What Is Really Happening With Israel, The U.S. and The UN Resolution

[Written by Rachel Blevins]

Israel has been in the headlines this week after the United States chose to abstain from voting on United Nations resolution to condemn Israeli settlements in occupied Palestinian territories.

Now, the biggest challenge with covering this story objectively comes from the fact that the majority of the news surrounding it has been convoluted with disinformation, propaganda and emotional manipulation.

Why is the resolution a big deal? Well, up until this point, the Obama administration has vetoed all prior resolutions that were critical of Israel. While the U.S. did not vote in favor of this latest resolution, it allowed it to pass by refusing to vote at all. In the past, the U.S. has, at times, been the only country to veto a resolution that was not in favor of Israel.

How did Israel respond? Israel is now going as far as to say that it has proof that the Obama administration orchestrated the resolution. While a spokesperson for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu did not specifically say what reason Obama would have for creating such a resolution, he did say that Israel plans to give their alleged “iron-clad information” to the new President Trump after he is inaugurated.

UN Resolution = Declaration of War? Netanyahu reportedly warned New Zealand’s foreign minister that by supporting the resolution, New Zealand was essentially issuing a declaration of war against Israel. Netanyahu is also now saying that as long as he is prime minister, Israel will continue to refuse to recognize Palestinian statehood.

Is Trump on Israel’s side? Oh, yes. The president-elect was quick to criticize both the Obama administration’s lack of a veto on the resolution, and what he referred to as Obama’s “inflammatory statements.” Trump encouraged Israel to “stay strong” and said Inauguration Day on Jan. 20 is “fast approaching.”

What is the key point both sides are ignoring? This resolution is non-binding and has no immediate effects on Israel. It creates things such as GUIDELINES and RECOMMENDATIONS for Israel to follow, but it does not present any serious or immediate consequences if those suggestions are not followed.

Is President Obama against Israel now? Nope. Not even close. Just three months ago, Obama signed off on the largest military assistance deal in U.S. history, which will give Israel $38 BILLION over the next 10 years. This serves as a reminder that not only does Obama support Israel, but he supports the country more than any other president has in U.S. History.

How is the U.S. responding to criticism over the resolution? Secretary of State John Kerry gave a speech on Wednesday where he laid out a six-point plan for the future of Israeli and Palestinian relations that included the end of Israeli occupation on Palestinian territory and a two-state solution based on the 1967 borders.

Why is there so much division? This is a situation in which it is incredibly easy to be emotionally manipulated when looking at either side, and as a result many people have become hardened based on where their loyalties lie.

What are your thoughts on this issue? Let us know in the comments section!

If you want stay up to date with WeAreChange, and you want to learn more about how you can truly become the change you want to see in the world, check out or website and sign up for our newsletter!

You can also access exclusive content from We Are Change by contributing monthly to our Patreon.

Check us out on social media:

FACEBOOK: https://facebook.com/LukeWeAreChange

TWITTER: https://twitter.com/Lukewearechange

INSTAGRAM: http://instagram.com/lukewearechange

SNAPCHAT: LukeWeAreChange

We take BITCOIN too: 12HdLgeeuA87t2JU8m4tbRo247Yj5u2TVP

I am an Activist a writer a blogger and an investigative journalist writing for (www.wearechange.org)

A Radio host of the Blog-talk Radio Series:

My Sources are everywhere..
Enemy of the New World Order.

It’s Over The US Hands Internet Control To ICANN

Image result for iCANN TAKEover

Capping a highly politicized debate, the US government on Saturday let go of its remaining grip on the internet, handing control of the net’s address book to a nonprofit.

Saying free speech in the virtual realm was at stake, Republican Sen. Ted Cruz and others had tried to block the transfer. But a federal judge denied on Friday their request for an injunction and the scheduled handoff took place at midnight.

The transfer involved the internet’s domain name system, or DNS, which translates the Web addresses you type into your browser, like “cnet.com,” into the numerical language that net-connected computers use to communicate.Image result for iCANN TAKEover

Under a plan that’s been in the works for years, the US Department of Commerce shuttled control of the DNS to a nonprofit called the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), whose multiple stakeholders include technical experts, as well as representatives of governments and businesses.

Cruz and other critics had argued the transfer could lead to authoritarian countries taking control of the internet and eventually censoring content throughout the world.

Imagine an internet run like many Middle Eastern countries that punish what they deem to be blasphemy,” Cruz said at a congressional hearing on September 14. “Or imagine an internet run like China or Russia that punish and incarcerate those who engage in political dissent.”

“When ICANN escapes from [US] government authority,” Cruz said, “ICANN escapes from having to worry about the First Amendment, from having to worry about protecting your rights or my rights.”

But ICANN said such fears were uninformed.

“ICANN is a technical organization and does not have the remit or ability to regulate content on the internet,” the group said prior to the transfer. “That is true under the current contract with the US government and will remain true without the contract with the US government.”

Supporters of the hand-off also argued that preventing the transfer could actually lessen US impact on the net.

Russia and China, among others, had backed the idea of empowering an obscure United Nations body called the ITU (International Telecommunications Union) with internet governance duties. That would have given governments control, but it also would have diminished the relative importance of tech powers like the States.

On Wednesday, the attorneys general of Arizona, Nevada, Oklahoma, andTexas filed a lawsuit (PDF) to block the turnover. But a federal judge in the Southern District of Texas denied that request for a temporary restraining order.

ICANN said Saturday that the handoff would ensure an open internet.

“This transition was envisioned 18 years ago, yet it was the tireless work of the global internet community, which drafted the final proposal, that made this a reality,” ICANN Board Chair Stephen D. Crocker said in a statement. “This community validated the multistakeholder model of internet governance. It has shown that a governance model defined by the inclusion of all voices, including business, academics, technical experts, civil society, governments and many others is the best way to assure that the internet of tomorrow remains as free, open and accessible as the internet of today.”

The Internet Governance Coalition, a group of companies that includes Facebook, Google, Microsoft and Verizon, also expressed approval of the move but offered a more measured assessment.

The Internet Governance Coalition, a group of companies that includes Facebook, Google, Microsoft and Verizon, also expressed approval of the move but offered a more measured assessment.

“A plan has been implemented that includes strong accountability measures and upholds the bottom-up approach that embodies the very nature of the open internet we experience today,” the group said in a statement prepared Friday. “Although this is an important step in the transition process, there is still much work that needs to be done to ensure the accountability and transparency of ICANN. We look forward to working with the multistakeholder community on these ongoing efforts.”

A representative for Nevada Attorney General Adam Paul Laxalt said Laxalt and the other AGs were reviewing their legal options. The other attorneys general, as well as Cruz, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

by  CNET’s Stephen Shankland and Marguerite Reardon contributed to this report.

OFFICIAL SOURCE: https://www.cnet.com/news 


Sign up become a patron and Show your support for alternative news

for Just 1$ a month you can help Grow We are change
We use Bitcoin Too !  
Join and Up Vote Our STEEMIT
Danny F. Quest, is an artist, blogger, journalist, and media personality. Co. Founder of TheTruther.us, Danny works as a Freelance journalist and graphic designer for WeAreChange.org, author of ‘120 characters or less’ The guide to winning a debate in the Digtal age. Danny is also working on two documentary films, I love my country but hate what they are doing” and “30 days in Gaza” depicting what it is for Palestinians to live under Israeli occupation.

Calls to Leave United Nations Get Louder in the USA

Calls to Leave United Nations Get Louder in the USA

Via. ALEX GORKA |www.strategic-culture.org


In the immediate aftermath of Brexit, the issue of its relationship with the UN has come to the fore in the United States.

Sarah Palin, once the governor of Alaska and vice presidential candidate, suggested that the United States take similar steps to leave the United Nations. «May UN shackles be next on the chopping block», she said.

Palin demanded the United States extricate itself from the UN, which «dissolves a nation’s self-determination and sovereignty». The first Republican woman nominated for the vice presidency is an influential figure. She is one of the Tea Party leaders. Her book Going Rogue has sold more than two million copies.

In 2014, Palin launched an online news network, the Sarah Palin Channel.

She has the means to influence the US public opinion.

Now the issue will hit public discourse as the pro-nationalist, anti-globalist sentiment is spreading in the wake of the British «leave» vote.

Actually Sarah Palin’s statement is just part of the story and she is not the only public figure and politician to raise it. Alabama congressman Mike Rogers wants the United States to exit the United Nations. Rep. Mike Rogers

(R-AL3) has long been one of the most vocal opponents of the UN and recently laid out his major issues with the multi-national organization in a statement.

He believes the United States’ participation with the United Nations should end immediately. According to Rogers, the UN continues to prove it’s an inefficient bureaucracy and a complete waste of American tax dollars. «Why should the American taxpayer bankroll an international organization that works against America’s interests around the world?» Rogers asked rhetorically. «The time is now to restore and protect American sovereignty and get out of the United Nations».

Congressman Rogers’ frustrations with the UN led him to introduce H.R. 1205, the American Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2015, which he said would «end country’s participation in the UN and any organizations affiliated with them».

Several other liberty-minded congressmen have also sponsored the legislation.

If approved, the legislation would repeal the UN Participation Act of 1945 and shutter the US government’s mission to the outfit. It would also «terminate all membership by the United States in the United Nations, and in any organ, specialized agency, commission, or other formally affiliated body of the United Nations». That specifically includes UNESCO along with the World Health Organization, the UN Environment Program (UNEP), and more. It would end all US involvement in all UN conventions and agreements, too.

The proposed law, introduced in numerous legislative session of Congress in recent decades, would also end all funding to the UN and all of its agencies. The legislation also aims to end all US military involvement in UN military «peacekeeping» schemes and ban United States troops from serving under UN command. Finally, the bill would seek to evict the UN from US soil. It would also ban any use of American government facilities by the global outfit, while stripping UN officials and dignitaries of diplomatic immunity.

In the US Senate, pro-sovereignty sentiment is going strong. Last year, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), a former contender for the 2016 nomination which he lost to Donald Trump, blasted the UN and suggested it should be dismantled.

The 2014 Gallup poll showed that a staggering 57 percent of Americans believed the UN was doing a «bad job», versus 37 percent who thought it was doing a «good job».

More than two thirds of Americans were upset with the UN, and independents were also overwhelmingly opposed. But even among Democrats, half thought the UN was doing a bad job.

Indeed, especially in recent years, the UN has become increasingly vocal in attacking the US for violations of human rights and international laws. In 2014 The United Nations Committee Against Torture released a report that deeply criticized the US for racial discrimination and other Civil Rights issues, including electronic surveillance, CIA interrogations, immigrant detentions, the failure to shut down the detention facilities at Guantanamo Bay etc.

The report’s findings are the «concluding observations» of hearings during the «Convention against Torture and Other Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment», which took place in Geneva.

A new UN report in 2015 criticized the United States for being the only country in the world that imprisons children for life without parole.

The same year the United States was sharply criticized over its human rights record by numerous countries at the United Nations Office at Geneva.

Member nations blasted the US at the United Nations’ Human Rights Council, rebuking the country over its human rights record. During the second Universal Periodic Review (UPR) of the US, country after country urged the US to strengthen legislation and expand training to eliminate racism and excessive use of force by law enforcement officers.

The legality of using drones by the US has been questioned many times by the international community.

In 2003 the US attacked Iraq without the approval of the UN Security Council, in 2011 as a member of NATO alliance it went beyond the UN resolution on Libya.

The list can go on. There is a plethora of examples to prove that the US is a country in serious trouble with the international law.

The UN may be imperfect but at a time when the global security is under threat, let it be terrorists, rogue states of climate change, the Organization remains a vital instrument of international governance in the interdependent world. Engagement and cooperation, not isolation or unilateralism, are the keys to security. After WWII, the world would have been a much worse place without the UN. This international body has managed many conflicts. The nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and the International Atomic Energy Agency have greatly contributed into preventing a nuclear war. A half dozen core human rights treaties and the creation of a Human Rights High Commissioner to monitor them have changed the world for the better. An extensive international criminal justice system has been developed under UN auspices. More broadly, the UN has addressed social problems to feed the hungry and shelter the dispossessed. It has helped to provide education to millions of children. A world without the United Nations would have thrown us back to the Stone Age. With the UN jettisoned, the US would return to pre-Second World War isolationism in the age of the computer, the Internet, and the high-speed airplane.

The global law and order are threatened by irresponsible US politicians willing to free the country from the burden of international law and global commitments. The decision will undermine every foundation the contemporary world is based on. It’s time to ring alarm bells.

Source: www.strategic-culture.org


Sign up become a patron and Show your support for alternative news

for Just 1$ a month you can help Grow We are change
We use Bitcoin Too !  

Visit The Gear Store Wearechange.org/gear

Danny F. Quest, is an artist, blogger, journalist, and media personality. Co. Founder of TheTruther.us, Danny works as a Freelance journalist and graphic designer for WeAreChange.org, author of ‘120 characters or less’ The guide to winning a debate in the Digtal age. Danny is also working on two documentary films, I love my country but hate what they are doing” and “30 days in Gaza” depicting what it is for Palestinians to live under Israeli occupation.

Executive Order: United Nations allowed to use Force on US Citizens

un helmet shot United Nation military troops may soon arrive and see action on American soil following the United States’ announcement of support for “a set of principles that give a green light for U.N. peacekeeping troops and police to use force to protect civilians in armed conflicts,” Military Times reports.

The militarization of local police, combined with the arrival of a United Nations military presence, could mean big trouble for liberty and freedom here in America.

U.S. Ambassador Samantha Power told attendees at an important U.N. meeting that the United States was “proud” and “humbled” to be a included in the new agenda and promised to follow by the 18 pledges. Fox News 

The arrival of the United Nations requires federalization of police in order to set a global standard of law enforcement. President Barack Obama has pounced on the opportunity to exploit recent shootings to push for the federalization of local police forces.

Videos have been flooding the internet documenting United Nations military-like vehicles moving across America.

And this would not the be the first time American politicians have attempted to sell their citizens out to the powers of the United Nations. The UN’s first attempt to capture America was in 1951. In strange fashion, forces flying the flag of the United Nations began to occupy small towns and cities across the United States. This was intended to test the will of the people and see if they would accept a UN “takeover.” The test failed and sparked controversy and concerns over a “revolution-in-the-making” that would destroy any plot formulated by the Council on Foreign Relations and the United Nations.

UN forces were quickly met with much resistance and silently left occupied government buildings and removed United Nation flags nationwide. Broadcaster Myron C. Fagan documented the secretive operation in the 1960’s claiming “the UN ‘invasions’ were intended to be completely hush-hush. The Mass Media were very accommodating and the local newspapers and radio stations in the ‘invaded’ cities were kept silent under order of the UN. However, in several of the cities the local police refused to be ‘captured’. That caused quite an uproar — true, only locally, but it threatened to spread nationwide, especially after troops and officers assigned to additional ‘invasion units’ refused to ‘serve’. The alarmed plotters hastily halted all further ‘invasions’.”

YourNewsWire reports:

President Obama has signed an executive order that allows for the US military to use force against American citizens for the first time in history.

 The order was signed on July 1st, 2016 and is titled “Executive Order — United States Policy on Pre- and Post-Strike Measures to Address Civilian Casualties in U.S. Operations Involving the Use of Force“.

The order appears to have changed the rules of engagement between the military and ordinary U.S. citizens in an end-around the Constitution.

Whitehouse.gov reports:



By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, I hereby direct as follows:

Section 1. Purpose. United States policy on civilian casualties resulting from U.S. operations involving the use of force in armed conflict or in the exercise of the Nation’s inherent right of self-defense is based on our national interests, our values, and our legal obligations. As a Nation, we are steadfastly committed to complying with our obligations under the law of armed conflict, including those that address the protection of civilians, such as the fundamental principles of necessity, humanity, distinction, and proportionality.

The protection of civilians is fundamentally consistent with the effective, efficient, and decisive use of force in pursuit of U.S. national interests. Minimizing civilian casualties can further mission objectives; help maintain the support of partner governments and vulnerable populations, especially in the conduct of counterterrorism and counterinsurgency operations; and enhance the legitimacy and sustainability of U.S. operations critical to our national security. As a matter of policy, the United States therefore routinely imposes certain heightened policy standards that are more protective than the requirements of the law of armed conflict that relate to the protection of civilians.

Civilian casualties are a tragic and at times unavoidable consequence of the use of force in situations of armed conflict or in the exercise of a state’s inherent right of self-defense. The U.S. Government shall maintain and promote best practices that reduce the likelihood of civilian casualties, take appropriate steps when such casualties occur, and draw lessons from our operations to further enhance the protection of civilians.

Sec. 2. Policy. In furtherance of U.S. Government efforts to protect civilians in U.S. operations involving the use of force in armed conflict or in the exercise of the Nation’s inherent right of self-defense, and with a view toward enhancing such efforts, relevant departments and agencies (agencies) shall continue to take certain measures in present and future operations.

(a) In particular, relevant agencies shall, consistent with mission objectives and applicable law, including the law of armed conflict:

(i) train personnel, commensurate with their responsibilities, on compliance with legal obligations and policy guidance that address the protection of civilians and on implementation of best practices that reduce the likelihood of civilian casualties, including through exercises, pre-deployment training, and simulations of complex operational environments that include civilians;

(ii) develop, acquire, and field intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance systems that, by enabling more accurate battlespace awareness, contribute to the protection of civilians;

(iii) develop, acquire, and field weapon systems and other technological capabilities that further enable the discriminate use of force in different operational contexts;

(iv) take feasible precautions in conducting attacks to reduce the likelihood of civilian casualties, such as providing warnings to the civilian population (unless the circumstances do not permit), adjusting the timing of attacks, taking steps to ensure military objectives and civilians are clearly distinguished, and taking other measures appropriate to the circumstances; and

(v) conduct assessments that assist in the reduction of civilian casualties by identifying risks to civilians and evaluating efforts to reduce risks to civilians.

(b) In addition to the responsibilities above, relevant agencies shall also, as appropriate and consistent with mission objectives and applicable law, including the law of armed conflict:

(i) review or investigate incidents involving civilian casualties, including by considering relevant and credible information from all available sources, such as other agencies, partner governments, and nongovernmental organizations, and take measures to mitigate the likelihood of future incidents of civilian casualties;

(ii) acknowledge U.S. Government responsibility for civilian casualties and offer condolences, including ex gratia payments, to civilians who are injured or to the families of civilians who are killed;

(iii) engage with foreign partners to share and learn best practices for reducing the likelihood of and responding to civilian casualties, including through appropriate training and assistance; and

(iv) maintain channels for engagement with the International Committee of the Red Cross and other nongovernmental organizations that operate in conflict zones and encourage such organizations to assist in efforts to distinguish between military objectives and civilians, including by appropriately marking protected facilities, vehicles, and personnel, and by providing updated information on the locations of such facilities and personnel.

Sec. 3. Report on Strikes Undertaken by the U.S. Government Against Terrorist Targets Outside Areas of Active Hostilities. (a) The Director of National Intelligence (DNI), or such other official as the President may designate, shall obtain from relevant agencies information about the number of strikes undertaken by the U.S. Government against terrorist targets outside areas of active hostilities from January 1, 2016, through December 31, 2016, as well as assessments of combatant and non-combatant deaths resulting from those strikes, and publicly release an unclassified summary of such information no later than May 1, 2017. By May 1 of each subsequent year, as consistent with the need to protect sources and methods, the DNI shall publicly release a report with the same information for the preceding calendar year.

(b) The annual report shall also include information obtained from relevant agencies regarding the general sources of information and methodology used to conduct these assessments and, as feasible and appropriate, shall address the general reasons for discrepancies between post-strike assessments from the U.S. Government and credible reporting from nongovernmental organizations regarding non-combatant deaths resulting from strikes undertaken by the U.S. Government against terrorist targets outside areas of active hostilities.

(c) In preparing a report under this section, the DNI shall review relevant and credible post-strike all-source reporting, including such information from nongovernmental sources, for the purpose of ensuring that this reporting is available to and considered by relevant agencies in their assessment of deaths.

(d) The Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs may, as appropriate, request that the head of any relevant agency conduct additional reviews related to the intelligence assessments of deaths from strikes against terrorist targets outside areas of active hostilities.

Sec. 4. Periodic Consultation. In furtherance of the policies and practices set forth in this order, the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, through the National Security Council staff, will convene agencies with relevant defense, counterterrorism, intelligence, legal, civilian protection, and technology expertise to consult on civilian casualty trends, consider potential improvements to U.S. Government civilian casualty mitigation efforts, and, as appropriate, report to the Deputies and Principals Committees, consistent with Presidential Policy Directive 1 or its successor. Specific incidents will not be considered in this context, and will continue to be examined within relevant chains of command.

Sec. 5. General Provisions. (a) The policies and practices set forth above are not intended to alter, and shall be implemented consistent with, the authority and responsibility of commanders and other U.S. personnel to execute their mission as directed by the President or other appropriate authorities, which necessarily includes the inherent right of self-defense and the maintenance of good order and discipline among U.S. personnel. No part of this order modifies the chain of command of the U.S. Armed Forces or the authority of U.S. commanders.

(b) No part of this order modifies priorities in the collection of intelligence or the development, acquisition, or fielding of weapon systems and other technological capabilities.

(c) No part of this order shall prejudice or supplant established procedures pertaining to administrative or criminal investigative or judicial processes in the context of the military justice system or other applicable law and regulation.

(d) The policies set forth in this order are consistent with existing U.S. obligations under international law and are not intended to create new international legal obligations; nor shall anything in this order be construed to derogate from obligations under applicable law, including the law of armed conflict.

(e) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.


July 1, 2016.

Sources: http://americanintelligencereport.com/u-s-approves-united-nations-use-of-military-force-on-american-soil


 Follow us on our other Social media accounts 

Sign up become a patron and Show your support for alternative news

for Just 1$ a month you can help Grow We are change
We use Bitcoin Too !  

Visit The Gear Store Wearechange.org/gear

Danny F. Quest is an official 9/11 Truther, anti-war activist, humanitarian,  Blogger, and writer/contributer  for WeareChange.org  Follow him on Social Media.

©WEareCHANGE.org (2016)


Danny F. Quest, is an artist, blogger, journalist, and media personality. Co. Founder of TheTruther.us, Danny works as a Freelance journalist and graphic designer for WeAreChange.org, author of ‘120 characters or less’ The guide to winning a debate in the Digtal age. Danny is also working on two documentary films, I love my country but hate what they are doing” and “30 days in Gaza” depicting what it is for Palestinians to live under Israeli occupation.

Report: UN officials force children into sexual abuse to get FOOD

The United Nations logo - the planet in the crosshairs?

The United Nations logo – the planet in the crosshairs?

Source: The Independent

Memos about the sexual abuse in the Central African Republic were “passed from desk to desk, inbox to inbox, across multiple UN offices, with no one willing to take responsibility”, the report found.

It added: “The welfare of the victims and the accountability of the perpetrators appeared to be an afterthought, if considered at all.”

The investigation revealed that French peacekeepers from the UN’s children agency, UNICEF, failed to act on reports of sexual abuse in early 2014 in the midst of civil war.

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon expressed “profound regret that these children were betrayed by the very people sent to protect them” and said he accepted the panel’s broad findings.

Continue reading

After years of research and a series of unpleasant experiences concerning the current child protection services system, Alec Cope decided to combat the cancerous corruption through information. Freelance writing articles as a form of protest and distributing them throughout his former high-school and local area, Alec struck special chords with whomever he was in contact with.

Alec has been involved in activism such as sit down protests as well as Idle No More gatherings. Being independent for the majority of his time, Alec became a member of the WeAreChange family to assist one of the organizations that inspired him to become active in the first place. With a larger platform and positive support Alec has committed the majority of his time to research, writing, and maintaining social media with the goal to continue expanding the awakening sweeping throughout all levels of society.

Growing up within a rural area in Northern Michigan as well as being a native American descendant, Alec is seeking to expose environmental abuse in his state as well as globally. A high-school dropout, Alec chases his passion for writing and empowering individuals while showing any isolated person that they too can overcome the odds with a community that will support them. Alec lives in the lower peninsula of Michigan near Kalamazoo.





Pin It on Pinterest