OBJECTING TO THE U.S. MOVING ITS EMBASSY TO JERUSALEM. IS IT TIME TO TELL THE UN TO GO FIND ANOTHER BENEFACTOR AND A NEW RESIDENCE?
Most of us feel that way. Does the U.S. get its money’s worth by supporting the U.N.? Globalism by another name is The United Nations. What would happen if we simply stopped paying our dues and took back the property that David Rockefeller gave to the UN?
No doubt, the U.S. would be seen as an outlaw, as wishing to abstain from efforts to bring about world peace. But the counterpoint can be voiced without hesitation: Just how much peace has the U.N. brought to the world? Furthermore, just what benefits have the United States acquired through sponsoring efforts to form a world government? We were behind the League of Nations initiative after World War I (which ultimately the Senate voted against). We were the key sponsors of the U.N. after World War II. There is little doubt that the United States and its leadership has been behind the move toward globalism from the very beginning.
Given the revised mission of NATO and the dominance of the U.S. through that organization – shaping geopolitics as we see fit – our foreign policy has always been double-minded. Now it was legitimate to ask if NATO had outlived its usefulness when the Berlin wall fell and the Soviet Union crumbled. NATO had a difficult time justifying itself without a really big enemy. But within a decade, the military industrial complex got its raison d’etre refreshed: Islamic Jihad. Weapons budgets wouldn’t have to be reduced by very much after all.
But this brings us back to questioning why the U.N.? The organization has been anti-Israeli and anti-American for more than four decades. What harm would come to America if we simply said, “Enough.” We have the means to work with our closest allies through NATO. We seem always able to muster a “coalition of the willing” when its time to strike the drums as a call to arms.
Do we really need the U.N. as a stone in our shoe to remind us that the rest of the world does not approve of what the U.S. does? The U.S. has treated the third world horribly over the past 70 years. But turning the other cheek daily in no wise seems warranted.
Henry I. Miller from the Hoover Institute at Stanford, voiced the same sentiment today in his Newsweek article, “We should stop funding the offensive absurdities of the U.N.” (December 22, 2017). Miller asserts:
On Thursday, in a rare emergency session, the United Nations General Assembly overwhelmingly passed a resolution (128-9, with 35 abstentions) calling on the Trump administration to rescind its decision to move the U.S. embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, which thereby recognized it as the nation’s capital.
The U.N. vote was just the latest in a decades-long series of actions that have shown disdain for U.S. policies and interests.
The resolution is nonbinding, so the action is symbolic. It is also pointless to insult and irritate the nation that not only hosts the United Nations’ headquarters—in prime Manhattan real estate —but also is the organization’s largest funder, contributing about $8 billion a year.
Note: I am the last person to argue that the United States is without fault. I have argued vehemently that the U.S. is the world’s leading candidate to incarnate Mystery Babylon. Nevertheless, the U.N. can only be a token. And it’s not buying us anything.
KEEPING ISRAEL HAPPY IS NOT WHY THE U.S. EXISTS
Israel won’t be happy with a more independently minded America. Making their foreign policy our foreign policy is a mistake. Caroline Glick (in the article attached) and Benjamin Netanyahu continue to sound warnings of the necessity for war against Iran. But before we go dancing to their tune, the Trump administration should determine its strategy for dealing with Iran apart from what Israel wants. Israel’s wishes deserve to be taken into account as it is our most natural ally in the region. But we aren’t likely to make Israel happy unless we do exactly as they say. Our foreign policy in the region must take all considerations into account.
For too long, Zionism has been a synonym for Neo-conservatism. And Neo-conservatism’s goal of a unipolar world featuring American hegemony must give way to the revival of national sovereignty as espoused by the populist movement led (most of the time) by President Trump. Israel is our ally and we must not betray it. But we do not have to implement its foreign policy for us any more than we should heed the majority of votes at the United Nations.
WHAT DO YOU THINK?
I’d love to hear what you think! Comment here or email me at email@example.com. If you like my writing, please buy a book from my author’s page or hit the Donate Button on the far right, and sign up for my weekly blog.