We are searching data for your request:
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.
President Franklin D. Roosevelt and British Prime Minister Winston Churchill issue a declaration, signed by representatives of 26 countries, called the “United Nations.” The signatories of the declaration vowed to create an international postwar peacekeeping organization.
On December 22, 1941, Churchill arrived in Washington, D.C., for the Arcadia Conference, a discussion with President Roosevelt about a unified Anglo-American war strategy and a future peace. The attack on Pearl Harbor meant that the U.S. was involved in the war, and it was important for Great Britain and America to create and project a unified front against Axis powers. Toward that end, Churchill and Roosevelt created a combined general staff to coordinate military strategy against both Germany and Japan and to draft a plan for a future joint invasion of the Continent.
Among the most far-reaching achievements of the Arcadia Conference was the United Nations agreement. Led by the United States, Great Britain, and the Soviet Union, the signatories agreed to use all available resources to defeat the Axis powers. It was agreed that no single country would sue for a separate peace with Germany, Italy, or Japan-they would act in concert. Perhaps most important, the signatories promised to pursue the creation of a future international peacekeeping organization dedicated to ensuring “life, liberty, independence, and religious freedom, and to preserve the rights of man and justice.”
READ MORE: 10 Memorable Moments in United Nations History
- In the early 1960s, growing concerns about the place of developing countries in international trade led many of these countries to call for the convening of a full-fledged conference specifically devoted to tackling these problems and identifying appropriate international actions.
- The first United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) was held in Geneva in 1964.
- In its early decades of operation, UNCTAD gained authoritative standing:
- as an intergovernmental forum for North-South dialogue and negotiations on issues of interest to developing countries, including debates on the "New International Economic Order".
- for its analytical research and policy advice on development issues.
In the 1980s, UNCTAD was faced with a changing economic and political environment:
- There was a significant transformation in economic thinking. Development strategies became more market-oriented, focusing on trade liberalization and privatization of state enterprises.
- A number of developing countries were plunged into severe debt crises. Despite structural adjustment programs by the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, most developing countries affected were not able to recover quickly. In many cases, they experienced negative growth and high rates of inflation. For this reason, the 1980s become known as the "lost decade", particularly in Latin America.
- Economic interdependence in the world increased greatly.
- strengthening the analytical content of its intergovernmental debate, particularly regarding macroeconomic management and international financial and monetary issues.
- broadening the scope of its activities to assist developing countries in their efforts to integrate into the world trading system. In this context,
- the technical assistance provided by UNCTAD to developing countries was particularly important in the Uruguay Round of trade negotiations, which had begun under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) in 1986. UNCTAD played a key role in supporting the negotiations for the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS).
- UNCTAD's work on trade efficiency (customs facilitation, multimodal transport) made an important contribution to enabling developing economies to reap greater gains from trade.
- UNCTAD assisted developing countries in the rescheduling of official debt in the Paris Club negotiations.
- Key developments in the international context:
- The conclusion of the Uruguay Round of trade negotiations under the GATT resulted in the establishment of the World Trade Organizationin 1995, which led to a strengthening of the legal framework governing international trade.
- A spectacular increase in international financial flows led to increasing financial instability and volatility.
- Against this background, UNCTAD's analysis gave early warning concerning the risks and the destructive impact of financial crises on development. Consequently, UNCTAD emphasized the need for a more development-oriented "international financial architecture".
- Foreign direct investment flows became a major component of globalization.
- UNCTAD highlighted the need for a differentiated approach to the problems of developing countries. Its tenth conference, held in Bangkok in February 2000, adopted a political declaration – "The Spirit of Bangkok" – as a strategy to address the development agenda in a globalizing world.
- further focused its analytical research on the linkages between trade, investment, technology and enterprise development.
- put forward a "positive agenda" for developing countries in international trade negotiations, designed to assist developing countries in better understanding the complexity of the multilateral trade negotiations and in formulating their positions.
- Expanded work on international investment issues, following the merger into UNCTAD of the New York–based United Nations Centre on Transnational Corporations in 1993.
- expanded and diversified its technical assistance, which today covers a wide range of areas, including training trade negotiators and addressing trade-related issues debt management, investment policy reviews and the promotion of entrepreneurship commodities competition law and policy and trade and environment.
In 2013, UNCTAD celebrated its 50 th anniversary in a decade fraught with widening inequality and increased vulnerability, making its mandate to serve the world’s poorest countries ever more pressing.
Key developments in the international context:
- The 2011-2020 decade was bookended by two devastating events. Firstly, the fallout from the 2008-2009 global financial crisis and secondly, the deep recession caused by the world-altering COVID-19 pandemic. The decade’s developments took place against the backdrop of exponential technological growth and the associated rise of social media, which facilitated mass global connection while also heightening divisions.
- Throughout the decade, the world confronted enormous challenges in the areas of finance, food security, climate change, environment, inequality and poverty.
- In the early part of the decade, the world struggled with low growth rates – a situation that continued in the latter half too – alongside an inability to restart economic engines to bounce back from the financial crisis. Emerging markets faltered with the withdrawal of monetary stimuli by central banks and big finance was not adequately reformed. Many governments also adopted austerity measures when public spending could have offset economic woes through the decade.
- In the context of the United Nations, the organization reoriented itself towards a new development framework focused on sustainable development and delivered through the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) replaced the Millennium Development Goals and came with a call for efforts at an unprecedented scale to end extreme poverty and develop sustainably.
- The Paris Agreement signed in 2015 set the scene for multilateral support for a climate-focused agenda. Mass mobilization around the climate agenda took root this decade amid increasing pressure on businesses and government to take up the climate challenge and protect people and the planet.
- In the latter half of the decade, the trade environment was deeply shaped by the United Kingdom’s decision to exit the European Union, and trade tensions between China and the United States. Global foreign direct investment also dropped off in the latter half of the decade.
- On the upside, in 2018, the African Continental Free Trade Agreement was signed and came into effect in 2020, raising hopes for a new age of decisive, pan-African policymaking on trade and development.
- In general, global politics was influenced by a rise in protectionism, nationalism and right-wing extremism, prompting increased division. Trust in the multilateral system also plummeted alongside a popular backlash against globalization.
- To top a tumultuous decade, in 2019, a new virus emerged in China, eventually becoming a global pandemic. The COVID-19 virus spread across the world in 2020 shuttering businesses and life as we know it.
In light of global developments, and under the realization that the dream of “prosperity for all” is still out of reach for many people, UNCTAD multiplied efforts aimed at:
- Advocating for a more inclusive globalization while pointing out the urgent need for increased productive capacity, especially in least developed countries.
- Analysing the impact of the lopsided influence of financial markets, high levels of indebtedness, trade imbalances, rising unemployment, uneven economic growth, upward trends in food prices and the volatility of exchange rates and commodity prices, all of which are particularly damaging for developing countries.
- Aligning UNCTAD’s economic and trade agenda with sustainable development efforts and the SDGs, while positioning the organization at the centre of dialogue on the trade and economic dimension of the goals.
- Monitoring growing inequality within and across countries, and the long-lasting negative effects of the global financial crisis on the world economy.
- Making contributions to many international gatherings, such as the:
- Fourth United Nations Conference on the Least Developed Countries in Istanbul in 2011.
- The United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio+20) in 2012.
- Revival of the Doha Development Agenda in Bali in 2013.
- The Geneva Dialogues, which fed the overall SDG development process in 2013.
- Annual World Economic Forums.
UNCTAD continues catalysing change as the world races to meet the SDGs by 2030.
Creation of Israel, 1948
On May 14, 1948, David Ben-Gurion , the head of the Jewish Agency, proclaimed the establishment of the State of Israel. U.S. President Harry S. Truman recognized the new nation on the same day.
Although the United States supported the Balfour Declaration of 1917, which favored the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine, President Franklin D. Roosevelt had assured the Arabs in 1945 that the United States would not intervene without consulting both the Jews and the Arabs in that region. The British, who held a colonial mandate for Palestine until May 1948, opposed both the creation of a Jewish state and an Arab state in Palestine as well as unlimited immigration of Jewish refugees to the region. Great Britain wanted to preserve good relations with the Arabs to protect its vital political and economic interests in Palestine.
Soon after President Truman took office, he appointed several experts to study the Palestinian issue. In the summer of 1946, Truman established a special cabinet committee under the chairmanship of Dr. Henry F. Grady, an Assistant Secretary of State, who entered into negotiations with a parallel British committee to discuss the future of Palestine. In May 1946, Truman announced his approval of a recommendation to admit 100,000 displaced persons into Palestine and in October publicly declared his support for the creation of a Jewish state. Throughout 1947, the United Nations Special Commission on Palestine examined the Palestinian question and recommended the partition of Palestine into a Jewish and an Arab state. On November 29, 1947 the United Nations adopted Resolution 181 (also known as the Partition Resolution) that would divide Great Britain’s former Palestinian mandate into Jewish and Arab states in May 1948 when the British mandate was scheduled to end. Under the resolution, the area of religious significance surrounding Jerusalem would remain a corpus separatum under international control administered by the United Nations.
Although the United States backed Resolution 181, the U.S. Department of State recommended the creation of a United Nations trusteeship with limits on Jewish immigration and a division of Palestine into separate Jewish and Arab provinces but not states. The State Department, concerned about the possibility of an increasing Soviet role in the Arab world and the potential for restriction by Arab oil producing nations of oil supplies to the United States, advised against U.S. intervention on behalf of the Jews. Later, as the date for British departure from Palestine drew near, the Department of State grew concerned about the possibility of an all-out war in Palestine as Arab states threatened to attack almost as soon as the UN passed the partition resolution.
Despite growing conflict between Palestinian Arabs and Palestinian Jews and despite the Department of State’s endorsement of a trusteeship, Truman ultimately decided to recognize the state Israel.
In a letter to the editor published in the Journal of Infection, researchers explain that more than half of all "positive" PCR tests are likely to have been people who are not even infectious.
Is a PCR test an appropriate tool to determine an infection, or someone who is free from infection? Why have the issues with these tests been completely unacknowledged within the mainstream?
Take a moment and breathe. Place your hand over your chest area, near your heart. Breathe slowly into the area for about a minute, focusing on a sense of ease entering your mind and body. Click here to learn why we suggest this.
A letter to the editor published in the Journal of Infection titled, “The performance of the SARS-C0V-2 RT-PCR test as a tool for detecting SARS-COV-2 infection in the population” states the following:
In light of our findings that more than half of individuals with positive PCR test results are unlikely to have been infectious, RT-PCR test positivity should not be taken as an accurate measure of infectious SARS-C0V-2 incidence. Our results confirm the findings of others that the routine use of “positive” RT-PCR test results as the gold standard for assessing and controlling infectiousness fails to reflect the fact “that 50-75% of the time an individual is PCR positive, they are likely to be post-infectious.
Asymptomatic individuals with positive RT-PCR test results have higher Ct values and a lower probability of being infectious than symptomatic individuals with positive results. Although Ct values have been shown to be inversely associated with viral load and infectivity, there is no international standardization across laboratories, rendering problematic the interpretation of RT-PCR tests when used as a tool for mass screening.
This point has been made many times over the last 15 months. A plethora of scientific publications and scientists all over the globe have been echoing this since the beginning of the pandemic, and I’ve written about it many times since March 2020.
The statement above is why The Swedish Public Health agency has a notice on their website explaining how and why polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests are not useful in determining if someone is infected with COVID or if someone can transmit it to others. Basically, PCR tests are not designed to detect and identify active infectious diseases. Instead, it identifies genetic material, be it partial, alive, or even dead.
PCR amplifies this material in samples to find traces of COVID-19. If the sample taken from a nasal swab contains a large amount of COVID virus it will be read positive after only a few cycles of amplification, while a smaller sample with small amounts of genetic material will require more cycles to amplify enough of the genetic material to get a positive result. Since the PCR test amplifies traces of COVID-19 through cycles, a lower number of cycles needed to get a positive result suggests the presence of a higher viral load for the person being tested and therefore a higher contagion potential.
An article published in the journal Clinical Infectious Diseases found that among positive PCR samples with a cycle count over 35, only 3 percent of the samples showed viral replication. This can be interpreted as, if someone tests positive via PCR when a Ct of 35 or higher is used, the probability that said person is actually infected is less than 3%, and the probability that said result is a false positive is 97%. In this case, false positive means a person is not infectious or capable of transmitting the virus to others.
High cycle thresholds have been used throughout this pandemic. Manitoba Canada, for example, has confirmed that it utilizes Ct’s of up to 40, and even 45 in some cases. Dr. Jared Bullard, a paediatric infectious disease specialist, is a witness for the Manitoba government who is being sued for the measures they’ve taken to combat COVID. He has provided testimony regarding the unreliability of PCR testing. You can read more about that here.
Earlier on in the pandemic, 22 scientists/researchers published a report explaining why they believe PCR testing is useless when it comes to identifying an active covid infection. This issue has been brought up as far back as 2007 when journalist Gina Kolata published an article in the New York times about how declaring virus pandemics based on PCR tests can end in a disaster. The article was titled Faith in Quick Test Leads to Epidemic That Wasn’t.
Pages and pages could be filled with examples, but in favour of a short read I’ll leave it with the examples pointed out above.
When it comes to PCR testing, the concerns and issues with regards to its mass use for identifying “cases” has been a big problem throughout this pandemic, with many experts in the field urging governments to simply focus on sick people. Further, mainstream media and government scientists, who seem to receive all of T.V. time, have not touched upon this issue at all. Why?
Furthermore, if we couple this information with the fact that asymptomatic spread outdoors, and even indoors, is quite low, something becomes very clear: If we stopped testing people who aren’t sick or symptomatic, there wouldn’t be a “pandemic per say” and the number of “cases” would be dramatically lower.
You could even go as far as saying that that there would be no justification for lockdowns or a justification for the mass vaccination of the population without these “positive” cases. This entire pandemic and the measures that have been put in place by governments to combat it have all been based on “positive cases.”
Click below to watch a sneak peek of our brand new course!
Our new course is called 'Overcoming Bias & Improving Critical Thinking.' This 5 week course is instructed by Dr. Madhava Setty & Joe Martino
If you have been wanting to build your self awareness, improve your.critical thinking, become more heart centered and be more aware of bias, this is the perfect course!
The Real Story of How Israel Was Created
The Real Story of How Israel Was Created
Cost: 10 copies for $1.00
Size: 8.5 x 11
To better understand the Palestinian bid for membership in the United Nations, it is important to understand the original 1947 UN action on Israel-Palestine.
The common representation of Israel&rsquos birth is that the UN created Israel, that the world was in favor of this move, and that the US governmental establishment supported it. All these assumptions are demonstrably incorrect.
In reality, while the UN General Assembly recommended the creation of a Jewish state in part of Palestine, that recommendation was non-binding and never implemented by the Security Council.
Second, the General Assembly passed that recommendation only after Israel proponents threatened and bribed numerous countries in order to gain a required two-thirds of votes.
Alison Weir is executive director of If Americans Knew and president of the Council for the National Interest. See the “History of US-Israel Relations” for detailed citations for the above information. Additional references can be found in “How Palestine Became Israel.”
Third, the US administration supported the recommendation out of domestic electoral considerations, and took this position over the strenuous objections of the State Department, the CIA, and the Pentagon.
The passage of the General Assembly recommendation sparked increased violence in the region. Over the following months the armed wing of the pro-Israel movement, which had long been preparing for war, perpetrated a series of massacres and expulsions throughout Palestine, implementing a plan to clear the way for a majority-Jewish state.
It was this armed aggression, and the ethnic cleansing of at least three-quarters of a million indigenous Palestinians, that created the Jewish state on land that had been 95 percent non-Jewish prior to Zionist immigration and that even after years of immigration remained 70 percent non-Jewish. And despite the shallow patina of legality its partisans extracted from the General Assembly, Israel was born over the opposition of American experts and of governments around the world, who opposed it on both pragmatic and moral grounds.
Let us look at the specifics.
Background of the UN partition recommendation
In 1947 the UN took up the question of Palestine, a territory that was then administered by the British.
Approximately 50 years before, a movement called political Zionism had begun in Europe. Its intention was to create a Jewish state in Palestine through pushing out the Christian and Muslim inhabitants who made up over 95 percent of its population and replacing them with Jewish immigrants.
As this colonial project grew through subsequent years, the indigenous Palestinians reacted with occasional bouts of violence Zionists had anticipated this since people usually resist being expelled from their land. In various written documents cited by numerous Palestinian and Israeli historians, they discussed their strategy: they would buy up the land until all the previous inhabitants had emigrated, or, failing this, use violence to force them out.
When the buy-out effort was able to obtain only a few percent of the land, Zionists created a number of terrorist groups to fight against both the Palestinians and the British. Terrorist and future Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin later bragged that Zionists had brought terrorism both to the Middle East and to the world at large.
Finally, in 1947 the British announced that they would be ending their control of Palestine, which had been created through the League of Nations following World War One, and turned the question of Palestine over to the United Nations.
At this time, the Zionist immigration and buyout project had increased the Jewish population of Palestine to 30 percent and land ownership from 1 percent to approximately 6 percent.
Since a founding principle of the UN was “self-determination of peoples,” one would have expected to the UN to support fair, democratic elections in which inhabitants could create their own independent country.
Instead, Zionists pushed for a General Assembly resolution in which they would be given a disproportionate 55 percent of Palestine. (While they rarely announced this publicly, their stated plan was to later take the rest of Palestine.)
U.S. Officials Oppose Partition Plan
The U.S. State Department opposed this partition plan strenuously, considering Zionism contrary to both fundamental American principles and US interests.
Author Donald Neff reports that Loy Henderson, Director of the State Department&rsquos Office of Near Eastern and African Affairs, wrote a memo to the Secretary of State warning:
Henderson went on to emphasize:
When Zionists began pushing for a partition plan through the UN, Henderson recommended strongly against supporting their proposal. He warned that such a partition would have to be implemented by force and emphasized that it was “not based on any principle.” He went on to write:
Henderson specifically pointed out:
Henderson was far from alone in making his recommendations. He wrote that his views were not only those of the entire Near East Division but were shared by “nearly every member of the Foreign Service or of the Department who has worked to any appreciable extent on Near Eastern problems.”
Henderson wasn&rsquot exaggerating. Official after official and agency after agency opposed Zionism.
In 1947 the CIA reported that Zionist leadership was pursuing objectives that would endanger both Jews and “the strategic interests of the Western powers in the Near and Middle East.”
Truman Accedes to Pro-Israel Lobby
President Harry Truman, however, ignored this advice. Truman&rsquos political advisor, Clark Clifford, believed that the Jewish vote and contributions were essential to winning the upcoming presidential election, and that supporting the partition plan would garner that support. (Truman&rsquos opponent, Dewey, took similar stands for similar reasons.)
Truman&rsquos Secretary of State George Marshall, the renowned World War II General and author of the Marshall Plan, was furious to see electoral considerations taking precedence over policies based on national interest. He condemned what he called a “transparent dodge to win a few votes,” which would cause “[t]he great dignity of the office of President [to be] seriously diminished.”
Marshall wrote that the counsel offered by Clifford “was based on domestic political considerations, while the problem which confronted us was international. I said bluntly that if the President were to follow Mr. Clifford&rsquos advice and if in the elections I were to vote, I would vote against the President. ”
Henry F. Grady, who has been called “America&rsquos top diplomatic soldier for a critical period of the Cold War,” headed a 1946 commission aimed at coming up with a solution for Palestine. Grady later wrote about the Zionist lobby and its damaging effect on US national interests.
Grady argued that without Zionist pressure, the U.S. would not have had “the ill-will with the Arab states, which are of such strategic importance in our &lsquocold war&rsquo with the soviets.” He also described the decisive power of the lobby:
Former Undersecretary of State Dean Acheson also opposed Zionism. Acheson&rsquos biographer writes that Acheson “worried that the West would pay a high price for Israel.” Another Author, John Mulhall, records Acheson&rsquos warning:
Secretary of Defense James Forrestal also tried, unsuccessfully, to oppose the Zionists. He was outraged that Truman&rsquos Mideast policy was based on what he called “squalid political purposes,” asserting that “United States policy should be based on United States national interests and not on domestic political considerations.”
Forrestal represented the general Pentagon view when he said that “no group in this country should be permitted to influence our policy to the point where it could endanger our national security.”
A report by the National Security Council warned that the Palestine turmoil was acutely endangering the security of the United States. A CIA report stressed the strategic importance of the Middle East and its oil resources.
Similarly, George F. Kennan, the State Department&rsquos Director of Policy Planning, issued a top-secret document on January 19, 1947 that outlined the enormous damage done to the US by the partition plan (“Report by the Policy Planning Staff on Position of the United States with Respect to Palestine”).
Kennan cautioned that “important U.S. oil concessions and air base rights” could be lost through US support for partition and warned that the USSR stood to gain by the partition plan.
Kermit Roosevelt, Teddy Roosevelt&rsquos nephew and a legendary intelligence agent, was another who was deeply disturbed by events, noting:
The head of the State Department&rsquos Division of Near Eastern Affairs, Gordon P. Merriam, warned against the partition plan on moral grounds:
Merriam added that without consent, “bloodshed and chaos” would follow, a tragically accurate prediction.
An internal State Department memorandum accurately predicted how Israel would be born through armed aggression masked as defense:
And American Vice Consul William J. Porter foresaw another outcome of the partition plan: that no Arab State would actually ever come to be in Palestine.
Pro-Israel Pressure on General Assembly Members
When it was clear that the Partition recommendation did not have the required two-thirds of the UN General Assembly to pass, Zionists pushed through a delay in the vote. They then used this period to pressure numerous nations into voting for the recommendation. A number of people later described this campaign.
Robert Nathan, a Zionist who had worked for the US government and who was particularly active in the Jewish Agency, wrote afterward, “We used any tools at hand,” such as telling certain delegations that the Zionists would use their influence to block economic aid to any countries that did not vote the right way.
Another Zionist proudly stated:
Financier and longtime presidential advisor Bernard Baruch told France it would lose U.S. aid if it voted against partition. Top White House executive assistant David Niles organized pressure on Liberia rubber magnate Harvey Firestone pressured Liberia.
Latin American delegates were told that the Pan-American highway construction project would be more likely if they voted yes. Delegates&rsquo wives received mink coats (the wife of the Cuban delegate returned hers) Costa Rica&rsquos President Jose Figueres reportedly received a blank checkbook. Haiti was promised economic aid if it would change its original vote opposing partition.
Longtime Zionist Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter, along with ten senators and Truman domestic advisor Clark Clifford, threatened the Philippines (seven bills were pending on the Philippines in Congress).
Before the vote on the plan, the Philippine delegate had given a passionate speech against partition, defending the inviolable “primordial rights of a people to determine their political future and to preserve the territorial integrity of their native land. ”
He went on to say that he could not believe that the General Assembly would sanction a move that would place the world “back on the road to the dangerous principles of racial exclusiveness and to the archaic documents of theocratic governments.”
Twenty-four hours later, after intense Zionist pressure, the delegate voted in favor of partition.
The U.S. delegation to the U.N. was so outraged when Truman insisted that they support partition that the State Department director of U.N. Affairs was sent to New York to prevent the delegates from resigning en masse.
On Nov 29, 1947 the partition resolution, 181, passed. While this resolution is frequently cited, it was of limited (if any) legal impact. General Assembly resolutions, unlike Security Council resolutions, are not binding on member states. For this reason, the resolution requested that “[t]he Security Council take the necessary measures as provided for in the plan for its implementation,” which the Security Council never did. Legally, the General Assembly Resolution was a “recommendation” and did not create any states.
What it did do, however, was increase the fighting in Palestine. Within months (and before Israel dates the beginning of its founding war) the Zionists had forced out 413,794 people. Zionist military units had stealthily been preparing for war before the UN vote and had acquired massive weaponry, some of it through a widespread network of illicit gunrunning operations in the US under a number of front groups.
The UN eventually managed to create a temporary and very partial ceasefire. A Swedish UN mediator who had previously rescued thousands of Jews from the Nazis was dispatched to negotiate an end to the violence. Israeli assassins killed him and Israel continued what it was to call its “war of independence.”
At the end of this war, through a larger military force than that of its adversaries and the ruthless implementation of plans to push out as many non-Jews as possible, Israel came into existence on 78 percent of Palestine.
At least 33 massacres of Palestinian civilians were perpetrated, half of them before a single Arab army had entered the conflict, hundreds of villages were depopulated and razed, and a team of cartographers was sent out to give every town, village, river, and hillock a new, Hebrew name. All vestiges of Palestinian habitation, history, and culture were to be erased from history, an effort that almost succeeded.
Israel, which claims to be the “only democracy in the Middle East,” decided not to declare official borders or to write a constitution, a situation which continues to this day. In 1967 it took still more Palestinian and Syrian land, which is now illegally occupied territory, since the annexation of land through military conquest is outlawed by modern international law. It has continued this campaign of growth through armed acquisition and illegal confiscation of land ever since.
Individual Israelis, like Palestinians and all people, are legally and morally entitled to an array of human rights.
On the other hand, the state of Israel&rsquos vaunted “right to exist” is based on an alleged “right” derived from might, an outmoded concept that international legal conventions do not recognize, and in fact specifically prohibit.
Israel-Palestine Timeline: The human cost of the conflict records photos and information for each person who has been killed in the ongoing violence.
Alison Weir's book Against Our Better Judgement: How the U.S. was used to create Israel brings together meticulously sourced evidence to outline the largely unknown history of U.S.-Israel relations.
Buy it on Amazon, and visit the book website for reviews, more ordering options, and upcoming author events.
The Formation of the United Nations, 1945
On January 1, 1942, representatives of 26 nations at war with the Axis powers met in Washington to sign the Declaration of the United Nations endorsing the Atlantic Charter, pledging to use their full resources against the Axis and agreeing not to make a separate peace.
At the Quebec Conference in August 1943, Secretary of State Cordell Hull and British Foreign Secretary Anthony Eden agreed to draft a declaration that included a call for “a general international organization, based on the principle sovereign equality of all nations.” An agreed declaration was issued after a Foreign Ministers Conference in Moscow in October 1943. When President Franklin D. Roosevelt met with Soviet Premier Joseph Stalin in Tehran, Iran , in November 1943, he proposed an international organization comprising an assembly of all member states and a 10-member executive committee to discuss social and economic issues. The United States, Great Britain, Soviet Union, and China would enforce peace as “the four policemen.” Meanwhile Allied representatives founded a set of task-oriented organizations: the Food and Agricultural Organization (May 1943), the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration (November 1943), the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (April 1944), the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank (July 1944), and the International Civil Aviation Organization (November 1944).
United Nations created - HISTORY
- All news »
- News releases
- Feature stories
- Photo library
- Media distribution list
When diplomats met to form the United Nations in 1945, one of the things they discussed was setting up a global health organization.
WHO&rsquos Constitution came into force on 7 April 1948 &ndash a date we now celebrate every year as World Health Day.
In April 1945, during the Conference to set up the United Nations (UN) held in San Francisco, representatives of Brazil and China proposed that an international health organization be established and a conference to frame its constitution convened. On 15 February 1946, the Economic and Social Council of the UN instructed the Secretary-General to convoke such a conference. A Technical Preparatory Committee met in Paris from 18 March to 5 April 1946 and drew up proposals for the Constitution which were presented to the International Health Conference in New York City between 19 June and 22 July 1946. On the basis of these proposals, the Conference drafted and adopted the Constitution of the World Health Organization, signed 22 July 1946 by representatives of 51 Members of the UN and of 10 other nations.
The Conference established also an Interim Commission to carry out certain activities of the existing health institutions until the entry into force of the Constitution of the World Health Organization. The preamble and Article 69 of the Constitution of WHO provide that WHO should be a specialized agency of the UN. Article 80 provides that the Constitution would come into force when 26 members of the United Nations had ratified it. The Constitution did not come into force until 7 April 1948, when the 26th of the 61 governments who had signed it ratified its signature. The first Health Assembly opened in Geneva on 24 June 1948 with delegations from 53 of the 55 Member States. It decided that the Interim Commission was to cease to exist at midnight on 31 August 1948, to be immediately succeeded by WHO.
For more than 125 years, United Way has evolved to meet the needs of the times. Today, the world needs United Way more than ever.
Learn more about our history. It just might inspire you to help us build a better future.
In 1887, a Denver woman, a priest, two ministers and a rabbi got together. It sounds like the beginning of a bad joke, but they didn't walk into a bar what they did do was recognize the need to work together in new ways to make Denver a better place.
Frances Wisebart Jacobs, the Rev. Myron W. Reed, Msgr. William J.O&rsquoRyan, Dean H. Martyn Hart and Rabbi William S. Friedman put together an idea that became the nation's first united campaign, benefitting 10 area health and welfare agencies. They created an organization to collect the funds for local charities, to coordinate relief services, to counsel and refer clients to cooperating agencies, and to make emergency assistance grants for cases that could not be referred. That year, Denver raised $21,700 for this greater good, and created a movement that would become United Way.
United Way still provides solutions to communities' toughest problems. But we're not your grandfather's United Way.
Today's United Way is bringing people, organizations and communities together around a common cause, a common vision, and a common path forward. In many communities, we're the only nonprofit building up the cornerstones of education, financial stability and health&mdashand the only nonprofit bringing people together from all walks of life to be a part of local solutions. We're engaged in nearly 1,800 communities across more than 40 countries and territories, where people are powering big ideas and big action by donating, volunteering and speaking out through United Way.
We're not doing it alone. United Way is able to make a lasting difference because we work together with strategic partners who share our vision. Partners like the NFL. Back in 1973, we joined forces with the NFL to boost awareness of what was then called social service issues. Together, we created public service announcements and programs featuring NFL players, coaches and owners.
From this partnership&mdashthe longest running of its kind&mdashwe&rsquove drafted 39,000 people to serve as readers, tutors and mentors. Since 2007, our nationwide Play60 campaign has also encouraged kids and families to make healthy food choices and get at least 60 minutes of physical activity every day.
You can see our evolution through the lens of 2-1-1, a free and confidential hotline that helps millions of people find resources they need, 24-7.
In 2000, we joined with the Alliance of Information and Referral Systems to successfully petition the Federal Communications Commission to designate 2-1-1 as a health and human services information hotline. Originally created by United Way of Atlanta, 2-1-1 is an easy-to- remember and universally recognizable telephone number. Like 911 and 411, it helped people reach out in times of crisis to find local support and services.
In the years that followed, 2-1-1 grew into an essential post-disaster resource, providing emergency assistance for victims of 9-11 and relief for communities devastated by hurricanes, floods, mudslides, tornadoes and man-made disasters in the U.S. On the other side of the globe, United Way coordinated efforts to help Indian Ocean communities in the wake of 2004&rsquos tragic tsunami in South Asia.
As we've grown up, we've become more than a fundraising organization. Rather than measuring our success in dollars raised, we measure our success in actual lives changed.
United Way impacts 61 million lives every year. We can do this because we have spent more than a century developing deep roots and trust in the communities we serve. That strong foundation provides us with the resources, reputation and relationships needed to bring people and organizations together around innovative solutions.
For example, we partnered with the Ad Council back in 2005 to create Born Learning, the first early learning public service advertising campaign. Born Learning is no longer an ad campaign to date, it has empowered more than 15 million parents and other caregivers with online tips, tools and other resources to ensure kids start school equipped for success. We have now expanded Born Learning to thousands of children in Asia, Australia and Latin America.
We don't just focus on little kids we empower people to succeed at every stage of their lives. College students are fueling some of our most inspiring work. Since we started United Way&rsquos Alternative Spring Break in 2006, more than 4,000 students have traded in their beach towels for tool belts.
Born out of a partnership with MTV, Alternative Spring Break has generated more than 130,000 hours of volunteer service and new bonds between like-minded college students. Many young leaders come back with a better sense of their own path forward, and how they can contribute to the world.
One challenge for young professionals is doing taxes. If you make $60,000 or less, you can file your taxes online for free with MyFreeTaxes. That's another sign of United Way's evolution. In 2008, we joined forces with H&R Block, the Walmart Foundation, Goodwill Industries International, and the National Disability Institute to launch a campaign designed to connect low-wage families and individuals with free tax preparation and filing assistance services. Today, United Way is helping more people file taxes for free&mdashonline, at home, at a community center or with the help of a nonprofit partner&mdashthan any other organization. So far, millions of taxpayers have saved over $10 billion using MyFreeTaxes and our Volunteer Income Tax Assistance (VITA) sites.
As you can see, we've changed over the years to address the challenges of a changing world. But the one that thing hasn't changed is our focus on improving lives and strengthening communities. There are lots of ways you can be part of this change. Join us!
What’s Next: Questions for the U.N.’s Future
When Mr. Guterres took on the role on Jan. 1, he inherited a body facing the unenviable task of demonstrating the United Nations’ relevance in a world confronting challenges that were inconceivable 72 years ago.
Here are some of the questions that will determine whether the organization’s influence diminishes or grows:
■ Can the Security Council take action against countries that flout international humanitarian law? And can the P5 members of the Council look beyond their own narrow interests to find ways to end the “scourge of war”?
■ Can peacekeeping operations be repaired so the protection of civilians is ensured?
■ Can the United Nations persuade countries to come up with new ways to handle the new reality of mass migration?
■ Can the secretary general persuade countries to keep their promise to curb carbon emissions — and to help those suffering from the consequences of climate change?
■ Can the United Nations get closer to achieving its founding mandate, to make the world a better, more peaceful place?