation is based on Smotrich’s 2015 “decisive plan,” which aims to prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state and expel Palestinians through encouraging so-called “voluntary migration.” Smotrich also said that Palestinians in the West Bank would either submit to Israeli sovreignty, leave the country, or “be dealt with” by Israeli forces. After October 7, Smotrich said that the annexation of the West Bank should be Israel’s response to the Hamas attack. He later said that Israel’s expulsion of half of Gaza’s population would “set a precedent” to do the same in the West Bank.

Attacking the PA

Over the past two years, Smotrich has been leading a campaign of financial strangulation against the PA, pirating Palestinian customs money that Israel collects on the PA’s behalf as per the Oslo Accords. Smotrich has also periodically threatened to ban Israeli banks from dealing with Palestinian banks, and in the meantime has compelled Israeli banks to limit the amount of cash that Palestinian banks can transfer to Israeli banks. 

Both of the above measured have forced the PA into an ongoing financial crisis, unable to pay public functionaries, medics, teachers, and security staff their full monthly salaries for months on end. And if Smotrich goes through with actually banning all financial dealings between Israeli and Palestinian banks, it would spell total financial collapse in the West Bank, threatening the PA’s very existence.

Weakening the PA to this level is meant to obviate its need for Palestinians and to pave the way for annexation. And Smotrich is just the face of this recent push to isolate and besiege the PA — he is one of many Israeli ministers key to the continuity of Netanyahu’s government, including Itamar Ben-Gvir, Amichai Elyahu, and Orit Strock, all of whom represent the religious right and control the majority in the Israeli Knesset.

The Knesset has also been laying the legal grounds for the West Bank’s annexation for years. In 2018, the Knesset passed the Israeli Nation State Law, which states that the only right to self-determination between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean sea belongs to the Jewish people. In July of last year, the Knesset passed a bill rejecting the establishment of a Palestinian state anywhere between the river and the sea, and a year later — last July — the Knesset passed a bill enabling the annexation of the West Bank.

The U.S. role

The prelude to the official annexation of the Palestinian territory isn’t limited to Israeli measures, but also includes what are so far symbolic U.S. moves underwriting Israel’s intentions. As European states, including France, the UK, and Belgium, announce plans to recognize a Palestinian state during the UN General Assembly later this month, the U.S., for its part, revoked visas for Palestinian officials, including the Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas, set to attend the General Assembly. The move was followed by Washington’s decision to stop issuing visas to any Palestinian passport holders.

In essence, this means that the U.S. is implicitly supporting Israel’s plans to erase the possibility of a Palestinian state and extending Israel’s control over all Palestinian territories. 

Although Smotrich’s most recent plan has been described as “maximalist,” the general orientation of Israeli lawmakers, even the “pragmatic” opposition represented by Yair Lapid and Benny Gantz, does not oppose annexation in any meaningful sense. The main differences that do exist between Israelis is not over annexation per se, but over its extent. 

The less “maximalist” Israeli lawmakers either call for the annexation of all Israeli settlements, the annexation of Area C (which makes up over 60% of the West Bank), or the annexation of the Jordan Valley. But all those versions would deprive Palestinians of any meaningful geographic continuity, control over natural resources and borders, or prospects for future population growth. In essence, the entire Israeli political class is deadset on making a Palestinian state an impossibility. This is the range of political currents the U.S. is picking between to support.

Ultimately, the U.S. will be the one to decide whether official annexation as a whole will move forward. Axios quoted two unnamed U.S. officials that it was “unlikely” Trump would support such a move. But even if Washington halts the de jureannexation of the West Bank, it will most likely offer an “alternative” that would solidify de facto annexation.

https://mondoweiss.net/2025/09/the-new-israeli-map-proposing-to-annex-80-of-the-west-bank-explained/

 

READ FROM TOP.

 

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT.

 

         Gus Leonisky

         POLITICAL CARTOONIST SINCE 1951.