How Russia and America Work Together To Disable the UN - Palestine | Knowledge is Power
They want wars. So they can enrich themselves while the world is distracted. Here's one point where the World broke through - with help from New Zealand.
They want wars. So they can enrich themselves while the world is distracted. Here's one point where the World broke through - with help from New Zealand, Malaysia, Senegal and Venezuela. This continues the theme of why there will be no peace while the UN is violating its own Charter - procured and continued by America, to further its own hegemony.
Background
The formation of the United Nations involved the creation of universal human rights, self determination in the form of equal sovereign self-governing states free from external interference and aggression, and the collateral territorial integrity.
The fatal mistake made by America was to insist on the USSR, a violent empire, being given control of the means to enforce the law.
The USSR took full advantage of this. Between 1945 and 1970 it used its veto 80 times. In the same period the UK did so 4 times, France twice, and the US and China zero times.
This had the effect of giving the established US corporate and military industrial empire the excuse to convince the American people to agree to massive arms escalation and seizure of hegemony from the UN, which enabled them to continue to destroy and subjugate other sovereign countries - annexing and enslaving some like Puerto Rico and Hawaii, and just enslaving others for labour and resources such as South America and Africa.
When the USSR was abolished by all of its former members on 21 December 1991, the US was in a quandary. Its bad cop was gone, and the veto it had used was extinguished by operation of long established International Law, explicitly confirmed by both the UN Secretary-General’s legal opinion and the UN General Assembly’s declaration of the law “to apply in the future”1.
But the US already had a solution: the exact same lie it had used for 22 years to block China exercising its membership. Just lie that Russia was a member, the same as it had lied that Taiwan was a member.
One would have thought that the other ~190 members, who did not want war, poverty and human rights abuses, would be wiser. So, the US procured that the issue never came before the members, it was never discussed, and the members were bullied with nuclear threats into never raising the issue.
That continues until this day. Russia, a non-member, whose government was broken and the brief prospect of democracy was destroyed by US so-called “shock therapy” ensuring that power was transferred to corrupt oligarchs, remains under US control - under the threat of exposing the fraud, which would remove all Russia’s international hegemony. Russia would no longer be able to block the UN from enforcing international law against it.
Over the next 3 decades the US corporate oligarchs consolidated power over information - so that the US fraud and imperialism — which it developed from military, to financial, into information, colonialism — would never be exposed.
So, the good cop-bad cop farce continued, and the wealth stripping continued with the world’s public ignorant and powerless, spreading from country to country, weakening and enslaving governments. Taking over India, South Africa, and numerous smaller colonised states.
Until Ukraine’s government threatened to expose it. Ever so gently - they did not mention the established law. They did not mention the simple resolution that had cured the US lie in relation to China - which cannot be vetoed. They simply obliquely mentioned a question.
At which point it became imperative, for Russia, US, and their financial colonist cronies in Europe, to neutralise the Ukrainian government and ensure none was ever elected again by the staunchly anti-corruption Ukrainian people.
And so, we had the 2022 Russian invasion, explicitly green-lighted by the Biden administration2, and implicitly green-lighted by NATO, starving Ukraine of the means to defend itself. The network of spiders, talking but not acting, giving Russia every opportunity to accomplish its goal of subjugating Ukraine.
With just enough actual aid to stop public outrage and make Ukraine forever financially controlled. A nice example of how the good cop-bad cop tactic gets turned by the media into a complete fiction, completely fooling the public.
Security Council resolution 2334 (2016) [on cessation of Israeli settlement activities in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem]
This was an example of the small countries making change, with assistance of public opinion.
It is also an example of the lengths Israel (Netanyahu), Russia and America (Trump) would go to to drive their agenda of genocide and terror, in flagrant violation of the United Nations order of peace and non-aggression.
And… look at what happened to Albania after it exposed the US as a liar, over the Taiwan fraud.
Although it was impossible to change the balance of power (only removal of Russia can do that) It was the first UNSC resolution to pass regarding Israel and the Palestinian territories since Resolution 1860 in 2009,[4] and the first to address the issue of Israeli settlements with such specificity since Resolution 465 in 1980 - Wikipedia
Here’s how Murray McCully, as New Zealand’s Foreign Minister, manoeuvred to get UN Security Council Resolution 2334 adopted in December 2016:
1. Background: Egypt’s Withdrawal
Egypt, the original sponsor, introduced the draft on 21 December 2016 but abruptly withdrew it the next day under pressure from Israel and the United States (reportedly after direct lobbying by President-elect Donald Trump).
This created a vacuum and risked killing the resolution altogether.
2. New Zealand Steps In
McCully, who had long been vocal about the need for action against settlement expansion, seized the opportunity.
New Zealand, together with Malaysia, Senegal, and Venezuela, re-introduced the draft without Egypt on 23 December 2016.
3. The U.S. Decision Not to Veto
Traditionally, the United States had vetoed such resolutions critical of Israel.
In this case, the Obama administration decided to abstain rather than veto, signalling frustration with Israeli settlement policy and Netanyahu’s government.
This opened the door for the resolution to pass.
4. Securing the Numbers
McCully worked actively behind the scenes to maintain consensus among non-permanent members.
New Zealand, having just months earlier celebrated its final year of a Security Council term (2015–2016), saw this as a legacy move — a demonstration of independence and principled diplomacy.
5. Adoption of the Resolution
On 23 December 2016, Resolution 2334 passed with 14 votes in favour, 0 against, and 1 abstention (U.S.).
It reaffirmed the illegality of Israeli settlements in occupied Palestinian territory and demanded a halt to such activities.
6. Diplomatic Fallout
Israel reacted furiously, recalling its ambassador from Wellington and cutting diplomatic ties with New Zealand for several months.
McCully and the government defended the move as consistent with long-standing international law and New Zealand’s independent foreign policy tradition.
Summary:
Murray McCully manoeuvred by reintroducing the resolution when Egypt withdrew, rallying co-sponsors, and capitalising on the rare U.S. abstention. This was seen as one of New Zealand’s most assertive foreign policy acts in the UN, and a defining moment of McCully’s tenure.
Here’s a summary and excerpts of New Zealand’s official statements when UN Security Council Resolution 2334 was adopted, showing what NZ said in the Council / to media.
Key Points from New Zealand’s Statement
New Zealand co-sponsored and voted for the resolution because it aligned with “long-held New Zealand policy positions on the Palestinian question.” The Beehive+1
The resolution “sends a clear message … to the parties to desist from actions that will further undermine the prospect of a two-state solution.” The Beehive
It calls for Israeli settlement expansion to be halted, and for “incitement and acts of violence to cease.” The Beehive+1
NZ noted the resolution as “an important signal to … the international community about the way forward.” MFAT
Excerpts
Here are some direct quotes from NZ’s Foreign Minister Murray McCully and Permanent Representative Gerard van Bohemen:
“New Zealand voted for and co-sponsored the resolution because it is consistent with long-held New Zealand policy positions on the Palestinian question.” The Beehive+1
“The resolution sends a clear message to the parties to desist from actions that will further undermine the prospect of a two state solution. It calls for Israeli settlement expansion to be halted and for incitement and acts of violence to cease.” The Beehive+1
From the UN Council chamber: “Every settlement creates false hope for the settlers that the land will one day be part of a greater Israel. Every settlement takes land away from Palestinians needing homes or farmland or roads. Today’s resolution provides important signals to the parties and to the international community about the way forward.” — Gerard van Bohemen, NZ Permanent Representative. MFAT
From New Zealand’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs & Trade:
NZ’s official release: after the vote, NZ Permanent Representative Gerard van Bohemen said:
“Every settlement creates false hope for the settlers that the land will one day be part of a greater Israel. Every settlement takes land away from Palestinians needing homes or farmland or roads. Today’s resolution provides important signals to the parties and to the international community about the way forward.” MFAT
Foreign Minister Murray McCully also made statements:
“New Zealand voted for and co-sponsored the resolution because it was consistent with long-held New Zealand policy positions on the Palestinian question.” MFAT+1
“The resolution sends a clear message to the parties to desist from actions that will further undermine the prospect of a two-state solution. It calls for Israeli settlement expansion to be halted and for incitement and acts of violence to cease.” The Beehive+1
These are the principal parts of what is in the public domain. MFAT+1
What Can Be Inferred / Key Themes
Even though the full text wasn’t found in my searches, we can infer some of the arguments and diplomatic framing from what is available:
NZ emphasized that the resolution aligned with existing NZ policy on Palestine and settlements. The Beehive+1
NZ framed settlements not only as a legal issue (violating international law), but also as a practical impediment to peace: harming Palestinians’ access to land, homes, roads, agriculture, etc. MFAT
The rhetoric also emphasized the principle of a two-state solution, and the need for both parties to avoid provocative actions, incitement, inflammatory rhetoric. MFAT+1
NZ saw the resolution as an instrument to send signals both to the parties directly involved (Israel and Palestine) and to the international community. MFAT+1
Pressures Leading to Egypt's Withdrawal
Egypt initially introduced the draft resolution (document number S/2016/1106) to the UN Security Council. However, under intense pressure from Israel and U.S. President-elect Donald Trump, Egypt withdrew the draft on December 22, 2016. Reports indicate that the Egyptian ambassador to the UN cited "intense pressure" as the reason for the withdrawal. Wikipedia+1
Netanyahu's threats to New Zealand’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, Murray McCully, accusing New Zealand of war on Israel
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu personally warned New Zealand's Foreign Minister Murray McCully that supporting the UN Security Council resolution condemning Israeli settlements would be considered a "declaration of war." According to reports, Netanyahu described the decision as "scandalous" and urged McCully to withdraw New Zealand's support. McCully refused, stating that the resolution was consistent with New Zealand's long-standing policy on the Palestinian issue. NZ Herald+1
The retaliation
Israel cut off diplomatic ties with New Zealand and Senegal, stopped its payments to the UN and stopped contributions to aid for Senegal. It also cut off a visit to Ukraine which had been one of the 14 supporters of the resolution.
Russia tried to get a postponement of the meeting until Trump was inaugurated - to enable Trump to veto it.
Trump simply ignored the UN, moved the US embassy to Jerusalem, and supported the violation of the UN resolution.
The Records and Reports
x
See
Images - Russia and the UN
The video and documents proving Russia is not in the UN, and its representatives can be expelled by a simple majority (of members present and voting, abstentions aren’t counted) resolution of the UN General Assembly, within a week. No veto, no "reform".