Article 6 Panel Discussion with Samantha Jansen

Okay. So, I'm Nisa. I'm in South Africa. I'm from South Africa, and, I'm part of Middle Nation. And, as you might know by now that, we're part of the Article six campaign, which was initiated and started by brother Shelley Bolson roundabout in December or November.

And the reason why we started this campaign and why we've all decided that we would be a part of this important campaign is because it it was triggered by the current g side in Palestine. But I think that was more of that is more of a the last straw. It's not the only deciding factor. Because as you as you would hear, as we present ourselves within or throughout this talk today, you will hear that there are many violations committed by The United States Of America that we find very horrible. And we find that we are tired of having to live in a world where we're not allowed to speak up or we're not allowed to take action.

Or if we do take action, then there is consequences to us and not the people or or the the the perpetrators of the heinous actions. So article six is a the mechanism within the United Nations Charter that allows for the expulsion of any member state that is persistently violating the principles of that charter. And I I stress on the word persistently because it's not just something about where it's one action or two action or once every ten years something happening. We find that there's no other country like The United States Of America that is guilty of persistently violating the principles of a charter. Whether it is physical, whether it is when it comes to contracts, whether it comes to violence, United States Of America has violated in each and every way possible.

So, our campaign is calling for the expulsion of The United States Of America because we believe that that would lead to, international peace and cooperation. It would lead to a respect for international law. It will also lead to, global peace and security, where we live in a world where each and every member state, each and every country, each and every person lives in a world where, it's free from violence, free from poverty, free from, any sort of action that does not allow for, human dignity. So our campaign is directly aimed at The United States Of America because, like I said, they're the only country that has persistently violated the principles of the charter. So in order for us to be able to involve article six at the United Nations, there are a number of steps that we need to take.

So firstly, which we are currently busy with now, the first step is to gather grassroots support. We need the backing of the public. We need the backing of every of normal people, you and me, our neighbors, those people to sign a petition. And this petition is used to show when we go to the next step, which is to lobby member states, to show that there is public support for for this campaign. And once we get to sorry.

Our goal is to reach 100,000 signatures. And once we reach 100,000 signatures, we will then move on to lobby member states. And those member states, together with the petition, together with the persistent violations, the evidences of the persistent violations, will then go on to the United Nations Security Council, who will then take a vote on whether they will take this to the general assembly. And then once the general assembly votes on that, we need a two thirds majority, which will then if if voted in favor, then the expulsion of The United States Of America will happen.

I hear you. Okay. Wait. So one, we need to get the petition to a 100,000 signatures. That's what you're saying?

Absolutely. At least 100,000 signatures. We are currently close by, less than 10,000 to go. So we do anticipate we will be reaching our goal very soon. It is, something that we've been working on every single day to gather signatures.

And signatures, this the reason why we need those signatures, like I said, is to show to show support for for this campaign from the public.

Okay. I cannot hear you. Melo, just to to clear up with you, do you we have everyone on board. I don't see everyone from the list that you send. Melo?

It Mela? Okay. K. Yes. Correct, Kurt.

I'm looking for the microphone. Only person

that hasn't joined us is brother Ariane, I think.

Yes. I still cannot see him here, but that's fine. I think majority of us is here. And one more thing is that if assistant mom Zach would add Iman from the from down there to become the moderator as well.

I I've added him. I've I've added yeah. As to become a moderator as well. So it's you and then Imane as well.

Yes. Not Imane. Imane. Imane Imane in the line.

Oh, there's another one? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Oh, okay.

I see.

I see. Then she goes, this Iman. I have not been. So

Yeah.

Because sometimes the chat box go very fast, so I miss the name. Yeah. Sorry, sister Iman. So thank you so much, Menta. Thank you so much.

So yeah. And also sister Nanza as well. Nice to meet you.

Nice to meet you too. Thank you, Good afternoon, everyone.

Okay. So I think we're good to go. Right? There's no one else. We we're ready to start.

I think so. Yes.

We can we are ready to start. But once, brother Ariane comes in, we will we will do the needful.

We will do okay. So we're just waiting for one person. Yeah. Guys from that have sent request, kindly note that we're not taking any request from the public at the moment. We'll probably do it later on, but at the moment, we have a six team here, and they will be able to give us the information about article six, the initiative, what they're looking to achieve, if there's any questions around what it is that we, the public, need to do, what it is that I think that globally, all pro Palestinians, what it is that we need to do in order for us to get The US removed as a member from the United Nations.

So I just wanna I think what we can do in in the meantime, Bella, once while we're waiting is, mister Bolton, if you want to maybe take the floor just to to to to have the conversation on how it is that we got to this point. And then, yeah, we can we can just start because yeah. I think maybe it's it's not a bad idea to start the conversation on what it is that we want to do, but also how it is that we got to this point. We do know that the ICJ had ruled that they need to evacuate. I think there was a 123 countries that had voted on in favor of Israel moving out of the Palestinian territory, and we know that Israel is probably not going to do that.

What would removing The United The US as a member help in terms of assisting that? So yeah. I think maybe we can have that conversation.

Sure. Well, I mean, with regards to Israel, first of all, as sister Nisa said, the impetus for this whole campaign was the genocide in Gaza, or sorry, the G side in Gaza. And the fact that we we identified that quite early on this was a g side, I'm sorry, a g side by veto. It was being empowered by the veto power of The United States. The United States was ensuring that this g side would continue And that because of the coverage that The United States has provided historically for Israel consistently, Israel has been able to enjoy impunity and has been able to enjoy unaccountability just like The United States has.

And so we identified that the real root of the problem, the real core issue is actually American hegemony over the entire global system which enables them to act with unaccountability and act with impunity all around the world and in The Middle East and with regards to Israel Palestine. Because I mean the fact of the matter is that even this ICJ ruling is nothing new. The occupation has been deemed illegal ever since there was an occupation. It has always been regarded as illegal. It has always been classified as an illegal occupation since there is no other kind of occupation but an illegal occupation.

And there has been a vote in the general assembly every year calling for Israel to withdraw to the June 1967 borders and to respect the the international global consensus on the status of Jerusalem, the dismantling of settlements and so on. This isn't something that's new. It's just another ruling that reiterates what the global consensus has always been. But the fact that The United States dominates the United Nations ensures that the general assembly and the global consensus will never be acted upon, will never be implemented. So we we identified that the that the core issue and inshallah, solution to the issue, the solution to the problem is in fact already embedded in the UN Charter, which is that any member state that persistently violates the principles of the Charter can be expelled from the United Nations, which would immediately end American impunity and by extension Israeli impunity.

So that's how we got here and that's what we're seeking. That's the objective of the campaign, to basically liberate the United Nations and by liberating the United Nations, liberating the entire global community from American domination, from American hegemony. The the United Nations has become nothing but an instrument of American hegemony. And so the only way to resolve that issue is to deny them access to that instrument that they have misused and abused for ever since the establishment of the organization.

I hear you. However, when it when it comes to The US and the fact that I think they one of the biggest funders of the West is one of the biggest funders of the United Nations, how would this make a difference?

Well, I think I think we have a few people on the panel who can who can talk about that more in-depth. I would just say that first of all, it's a bit misleading to say that America is the main funder of the United Nations. America is responsible for about 22 of the budget of the United Nations, which means that 75% of the budget, I. E. Most of the budget comes from literally everyone else.

But they never seem to get mentioned and they don't seem to have a say. So you're giving you're you're saying that not you, but people are saying that the one who is providing 22% of the budget gets to have more say than the 75% of the budget that's being provided by the rest of the world. So the funding issue, people in the other people on the panel can discuss it more in-depth. But the fact of the matter is that American money has been precisely the problem with the integrity of the United Nations or the corrupting of the integrity of the United Nations. It's been precisely by their money that they've been able to dominate and control and manipulate the United Nations and handicap the United Nations from fulfilling its stated function, from fulfilling its stated purpose.

They've used that money, that funding as bribe money, as hush money, as extortion money. Anytime that they want things to go their way they threaten to withdraw their funding. And they decide how the funding should go, where it should go, how it should be spent and so on. So the best thing that could happen to the United Nations is if they lost that funding, if they lost that dirty money. And I'll explain it even further just in simple mathematics.

Most of the UN budget is spent on so called peacekeeping missions. If you look at where peacekeeping forces are now deployed, UN peacekeepers, so called peacekeepers, where they're deployed around the world, most of, if not all of those conflict zones are conflicts that America either started or is perpetuating for their own profit interests, for their military industrial complex profit interests. So if the UN was actually allowed and able to do what they're supposed to do, which is to resolve those conflicts, which isn't what they're there to do now because they're under American domination, because the UN is under American domination, and they're not there to resolve conflicts. They're there to make sure that the conflicts continue because their boss started the conflicts in the first place and is profiting from those conflicts. So if you were to just take, say, three conflict zones, just three conflict zones, say in Mali, in Congo, and I don't know, South Sudan.

If you were to take just three conflicts and have those resolved, all three of those conflicts America is benefiting from and has helped to to instigate and perpetuate. But if you were able to solve those conflicts, the money that you would save from the from the peacekeeping missions that are deployed to those countries now deployed to those conflict zones now would end up giving the UN more money than they're getting from The United States currently on an annual basis. Because it's about 1.2 The US gives them about 2,500,000,000.0 annually in in their contribution to the UN is about $2,500,000,000. I think for The Congo, it's about 1,200,000,000.0 for the so called peacekeeping mission. I think in South Sudan, I think it's another billion.

And in Mali, it's another 1,200,000,000.0. I might have the South Sudan and Mali confused. But that ends up being more money than you would have if you so if you lost the money from the UN from The US and you were able to resolve those conflicts, you would actually the the UN would actually have more money in their budget for expenditures than they have now because they have to spend so much money maintaining the conflicts that America starts and perpetuates. So it's not actually honest to say that the UN would suffer in any way if they lost American funding. Because as I said in the beginning, the whole problem with the integrity of the UN has been the manipulation by The US by means of their funding.

Not to mention the fact that America is the money that they're giving to the UN is based on the the funding structure of the UN, which is based on the, I think, the GNI of any of any member state. And China is already set to become the the top funder of the United Nations either way within the next few years. I think we're only about 5% behind America now. So within the next four or five years, they will already surpass America in terms of how much they're funding the UN. But, again, there are other people on the panel who I think I can probably talk about more in-depth.

Just to explain more about The United States funding, Based on their GDP or their GNI, they are meant to contribute 27%. And and because they have the largest economy and it is linked to the military industrial complex, That is why they they need to contribute 27% because they have the highest GDP. But what has happened in nineteen nineties, the country has passed a law that caps their contribution at 25%. So for the last three decades, they are already in arrears with 2%. Then they also don't make their payments on time.

And as Prasher, he had mentioned, they they contribute about 22%. They're not supposed to be contributing 22%. It's meant to be about 27%. So not only are they short paying, they are also not paying on time. And what has happened in January, they were behind on their payments.

And if your payment is not up to date, you are not allowed to vote, you don't enjoy the privileges, or you don't get to make decisions within the United Nations if your payment has not been made. But when they needed to use their veto power to block or to to veto a ceasefire on behalf of Israel in January, that is when they quickly made their payment, which show just like brother Shahid said. They use that payment to act with impunity, to it's it's not about peacekeeping. It's it's about exacting influence, but the wrong type of influence. You know?

So their payment is, essentially, like you said, it's hush money, and they don't make it on time. They perpetually in uneasy. So the United Nations and the world can't do without that, contribution or the minimal contribution that they do make.

I hear you. Would you then say that the United Nations is an autonomous organization? Because, personally, I've never considered the United Nations to be due to the fact that they do have the five countries that has veto power. I've I've never I've never considered them to be autonomous.

Autonomous from I don't think so, especially with the corruption when it comes to The United States Of America. United States Of America has corrupted that organization. Essentially, the United Nations is a a good organization. The charter is a brilliant document. The problem that we have is the corrupt element, and that is what we want to get rid of from the United Nations is the corrupt element.

So they use their influence, their power within, the organization, to commit you know, I say peacekeeping, but it's in air quotes. It's not real peacekeeping missions. It's to, get what they want from that country.

100%. Anyone else want

to step in? If

if I can just if I can just chime in for a minute. Your impression is is accurate. It's not an autonomous organization and that's the that's why we're launching the campaign. The perception that you have is the perception that everyone has, which is that the United Nations is basically just a place for the countries of the world to gather to be reminded of who's the boss of the world. You gather at General Assembly, you get to say your piece, you get to say what you think, you get to say how you think that the world international relations should be done, and then America can say either yes or no.

So it it it your perception is accurate and that perception is exactly why we're launching the campaign because there's no actual reason why the United Nations needs to be that way. Now, if you look at the origin of the United Nations, this is it was never an autonomous organization from the beginning. It was in fact always designed to be a colonizing institution, an institution of colonial power of West the western colonial powers. It was always designed to be that way. But the beauty of it is that because of their own hypocrisy, they have to put on paper all sorts of very good ethics and values and principles.

They put that on paper. That's that's legally binding. The rules that they put down to make themselves look good that they thought they would never have to live up to because America thought I mean, when the when the UN was established, was right after World War two. So all of the former colonial powers were in a very weakened state financially, economically and so on. So America was like if we talk about America being the the main funder or the biggest single funder now, it was much more the case in 1945 and throughout the nineteen fifties.

It was the biggest economy in the world with no competitor. So they had much more financial influence, economic influence in the early days of the UN, enabled them to steer the development of that organization even more to their interests. But their relative power, their relative even economic power at the UN has been declining relative to the rise of other countries, of other member states economically, for obvious example being China. As I mentioned, they're only about five four or 5% behind The US now in terms of how much they're funding. But, they they intended for that organization to always be a mechanism for controlling the rest of the world.

They always intended it to be that way. But as I say, they did put on paper lots of very good rules and principles and values. And the only reason they put those there was to make themselves look good thinking that they would never be held to account, that they would never have to live up to that because, you know, the the hubris and the belligerence of empire made them think we will always have the power. We'll always be unaccountable. No one will ever match us in power.

So they never thought that they'd have to live up to it. But nevertheless, it's there in the charter that if you do violate the principles of the charter, you can be expelled. And the global power dynamics have shifted dramatically since the days of when the UN was originally established. In fact, it's the global power dynamics, as you know, have changed drastically just over the last decade, even over the last five years. The the shifts in the in global power dynamics economically, politically, and in every other way have have shifted so rapidly that it makes your head spin.

And the rise of bricks, the rise of China, and so forth has has changed things significantly. And you see more and more countries demanding to have a seat at the table and have to have their voices actually be heard. And with with the the g side in Gaza, more and more people are identifying as we did that the actual source of the problem is The United States. And I think that even the countries in the region have identified that the problem isn't even actually Israel. The problem is The United States sponsorship and the the coverage that they provide for Israel.

That's the whole problem because Israel themselves don't have the power to defy the global consensus. They don't have the power to defy international law. The global consensus if the global consensus actually had a voice that could be heard and if there if the global consensus could actually be implemented, well, the whole problem in between Israel and Palestine would have been resolved before I was even born.

Agree to 100%. Is there anyone else you would like to add?

Yeah. If I can. And everyone, hello. You know, like, I understand, and we get these questions a lot during the lives. Right?

Like, you know, we should just get rid of the United Nations altogether. Right? We can all see, you know, the corruption itself is, right, and the manipulation of the polls by The US. Like, we all can see it, of course. So, you know, we understand where this frustration comes from.

Right? But, you know, we wanna be, like, practical. Right? We wanna be we need to be realistic. Like, we are not living in a movie.

We are not living in this fictional scenario, you know, that people might be imagining. Like, we are living in this reality, right, where we do have international law, we do have agreement between countries, right, on global issues. And even from all of the votes, you know, in the general assembly, we can see that we do have a global consensus on most issues. Right? We can see, for example, from the votes and has so, like, you know, before we decide to tear down this own institution that somehow holds this global order together, right, where we have a place for negotiations, we have a place for discussion as civilized people.

Right? Right. You know, we need to think about for a minute, like, what's at stake. Right? Like, we can you know, let us start by imagining, for example, a world without the UN.

Right? Like, you know, this is the only place where essentially every country, no matter how big or how small, they have a seat at the table. Right? It's the only institution where essentially these oppressed and destroyed nations, you know, those that have been oppressed by colonialism, by wars, by economic domination, you know, this is finally a place where they can stand up to these powerful, you know, evil entities. Right?

And they can demand justice from the rest of the world. Right? This is basically what we agreed on. You know, like, we're talking about different types of organizations. Right?

We're talking about World Health Organization, right, which during the pandemic, we saw that, you know, it was trying to globalify this global health crisis. We have the International Labor Organization, right, that advocates for workers' rights. We also have, like, you know, the International Court of Justice. Right? That's also part of the UN.

You know, it settles international disputes, and it's actually, like, the only international organization that, you know, issued these arrest warrants, right, from criminals like Netanyahu Alam, you know, this gang. Right? So and these aren't just abstract organizations. Right? They exist and they are real, it, you know, took us time as, you know, all of the countries to come to an agreement to formalize their functioning.

Like, we all agree together, right, in a civilized manner. You know? These institutions can can usually be the difference between, you know, life and death, between justice and oppression, and that's for million of people around the world. Right? So, you know, if we dismantle the UN, we lose, like, this own international mechanism that is there for dialogue, for cooperation, and of course, most importantly, and what we are trying to address is accountability.

Right? Like, you know, without the UN, who is gonna step in to stop genocides? Who is gonna deliver aid and disaster zones? Who is gonna try to broker peace between countries? Like, you know, we have already seen before, like, when we try to go into this isolationist state, right, where we don't wanna cooperate, and that was exactly what led to World War two.

Right? You know? And the world now does not need lesser or fewer mechanism for cooperation. We just need stronger ones. Right?

And this is exactly what the UN has the potential to be. And, you know, as brother Shahid mentioned, like, we have not seen the UN function in its proper manner. Right? It has, you know, been dominated and subjugated ever since the beginning. Like, inshallah, it will be something beautiful, right, where we can see that, you know, countries can come together.

They can work on something. They can bring effort to the rest of the world. Inshallah, like, we believe that this is the potential that it has. Right? You know?

And, like, just to be clear, we're not here to defend this status that it's now. Right? Yeah. Sorry, brother.

No. No.

No. No.

I'm I'm sorry to I'm sorry to interrupt you. Forgive me.

No. Not at all. It's just, like, that we see, you know, that there are problems. Right? You know, The US has been violating the principles over and over again.

Right? You know, illegal wars, manipulating elections, like, causing, you know, revolutions in countries, causing chaos. It's basically destroying societies. Right? Economically subjugating countries through the IMF, is also an institution of the UN, and abusing its power.

Right? This veto power in the Security Council. So, like, we see the problems. Right? But, you know, we wanna bring it back to where it belongs to.

Right? What we agreed upon. Sorry, brother. Please continue.

No. No. No. I mean, I was just gonna say, yeah, I I understand why people have have this

Oh, sorry.

You don't get I understand why people get the idea that that that because we have never seen the UN operate effectively. We've never seen the UN operate, as Samantha said, autonomously. So we should just get rid of the UN. But you're misdiagnosing what the problem is. The problem isn't the UN.

You know, if you have a wolf in a day care center, the problem isn't the day care center. The problem is the wolf and you have to get rid of that wolf. Otherwise, even if you even if you got rid of the daycare center, you still have the wolf. It's still gonna terrorize the neighborhood. Or you can you can compare it to the UN, we can we can compare it to a slave plantation.

There's nothing wrong with a plantation in and of itself. The problem is the slavery and the problem is the slave master. If you got rid of the slavery and you got rid of the slave master, well, you still have a plantation that can grow beautiful crops, that can feed the people. You have to get rid of the thing that is corrupting it, the thing that's making it evil, the thing that's making it detrimental to people, not to get rid of the organization itself. And and like what we've been talking about, what what all of the speakers have said, the whole issue here is accountability.

So if you get rid of the one body, the international body that that legally has the mandate for holding countries accountable and you get rid of that, then then you haven't resolved the issue of of accountability, of America's unaccountability and America's impunity. The whole the whole point here is that we do have a mechanism. We actually do have a mechanism, a legal mechanism. It doesn't require you going out into the street. It doesn't require you coming up with some other alternative creative measures or or sort of European dream scenarios.

It's there on paper. All we all we need to do is implement what's there on paper. We have to just implement what is in the charter. That's all we're asking for because that mechanism exists. All we have to do the only thing that's required in terms of, like, for example, going out into the streets is just to show that there's popular support for the invocation of Article six, the invocation and the implementation of the existing mechanism to hold America accountable.

And once you do that, then you'll see a drastic change. I believe that you'll see a drastic change in international relations if America is deprived of this instrument that they have been using for almost eight decades to shield them from any accountability. That would be drastic change in in global dynamics and and global, international relations, I believe.

Mister Bolson, would you or anyone else on the panel, you can answer this. Would that not then apply to all of the five bodies that do, have veto power? Because they too have played a part in where it is that we are now because they get to vote on that. And it reminds me of, remember when Muammar Gaddafi spoke at the United Nations? I think it was the only time he had ever spoken at the United Nations, and he mentioned that when they drafted the UN Charter, they were given a preamble.

And yet what the contents of the Charter then was was contradicting to what it is that they thought they were partake partaking in. So that being the five countries that has veto power, would that that not mean that those five countries need to all be removed and every other country that is a member of the United Nations should play as the same part?

Well, sorry, brother Shahid. Is that okay if I take the question? Sam Alaikum everyone. I'm Iman. British, but my mother is Palestinian.

My father is Algerian. Okay. I think, it's very important to talk about the veto power, and I did want to address this question earlier when you spoke about it. And like brother Shahid and brother Karim were talking about, the UN itself is not the problem, and the same thing goes for the veto power itself. Because when you look at the veto power, you realize that the country that has used it and abused it the most has been The United States Of America.

When you search it up, it does say Russia has used it the most, but that's actually a lie. It's actually the USSR that used it the most, so you're comparing two different entities. When we look at The United States Of America, when they use their veto power, they use it to override a global consensus vote. It's not the same thing as when any other any of the other countries use it. Just like we've seen when they vetoed three ceasefire resolutions over the last few months.

Those were two thirds overwhelming majorities, of global consensus votes. Right? But when we see when Russia and China use this same exact veto power that they have, they never do it to override a global consensus vote. They never do it to override an overwhelming general assembly vote. They only ever use it to override an American vote.

They only ever use it to stop America from imposing their hegemony worldwide. And then we see the British and the French who haven't even used this veto power in decades. I mean, the British alone, The UK has not used their veto power since 1989. So we've seen that they haven't posed a problem with this veto power. The UK seems to abstain from absolutely every single vote that is coming up in the United Nations, the Security Council, and in the General Assembly.

But you look at The United States Of America, and what they do is they use this veto power specifically to override global consensus votes. And, of course, always in favor of Israel. More than 65% of their veto uses have been in favor of Israel. Over the last, two years, they've used their veto power 14 times. That means out of those 14 times, 12 of those times have been in favor of Israel.

So why is it that we don't remove the veto power itself? Well, first reason, it's not everyone that is abusing it and the veto power isn't the problem. And secondly, the reason why we are choosing to invoke article six instead of removing the veto power, another reason for that is that article six is already an article within the charter of the United Nations, meaning that it is a quicker and easier route to take. There is already a plan in place within the United Nations Charter that if any country persistently violates the Charter, we can invoke that article. There is no such article for the invocation of the removal of the veto power, Meaning that you would have to go through the process of creating an article about it and then removing it.

So that would bring the process up to even maybe a decade because it would take you years just to be able to implement it within the charter itself. So those are two very big, reasons why we don't remove the veto power itself because the veto power isn't the problem, and there's also no way for you to remove it right now, meaning that you have to create an entire process to be able to be able to remove it.

Yeah. Absolutely. And and not to mention the fact that that any reform I mean, there's no there's no doubt that reforms are necessary at the United Nations with or without the The United States. The United States isn't the only problem with the with the United Nations, with the functioning of the United Nations. Although you could say that they are the origin of every problem at the United Nations because of the disproportionate influence that they've had in the development of that organization.

But the point is that any reform to the United Nations is a non starter as long as America remains a member of the United Nations because they will continue to have overwhelming power and influence over that organization. So any influence or sorry, any reform that you make will always be subject to American approval and American influence and manipulation, so they will only ever see to it that the United Nations is reformed in a way that consolidates and increases their power. But exactly as Sister Imam said, the veto isn't in and of itself the problem. The problem is the abuse of the veto. The problem is when you use the veto in a way that violates the principles of the Charter and in a way that overrules the global consensus.

So if you want to talk about the real issue, the real issue is violations of the principles of the Charter, the real issue is the violations of international law. So if you can do an evaluation of all of the vetoes for the last eight decades and see to what extent any of the other five permanent members have used the veto power in a way that violates international law, then okay, we can have that conversation. But the use of the veto power, as Sister said, the use of the veto power by The United States has consistently been to overrule the global consensus. Whereas the other permanent members who have even exercised the veto power, it has consistently been to overrule America, overruling the global consensus.

Yeah. You Question, when it comes to The US's need to protect Israel, what is the need for The US to constantly protect Israel and the occupation of Israel in Palestine? There has to be is it geopolitics? What is the reason behind that? I can take

this question again. I'm sorry. Well, Israel is a geopolitical project created by the West for the West. It's not a separate entity. Think of The United States as a body and Israel as their right arm.

That's quite literally what they are. Israel was created as a project decades before they were even established as a so called state, and they were put specifically in Palestine for multiple different reasons. They are a wedge between the Muslim world in the Middle East and North Africa. They are a wedge between the Arab world in the Middle East and North Africa. They are in a great geopolitical location because they have access to the Mediterranean Sea and the Red Sea.

They have access to Africa and Asia at the same time. They're in a great geopolitical location, a great social location, a great trade location, so economically, that's really great. And it's also a great religious location because it's great for the Christians, Muslims, and the Jewish people. So the reason, I believe that The US is so adamant on helping Israel is well because Israel Israel was created by the West for the West. It was created to make them more money, to funnel more money into the Western imperialist ideology.

Right? So I think I can actually pass it over to brother Shaheed now. I just wanted to give my little part on that.

Well, I think what you said, I think, is I agree with what you said, and and you can you can make it very simple or you can make it very complicated. But the the very simple way of putting it is, I mean, just had a couple of weeks ago $20,000,000,000 by The United States to go to Israel. That's actually $20,000,000,000 owed to American companies. Israel serves a very vital function or has historically served a vital function to the military industrial complex. That's not conspiratorial at all.

The rule in The United States is that when they fund these foreign states, roughly 70% if not more, 70% of that money must be by law spent on procuring weapons and supplies and goods and services and whatnot from American companies. So this is just a device. Israel is a very useful device for keeping the military industrial complex alive. And because of the fact that the nature of the occupation is obviously incredibly violent, incredibly volatile and the also, of of course, you you put into in the context of the holocaust, you put in the context of the holocaust and the sense of vulnerability that is or the perception of vulnerability of the Jewish people globally, and you put them in a region in a very hostile manner, that they can only maintain their occupation in a hostile and violent manner, you ensure perpetual instability. You ensure perpetual hostility and instability and conflict.

So this makes it a continuous engine for pumping money into the military industrial complex, billions and billions of dollars a year, hundreds of billions over the last decades. So I mean, you can also put it in the historical context of the fact that until recently, was not a net exporter of oil. It wasn't the next a net producer of oil and natural gas until the fracking so called fracking revolution. So Middle Eastern oil was incredibly important for them to be able to control, to have access to and to control who had access to it. And Israel has served that function for many decades up until recently.

It's less important that function is less important now, and in fact, all of the historical functions of Israel are becoming less and less important as global dynamics are changing and the center of gravity of the global economy is shifting to the global South. The the historical role of Israel in and of itself is already in decline. But the importance of Israel is basically has has historically been this. It has been a a mechanism for ensuring instability in one of the most resource rich regions in the world and ensuring America control and access and domination of the resources in that region as well as being a tool or an instrument for endlessly funneling money into the American military industrial complex.

If I may. My name is Ali, an American born Syrian. Everything that was just talked about ties into this. I see a comment continuously coming up that Zionists are in charge of everything. That is a very strong misperception.

This is like late eighteen hundred, early nineteen hundred propaganda, the idea that Zionists run the world and the Jews run the world. If Israel didn't have a utility to the West, it would have never come to exist. They are the puppets, and America is the puppet master. Make no mistake about it. This APAC, they're like the number 206 lobby in America.

They're not even in the top 10 strongest lobbies. So the idea that that Zionists run everything, that is a false perception. And America is more than happy to burn Zionism as an effigy if it means that they can get out of all their wrongdoings. But America is the one responsible for all these atrocities.

I hear you. Ali, would you say it's because of the fact that America I'm gonna say Jewish people or the Zionists specifically because they control or it's known that they control the fiat system. That is why they control the world because that's normally the miscon the the the everyone always says that the Jews control the world. Is it due to the fiat system? Anyone?

Well, I mean, I can I can address that? The the You're asking what's the reason why the Jews control the world? But the question is why do people have the perception that Jews control? Exactly. Yeah.