Recently the German Chancellor Angela Merkel called for reforms of the U.N. that ought to meet the demands of the present world situation. The U.N. rules and regulations were instituted more than six decades ago after World War II. Since then, significant changes have taken place that lead to the rise of some states that carry a heavy weight, such as Brazil, India and Turkey. The Security Council, which consists of 15 members and only five permanent members, carry veto power and should be expanded to reflect the present reality of the world we live in.
However, the German chancellor did not call for the removal of the individual veto power that the 5 permanent members of the Security Council presently enjoy.
Such rules are outdated and in contradiction of the basic principles of democracy that the five permanent members of the Security Council keep talking about.
Let me be more specific to provide the reader with specific examples that led one of the five permanent members of the Security Council, the U.S. government, to prevent the important resolutions that the majority of the U.N. Security Council has voted for. These votes were rejected because the U.S. used its veto power and stopped certain resolutions from being implemented.
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a classic example of when the U.S. exercised its veto power more than 75 times to stop the implementation of any resolution that would force the Israeli government to stop its aggression against the Palestinians.
The U.S. government has abused its veto power at the Security Council to appease Israel and their American supporters, especially the American Jewish Zionist organizations. The American government’s political behavior at the U.N. Security Council since 1948 (after the creation of Israel) has been a disaster. It contributed to the instability of the Middle East region to appease a small Jewish minority who put the American Congress under their thumb. During the recent visit of the Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu to the U.S., he was invited to address the American Congress, where he received several standing ovations, which is reflective of the influence of the Jewish Zionist lobby.
For that reason, Israeli politicians have ignored the whole world and continued to implement their Zionist ideology, “Eretez Israel”, which means “greater Israel”.
In 1948, the U.S. government played the major role in the creation of the state of Israel, which allocated 51% of the Palestinian land despite the fact that the majority of the population that was living in that part were Palestinians. Since then the majority in Israel turned into the minority and 51% of its land expanded to become 78% of the original Palestinian land by the eve of the 1967 war. Since the 1967 Israeli occupation of the rest of Palestine, the construction of Jewish settlements in the West Bank has been going on with the approval of the U.S. government. Many resolutions were approved by the majority of members of the U.N. Security Council, but they were rejected through the use of the U.S. veto power.
Recently, the Palestinian authority stated publicly that their case should be taken to the U.N. to ask for the official recognition of a Palestinian state. 119 states have already recognized the Palestinian state. Nevertheless, the U.S. government has already objected to the proposed Palestinian strategy and threatened to use its veto power. Instead, President Obama continued to say that the issue should be discussed by both the Israelis and the Palestinians. The same policy has been advocated by the U.S. government during the past four decades without providing a solution to this conflict.
The simple and most reasonable approach is that since it was the U.N. that created the state of Israel, the same institution should creation a Palestinian stated based on the 1967 borders.
At the same time, the U.N. should initiated new reforms especially illuminating the veto power of the five permanent members of the Security Council. Also the number of memberships should be expanded and voting should be based on majority rule. This would set a new objective for the implementation of democracy