Australian Politics Forum - Israel has established an 'apartheid regime'

Unforgiven

Gold Member

Offline

I have sinned

Posts: 8879
Gender: male

Re: Israel has established an 'apartheid regime'
Reply #30 - Mar 18^th, 2017 at 2:07pm

bogarde73 wrote on Mar 18^th, 2017 at 1:33pm:

bogarde73 wrote on Mar 18^th, 2017 at 11:02am:

The small brain uses hackneyed labels like Islamophobe.

I am waiting for you to post proof - and discredit me - that you have ever unqualifiedly criticised Islamic atrocities.

Are you able to do that?

Still waiting.
I will apologise unqualifiedly if you can provide the proof.

Hasbara shill, Bogarde73, is using a trick he's been taught to deflect, divert and obfuscate issues.

The issue is that Israel is an apartheid state.

Back to top

“I’ll let you be in my dreams if I can be in yours” Bob Dylan

IP Logged

jmjcare

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 1781
Gender: female

Re: Israel has established an 'apartheid regime'
Reply #31 - Mar 18^th, 2017 at 9:14pm

Israel's slipping democracy

This beacon of freedom is becoming more like its authoritarian neighbors.

Commentary Opinion
Opinion
Israel's slipping democracy

This beacon of freedom is becoming more like its authoritarian neighbors.
By Nir Eisikovits September 24, 2008

Boston — We Israelis like to think of ourselves as "the only democracy in the Middle East." The label has a variety of uses: We invoke it to explain our special relationship with the United States, to set ourselves apart from our authoritarian Arab neighbors, to account for our remarkable economic success, and to justify occasional requests for EU membership.

There are, of course, well-known problems with this democratic self-understanding. Our basic constitutional documents speak of a "Jewish democratic state" while about 20 percent of our citizens are non-Jews. We have no separation of synagogue and state. We have, for over 40 years, maintained illegal settlements and a harsh military occupation in most of the Palestinian territories captured in 1967.

And yet, Israel is certainly the most democratic nation in the Middle East. Iran reportedly executes homosexuals, Syria regularly detains human rights activists and dissenters, Egypt jails men essentially for being diagnosed with HIV/AIDS, Lebanon fails to exercise control over its territory, and Turkey considers banning its largest political party.

We, on the other hand, have a vibrant free press, an independent judiciary, an active parliament, and, as attested by the recent legal troubles of Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert who announced his resignation this week, independent-minded prosecutors.

But being the most democratic nation in a region marked by despotism is not the same as being democratic. And recently, indications have accumulated that Israel is becoming more rather than less like its neighbors.

Earlier this summer, Israel's parliament, the Knesset, passed two troubling pieces of legislation: the first (which still awaits final ratification) exempts the state from compensating Palestinians harmed during Israel Defense Force (IDF) operations in the territories.

The second, aimed at curtailing the travel of Arab members of the Kenesset (MK), states that any Israeli who has visited an "enemy country" shall be considered a supporter of armed struggle against the Jewish state (unless proven otherwise), and will be prevented from running for parliament in the seven years following the visit.

That law's drafter, Zevulun Orlev, the head of the parliamentary faction of the National Religious Party, explained that the statute will prevent the election of "trojan horses" into the legislature. Arab MKs would now be forced "to decide between the Syrian parliament and the Israeli parliament." On the same day these votes took place, the Knesset's Constitution, Law, and Justice Committee extended the validity of a provision exempting police from videotaping interrogations touching on security matters. The extended immunity is good for four years.

One does not need to be a constitutional scholar to worry about a democracy that eliminates access to its courts, curtails the right to be elected, and chooses to protect its police rather than detainees. Since all these measures were widely popular with Israelis, it is worthwhile reiterating an obvious point: Democracy is not only about the rule of the majority. Rather, its essence lies in empowering the majority without allowing it to tyrannize the minority. Such a balancing act is possible only if a robust set of political rights is in place. A state that jettisons these in favor of national security will probably stay safe, but it will rarely stay democratic.

To be sure, there are circumstances where it is appropriate to practice what former Israeli Chief Justice Aharon Barak has called "defensive democracy."

In extreme cases, constitutional protections can justifiably be curtailed. We have all heard of "ticking bomb" scenarios, and most agree that democracies have no special obligation to commit suicide. But, for such defensive action to be acceptable, the circumstances must, indeed, be extraordinary, the curtailments minimal, and the fact of curtailing considered a big deal.

The Knesset's new laws pass none of these tests. The sponsors of the new legislation remind us that we are engaged in an epic battle against the rising tide of political Islam.

Perhaps so. But if this characterization is true, the key to victory lies in becoming the best rather than worst example of ourselves.

The US diplomat George Kennan saw this clearly in the early days of the cold war. Winning, he insisted, required that America "measure up to its own best tradition and prove itself worthy of preservation..."

Though no one listened at the time, Kennan's lesson is well worth learning. Unless Israel does everything it can to preserve its political decency, it will not win because it will not be right. Failing to measure up to its best democratic traditions, failing to prove worthy of preservation, it might just not persevere.

• Nir Eisikovits, an Israeli lawyer and philosopher, is the director of Suffolk University's Graduate Program in Ethics and Public Policy. His forthcoming book is titled, "Sympathizing With the Enemy: Reconciliation, Negotiation, and Transitional Justice."

http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2008/0924/p09s03-coop.html

Back to top

IP Logged

jmjcare Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 1781 Gender:	Re: Israel has established an 'apartheid regime' Reply #32 - Mar 18^th, 2017 at 9:15pm Nir Eisikovits explains why "Israel is in so much trouble and how it can dig out"
Back to top	IP Logged

Unforgiven

Gold Member

Offline

I have sinned

Posts: 8879
Gender: male

Re: Israel has established an 'apartheid regime'
Reply #33 - Mar 19^th, 2017 at 12:07pm

http://www.counterpunch.org/2017/03/17/israel-and-the-a-word/

Quote:

The word resonated loud and clear from South Africa. Hendrik Verwoerd, widely described as a key architect of apartheid, was the far-right National Party’s propagandist, political strategist and, ultimately, party leader. In 1961, as South African Prime Minister, he noted that Israel was built on land taken ‘from the Arabs after the Arabs lived there for a thousand years.’ The point was to express his approval and to highlight Zionism’s common cause with the Afrikaner pioneers: ‘In that, I agree with them. Israel, like South Africa, is an apartheid state.’

Verwoerd was able to make this diagnosis without needing to live to see the brutality of the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza after 1967. Israel’s apartheid foundations were laid in its dispossession of the Palestinians in 1948. They were reinforced by the immediate erection of colonial constitutional structures that cemented the exclusion of the colonised.

Since then, Israeli law and policy has only deepened the state apparatus of separation and segregation, discrimination and domination. Over the years, countless activists, authors and artists, as well as leading anti-apartheid figures from South Africa, have referred to Israel’s particular brand of structural discrimination as akin to apartheid. In the last decade, international lawyers have also begun to do likewise, but with reference to the definition of apartheid under international law rather than by analogy to southern Africa.

This week, a report commissioned and published by the UN Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia (ESCWA) has concluded that ‘Israel has established an apartheid regime that dominates the Palestinian people as a whole’. According to the report, the Israeli regime governing Palestinians is a racial regime of institutionalised domination – the essence of the international legal definition of apartheid. The maintenance of Israel’s exclusionary constitutional character as the state of the Jewish people has entailed a “strategic fragmentation of the Palestinian people”. It has involved expulsion of Palestinian refugees into exile, discrimination against Palestinians inside Israel as second-class citizens, oppression of Palestinians under occupation; all through a concerted array of law, policy and practice that forges ‘a comprehensive policy of apartheid’.

This finding breaks new ground in the context of UN analysis on Israel/Palestine. Specialised UN bodies – such as the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination and the Human Rights Council’s Special Rapporteur on Palestine – have in recent years categorised Israeli law and policy in terms of racial segregation and apartheid. This framing has been geographically limited to the military occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, however – as distinct from inside Israel itself, or Israel’s relationship with the Palestinian people writ large.

This was a somewhat necessary distinction, given the UN practice of analysing the occupied Palestinian territory and Israel as two separate territories under international law. But it was also in certain respects an artificial distinction. Much of what renders the situation in the occupied territory as apartheid is the separate and preferential legal system applied to Israeli settlers – a hierarchical legalism which is central to the constitution of Israel itself. Laws on citizenship, residency and family unification, as well as land, planning and housing rights, apply inside Israel to benefit Jewish-Israeli citizens over Palestinians. Those laws are then channeled into the West Bank to further stratify the population there. Colonisers living in the settlements are endowed with legal status and privilege that is denied to the Palestinian population of the same territory.

There are of course differences in the modalities of Israel’s discrimination against Palestinians – depending on whether they are inside Israel, in occupied territory, or in exile. The crucial point that the UN report highlights, however, is that this is nonetheless best viewed as a single overarching institutional regime which discriminates against the Palestinian people as a whole.

For a UN Commission report to state this so clearly, and to theorise Israel as a “racial state”, is significant. A people’s tribunal, the Russell Tribunal on Palestine, did arrive at similar conclusions back in 2011. The momentum that this analysis has gathered in official UN settings since then shows the possibilities of an international law from below – one which is not afraid to confront the realities of a state in which increasingly discriminatory legislation has spewed thick and fast from an ascendant far-right.

While the report’s findings do hinge on the legal definition of apartheid, the Commission itself does not have the authority of an international tribunal. The International Court of Justice and the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination are among the relevant actors when it comes to determining Israel’s state responsibility for an unlawful apartheid regime. The International Criminal Court enters the fray for determining the criminal responsibility of individual Israeli officials for the perpetration of acts of apartheid, as crimes against humanity...

Back to top

“I’ll let you be in my dreams if I can be in yours” Bob Dylan

IP Logged

bogarde73

Gold Member

Offline

Anti-Global & Contra Mundum

Posts: 18443
Gender: male

Re: Israel has established an 'apartheid regime'
Reply #34 - Mar 19^th, 2017 at 12:31pm

Jmjcare, do you think the UK was a democracy during WW2?
I can assure you it wasn't.

Countries facing extreme threats to the safety of its citizens, indeed to its very existence, cannot afford the luxury of all the fancy trappings of a 2017 Australia or such.

Whistling in the wind or doing something in the wind.

Back to top

Know the enemies of a civil society by their public behaviour, by their fraudulent claim to be liberal-progressive, by their propensity to lie and, above all, by their attachment to authoritarianism.

IP Logged

Unforgiven

Gold Member

Offline

I have sinned

Posts: 8879
Gender: male

Re: Israel has established an 'apartheid regime'
Reply #35 - Mar 19^th, 2017 at 3:49pm

bogarde73 wrote on Mar 19^th, 2017 at 12:31pm:

Jmjcare, do you think the UK was a democracy during WW2?
I can assure you it wasn't.

Countries facing extreme threats to the safety of its citizens, indeed to its very existence, cannot afford the luxury of all the fancy trappings of a 2017 Australia or such.

Whistling in the wind or doing something in the wind.

That doesn't give Israel the right to turn murder of Arabs into a sport.

In fact Bogarde73 is wrong. There is no armed conflict faced by Israel currently.

Back to top

“I’ll let you be in my dreams if I can be in yours” Bob Dylan

IP Logged

Gordon

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 22008
Gordon
Gender: male

Re: Israel has established an 'apartheid regime'
Reply #36 - Mar 19^th, 2017 at 4:51pm

Unforgiven wrote on Mar 19^th, 2017 at 3:49pm:

bogarde73 wrote on Mar 19^th, 2017 at 12:31pm:

Jmjcare, do you think the UK was a democracy during WW2?
I can assure you it wasn't.

Countries facing extreme threats to the safety of its citizens, indeed to its very existence, cannot afford the luxury of all the fancy trappings of a 2017 Australia or such.

Whistling in the wind or doing something in the wind.

That doesn't give Israel the right to turn murder of Arabs into a sport.

In fact Bogarde73 is wrong. There is no armed conflict faced by Israel currently.

Whatever terrible things the Israelis have done, it is also true to say that they have used more restraint in their fighting against the Palestinians than we—the Americans, or Western Europeans—have used in any of our wars. They have endured more worldwide public scrutiny than any other society has ever had to while defending itself against aggressors. The Israelis simply are held to a different standard. And the condemnation leveled at them by the rest of the world is completely out of proportion to what they have actually done. [Note: I was not saying that because they are more careful than we have been at our most careless, the Israelis are above criticism. War crimes are war crimes.]

Back to top

IBI

IP Logged

Unforgiven

Gold Member

Offline

I have sinned

Posts: 8879
Gender: male

Re: Israel has established an 'apartheid regime'
Reply #37 - Mar 19^th, 2017 at 5:17pm

Gordon wrote on Mar 19^th, 2017 at 4:51pm:

Whatever terrible things the Israelis have done, it is also true to say that they have used more restraint in their fighting against the Palestinians than we—the Americans, or Western Europeans—have used in any of our wars. They have endured more worldwide public scrutiny than any other society has ever had to while defending itself against aggressors. The Israelis simply are held to a different standard. And the condemnation leveled at them by the rest of the world is completely out of proportion to what they have actually done. [Note: I was not saying that because they are more careful than we have been at our most careless, the Israelis are above criticism. War crimes are war crimes.]

There is no war. Israel is murdering civilians. At times even shooting unarmed civilians across the Gaza border.

The IDF kills Arabs for sport.

Back to top

“I’ll let you be in my dreams if I can be in yours” Bob Dylan

IP Logged

mothra

Gold Member

Online

Australian Politics

Posts: 36832
Gender: female

Re: Israel has established an 'apartheid regime'
Reply #38 - Mar 19^th, 2017 at 5:34pm

Gordon wrote on Mar 19^th, 2017 at 4:51pm:

Unforgiven wrote on Mar 19^th, 2017 at 3:49pm:

bogarde73 wrote on Mar 19^th, 2017 at 12:31pm:

Jmjcare, do you think the UK was a democracy during WW2?
I can assure you it wasn't.

Countries facing extreme threats to the safety of its citizens, indeed to its very existence, cannot afford the luxury of all the fancy trappings of a 2017 Australia or such.

Whistling in the wind or doing something in the wind.

That doesn't give Israel the right to turn murder of Arabs into a sport.

In fact Bogarde73 is wrong. There is no armed conflict faced by Israel currently.

Whatever terrible things the Israelis have done, it is also true to say that they have used more restraint in their fighting against the Palestinians than we—the Americans, or Western Europeans—have used in any of our wars. They have endured more worldwide public scrutiny than any other society has ever had to while defending itself against aggressors. The Israelis simply are held to a different standard. And the condemnation leveled at them by the rest of the world is completely out of proportion to what they have actually done. [Note: I was not saying that because they are more careful than we have been at our most careless, the Israelis are above criticism. War crimes are war crimes.]

Well if you believe that, you'll believe anything.

The Israelis are above criticism ... LOL!

Back to top

If you can't be a good example, you have to be a horrible warning.

IP Logged

Gordon

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 22008
Gordon
Gender: male

Re: Israel has established an 'apartheid regime'
Reply #39 - Mar 19^th, 2017 at 5:55pm

mothra wrote on Mar 19^th, 2017 at 5:34pm:

Gordon wrote on Mar 19^th, 2017 at 4:51pm:

Unforgiven wrote on Mar 19^th, 2017 at 3:49pm:

bogarde73 wrote on Mar 19^th, 2017 at 12:31pm:

Jmjcare, do you think the UK was a democracy during WW2?
I can assure you it wasn't.

Countries facing extreme threats to the safety of its citizens, indeed to its very existence, cannot afford the luxury of all the fancy trappings of a 2017 Australia or such.

Whistling in the wind or doing something in the wind.

That doesn't give Israel the right to turn murder of Arabs into a sport.

In fact Bogarde73 is wrong. There is no armed conflict faced by Israel currently.

Whatever terrible things the Israelis have done, it is also true to say that they have used more restraint in their fighting against the Palestinians than we—the Americans, or Western Europeans—have used in any of our wars. They have endured more worldwide public scrutiny than any other society has ever had to while defending itself against aggressors. The Israelis simply are held to a different standard. And the condemnation leveled at them by the rest of the world is completely out of proportion to what they have actually done. [Note: I was not saying that because they are more careful than we have been at our most careless, the Israelis are above criticism. War crimes are war crimes.]

Well if you believe that, you'll believe anything.

The Israelis are above criticism ... LOL!

Have you read Sam Harris on topics other than religion?

Back to top

IBI

IP Logged

mothra

Gold Member

Online

Australian Politics

Posts: 36832
Gender: female

Re: Israel has established an 'apartheid regime'
Reply #40 - Mar 19^th, 2017 at 6:18pm

Israeli-Palestinian Conflict in 2014: Is Sam Harris correct in his assessment of the current Gaza campaign by Israel?

Sam Harris makes a number of inferential mistakes in his assessment, one of which was already pointed out by Tracey Bryan, namely, that Harris does not give the Palestinian point of view even a paragraph's consideration, but judges them from the Israeli point of view. Essentially, their POV does not matter, but if anyone wants to understand why Hamas acts the way it does, it's pretty essential to at least try. It's not because they have different values, though; it's because their values are the same as everyone else's, in that once a society has been so thoroughly oppressed, humiliated, stripped of dignity and a way to sustain itself, there comes a true breaking point when people will collectively decide they have nothing left to lose. At this point even death becomes preferable than going back to the way things were. It was a great American, Patrick Henry, that said “Give me liberty or give me death,” and those words are alive today in Gaza. This is not hard to understand at all, in fact it's a very natural and human response to oppression.

The other major point Harris gets wrong is his assessment that Israelis want to live in peace while, if the roles were reversed, the Palestinians would want to kill all Israelis. But let me quote Harris at length here:

And again, you have to ask yourself, what do these groups want? What would they accomplish if they could accomplish anything? What would the Israelis do if they could do what they want? They would live in peace with their neighbors, if they had neighbors who would live in peace with them. They would simply continue to build out their high tech sector and thrive. [Note: Some might argue that they would do more than this—e.g. steal more Palestinian land. But apart from the influence of Jewish extremism (which I condemn), Israel’s continued appropriation of land has more than a little to do with her security concerns. Absent Palestinian terrorism and Muslim anti-Semitism, we could be talking about a “one-state solution,” and the settlements would be moot.]

Harris’ claims are built on the aggressiveness of the Hamas charter. However he fails to mention the historical genesis of the document, the role Israeli policy played in the creation of the document, or that the Likud charter explicitly rejects the notion of a Palestinian state. So in effect, if Hamas were to disappear and nothing take its place, the status quo would continue indefinitely, ie Israel would probably continue its settlements in the occupied territories while confining Palestinians into smaller and smaller pieces of land. Maybe that can be called “peace,” but that is a weird thing to call peace. A better term would be “apartheid”.

Harris’ claim that, if the roles were reversed, the Palestinians would murder all Israelis, is so ridiculous as to barely even deserve a rebuttal--the roles are not reversed, there is no way they will be reversed in a foreseeable future, and the situation Israel has gotten itself into is the product of a long string of bad choices stretching back almost a century. For the roles to be meaningfully reversed, we'd have to go back in time. So perhaps a more useful thought experiment is, what were Palestinian-Israeli or Palestinian-Jewish relationships like prior to WWI? There's no denying they were tense, and both sides were to blame for the escalation from stone throwing to war. Unlike other conflicts that began in the early 20th century, this one has never produced a clear outcome. At the same time, we can agree Israel is “winning” the military conflict. The way they are winning, with systematic oppression, has a lot to do with how the Palestinians react to Israel. Unfortunately, Harris doesn't address the role of Israeli embargo/trade policy, ghettoization, dual-track legal systems and citizenship, etc. towards the Palestinians in creating their current crisis.

Finally, I reject Harris’ idea that “we all live in Israel”:

For the rest of our lives, and the lives of our children, we are going to be confronted by people who don’t want to live peacefully in a secular, pluralistic world, because they are desperate to get to Paradise, and they are willing to destroy the very possibility of human happiness along the way. The truth is, we are all living in Israel. It’s just that some of us haven’t realized it yet.

Harris is confusing here Muslim fundamentalism with a fight against oppression. The fact that Hamas uses Muslim fundamentalism to rally people to its cause is meaningless. In the US, radio hosts and Fox News personalities use Christian fundamentalism to rally people against enlightenment values all the time, as I'm sure Harris is aware, but that doesn't cause massive casualties.

Back to top

If you can't be a good example, you have to be a horrible warning.

IP Logged

mothra

Gold Member

Online

Australian Politics

Posts: 36832
Gender: female

Re: Israel has established an 'apartheid regime'
Reply #41 - Mar 19^th, 2017 at 6:19pm

To the point, though--we do not all live in Israel. In fact, there is no modern parallel for Israel's predicament; theirs is a highly idiosyncratic situation. The success of the Israeli project sets is apart from similar projects in the past that have failed. There will always be people who use religion for ulterior motives--namely, to gain power over others. Certainly this is the way it's used in the United States and in many other countries. But the conditions that create an Israel cannot be attained by religion alone. Yes, we will always be confronted by people who truly believe that to get into Paradise they must destroy others who do not believe as they do. The way to battle these people is not with more oppression, it's education. The Renaissance was not a product of men forcing enlightenment values on each other, it was the result of them realizing that acceptance of and education in those values benefited them and theirs more than fighting.

If Israel wants true peace, it need to be able to be humble enough to say that it has been fighting the wrong war. Israel needs to invest in the Gazans, not try to bully them into submission. It needs to make Israelis and Palestinians equal before its laws, not degrade them and deny them the chance to be heard.

https://www.quora.com/Israeli-Palestinian-Conflict-in-2014-Is-Sam-Harris-correct...

Back to top

If you can't be a good example, you have to be a horrible warning.

IP Logged

Fuzzball Gold Member Offline Posts: 6384 Australia Gender:	Re: Israel has established an 'apartheid regime' Reply #42 - Mar 19^th, 2017 at 6:50pm And I thought it was Germany 75 years ago........
Back to top	Life's Journey is not to arrive at the grave safely in a well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, totally worn out, shouting, "Holy Sh!t ... What a Ride!" IP Logged

jmjcare

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 1781
Gender: female

Re: Israel has established an 'apartheid regime'
Reply #43 - Mar 19^th, 2017 at 7:01pm

mothra wrote on Mar 18^th, 2017 at 8:50am:

Baronvonrort wrote on Mar 18^th, 2017 at 8:32am:

Quote:

U.N. chief Antonio Guterres rejected a report published by ECSWA, a Beirut based agency of the world body-ECSWA-comprised entirely of 18 Arab states, which accuses Israel of "apartheid'.
unwatch.org/un-chief-rejects-richard-falks-escwa-report-accusing-israel-aparthei...

18 Arab states make a report accusing Israel of apartheid, of course anyone with more than half a functioning brain already knows muslims hate the jews and any report they make will be seriously biased.

"The report was authored by two critics of Israeli state practice: Virginia Tilley, professor of political science at Southern Illinois University, and Richard Falk, former UN special rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories, and professor emeritus of international law at Princeton University."

Would you like to try again?

The United Nations Exposed: Who Is In Control?

We are told that the United Nations (UN) is an international organization that aims to facilitate co-operation through social progress, economic development, international security and international law. They promote themselves, and are outwardly promoted as a reputable body that deals with peace, security, development, human rights and humanitarian affairs. With this being the case it’s no surprise to see the UN at the forefront of all international conflict and instability, since these exact events give them the ideal atmosphere to promote themselves as bringers of all that I previously mentioned. Throughout history, authoritative figures have always tried to paint a perception of themselves in hopes of influencing and brainwashing the masses into a desired agenda.

By promoting themselves, I am referring to the UN’s use of mainstream media networks, like CNN. CNN is owned by Time Warner (1), which is owned by JP Morgan Chase and Company and Dodge & Cox Inc, to name a few (2). It also has a select group of direct holders, like Jeffrey L. Bewkes. Mr. Bewkes sits in the head office of Time Warner’s two towers built in 2001 -buildings purposely built to resemble the once standing World Trade Centers of New York City. Bewkes is also a member of The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) (3),which is headed and funded by the Rothschild and Rockefeller families (4)(5). In fact a large majority of mainstream media network owners are all members of the CFR, as well as the trilateral commission. Another example of this is Richard D. Parsons. who served as Time Warner’s Chairman of the Board from May 2003 to January 2009. Currently Mr. Parsons is a member of the Board of Trustees and is a Senior Advisor to the Rockefeller Foundation(6). I could even go on to look at Frank J. Caufield, another major direct holder of Time Warner Corp, who is also a member of the CFR(7). Let me remind you again, that CNN is owned by Time Warner Corp, which is owned by a number of individuals and corporations that are run by a few families. These families hide behind the corporations they run, using the employees and politicians they hire to do their dirty work. Why we continue to hand our perception of what is happening on the planet to a select few who show no regard for the human race is beyond me. As a child, I did not understand how a human being could have such negative intentions, and create so much conflict through the use of trickery. To this day I still believe that a human being cannot do what these “governing bodies” and multinational corporations do. Whether or not it holds the same effect on you, I hope the connections above at least raise an eyebrow for you.

There is no need for me to point out the JP Morgan (major institutional holder of Time Warner)/ Rockefeller connections, which also played a big role in the creation of the Federal Reserve System in 1912. So what does all this have to do with the United Nations? Well, the same ones that own all of our mainstream media networks, also own, run and created the United Nations. The owners of the United Nations use their media networks to influence the perception of billions of people. Not many people know that our mainstream media networks are owned by less than 5 multinational corporations, and all of these corporations have ties to the Rothschild and Rockefeller families. If you dive in even further, all of the same corporations are directly related to suppressing clean energy technologies, like General Electric. You can find out more about free energy suppression here. More ties can be made in the food and medical industries as well. Our planet is owned by a small group of families and the corporations they run, this is no longer a secret, no longer a conspiracy theory. It’s becoming evident that these “people” do not have our best intentions at hand.

Back to top

IP Logged

jmjcare

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 1781
Gender: female

Re: Israel has established an 'apartheid regime'
Reply #44 - Mar 19^th, 2017 at 7:02pm

League of Nations/Treaty of Versailles

The forerunner to the United Nations, was the league of Nations. It was created under the treaty of versailles in 1919 (8)(14). Many believe the idea of the UN’s creation was due to the second world war, it wasn’t. A plan for global control through a well disguised body of peace started long before 1945. The League of Nations was an intergovernmental organization created at the Paris peace conference that ended the First World War. Development of international organizations due to conflict is a way of trickery. The UN was created in 1945 as a result of World War 2. Anytime there is global conflict, something is created out of that conflict, to give the illusion that whatever is created out of that conflict is a direct solution to that conflict. Have you ever thought that the ones who created the conflict, are doing so in order to propose the solution? What a scam that would be, wouldn’t it? What a trick, using and controlling our will. Handing our will over to those who look to take advantage of us, to those that are not in service to others, but to themselves. The League of Nations was created by the Rockefeller Family, they were responsible for funding the entire operation(9). At the same time, the International Labour Organization was developed, which is and was heavily funded by the Rockefeller and Rothschild families(10). It is clear that the Rockefeller and Rothschild families both created the United Nations, without them the development of this global organization would not be possible.

The Same Groups That Funded Nazi Germany Created The United Nations? Both Sides of the War Were Funded by the Same Group?

A key question we must ask ourselves when it comes to international global governing bodies is, who is in charge? Who is making the decisions? What connections can be made between the United Nations and the other major governing bodies of planet Earth? How often do we ask these questions? And how often do we make the connections? If the United Nations was created for peace and stability in conflicting War time, why would the same parties fund both sides of the war? Was it just for profit, or did they want to create War, to create government bodies that would control our entire planet? The United Nations has branched off into the World Health Organization, which has other branched within it like Codex Alimentarius and the Food and Drug Administration.

I’m talking about Paul M. Warburg, a German-born banker, who was an appointed member of the Federal Reserve System, on the board of governors(11). Isn’t the Federal Reserve a United States entity? He was heavily involved with the creation of the Federal Reserve, and his family was heavily involved with I.G Farben. I.G Farben was the largest chemical company in the world during its time, and one of the largest industrial booms next to the Rockefeller’s Standard Oil Company, and General Motors. I.G Farben was responsible for numerous war crimes, supplying the Nazis with weapons and even funding the Nazi party(12)(13). Why would the federal reserve system and the Rockefeller’s be involved with I.G Farben? Isn’t the federal reserve an American entity? Did they not fund the United States as well? Paul Warburg and his family were involved with the creation of the Federal Reserve, the Warburg family headed I.G Farben, a company that supported the Nazi movement. So what is going on here? There is a lot of evidence to show that both sides of World War II were funded by the same people, so I think a “fast one” has been pulled over our eyes. The Federal Reserve is still in tight with the Warburg family, as they have transformed themselves into several multinational corporations and financial institutions, like Warburg Pincus(15)(16).

It’s no secret that the Bush family also heavily profited from the war. Did you know that the Bush family also had members connected to the federal reserve, and that the Bush family is also very close to the Rockefeller family?(17). It’s not a secret that the presidency has always been connected to the Federal Reserve. Prescott Bush even worked for the Nazis, he worked with and profited from companies that were funding Hitler. With all of these connections, it is easy to see how the real founders of the United Nations (if you follow the money) were connected to many inhumane acts. So what makes you think it has stopped today? What if the United Nations give you the illusion of a peace making body, in order to drive chaos, fear, and to fulfill an agenda that started long before we were all born? How can the UN protect us against mining corporations for example, that commit atrocities all over the world, when the same ones who created the UN own all of the major mining corps, like the Rockefeller Hughes Corporation(18). I’ve provided sources for all of my claims, at the same time I like to leave a few out to inspire the readers to do some research. Feel free to look into the Bush connections yourself! Keep in mind, I’ve used only a few examples and connections in this article, there is a tremendous amount that you can make on your own if you are sparked to further your research.

Back to top

IP Logged