United Nations General Assembly resolution ES-10/L.22

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
UN General Assembly
Resolution ES‑10/L.22
United Nations General Assembly resolution A ES 10 L 22 vote.png

  Voted in favor
  Voted against
  Not present
Date 21 December 2017
Meeting no. 10th Emergency Special Session (continuation)
Code A/RES/ES‑10/L.22 (Document)
Subject Status of Jerusalem
Voting summary
128 voted for
9 voted against
35 abstained
21 absent
Result Recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital as “null and void”

United Nations General Assembly resolution ES‑10/L.22 is a emergency session resolution declaring the status of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital as “null and void.”.[1] It was adopted by the 37th Plenary meeting of the tenth emergency special session of the United Nations General Assembly[2] during the tenure of the seventy-second session of the United Nations General Assembly on 21 December 2017. The draft resolution was drafted by Yemen and Turkey.[3]Though strongly contested by the United States, it passed by 128 votes to nine against with 21 absentees and 35 abstentions.


On 6 December 2017, US President Donald Trump said that he would recognise the status of Jerusalem as being Israel’s sovereign capital[4] in a departure from previous UNGA resolutions as well prevailing international norms where no state either recognises Jerusalem as a national capital nor has an embassy there. The move prompted protests from states and communities in many parts of the world.[5]

Following the failure of an United Nations Security Council resolution three days earlier, after an U.S. veto, to rescind the recognition by any states of Jerusalem as a national capital, Palestinian UN Ambassador Riyad Mansour said that the General Assembly would vote on a draft resolution calling for Trump’s declaration to be withdrawn. He sought to invoke Resolution 377, known as the “Uniting for Peace” resolution, to circumvent a veto. The resolution states that the General Assembly can call an Emergency Special Session to consider a matter “with a view to making appropriate recommendations to members for collective measures” if the Security Council fails to act.[6]


On 20 December, US President Donald Trump threatened to cut US aid to countries voting against the US’ side.[7] The day before the vote, he said: “Let them vote against us…We don’t care…this isn’t like it used to be where they could vote against you and then you pay them hundreds of millions of dollars. We’re not going to be taken advantage of any longer.”[8]Ambassador Nikki Haley warned her country would remember and “take names” of every country that voted in favour of the resolution.[9][10][11][12] The governments of Turkey and Iran denounced USA’s threats as “anti-democratic” and “blackmail“.[13][14] She had sent to a letter to dozens of member states that warned Trump had asked her to “report back on those countries who voted against us.”[15] Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan warned Trump that “he cannot buy Turkey’s democratic will with petty dollars” and “that opposition of other countries will teach the United States a good lesson”.[16][17]

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stated that Israel rejects this vote before it passes and called the UN “house of lies”.[18]

Canada’s, which was seeking re-negotiations of the NAFTA, Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland‘s spokesman confirmed its intention to abstain from the vote and that the resolution should not have come to the General Assembly.[19]


The text of the resolution includes the following key statements:[20]

The General Assembly,

  • Bearing in mind the specific status of the Holy City of Jerusalem and, in particular, the need for the protection and preservation of the unique spiritual, religious and cultural dimensions of the City, as foreseen in the relevant United Nations resolutions,
  • Stressing that Jerusalem is a final status issue to be resolved through negotiations in line with relevant United Nations resolutions,
  • Expressing in this regard its deep regret at recent decisions concerning the status of Jerusalem,
  • Affirms that any decisions and actions which purport to have altered, the character, status or demographic composition of the Holy City of Jerusalem have no legal effect, are null and void and must be rescinded in compliance with relevant resolutions of the Security Council, and in this regard, calls upon all States to refrain from the establishment of diplomatic missions in the Holy City of Jerusalem, pursuant to resolution 478 (1980) of the Security Council;
  • Demands that all States comply with Security Council resolutions regarding the Holy City of Jerusalem, and not to recognize any actions or measures contrary to those resolutions;
  • Reiterates its call for the reversal of the negative trends on the ground that are imperiling the two-State solution and for the intensification and acceleration of international and regional efforts and support aimed at achieving, without delay, a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East on the basis of the relevant United Nations resolutions, the Madrid terms of reference, including the principle of land for peace, the Arab Peace Initiative and the Quartet Roadmap and an end to the Israeli occupation that began in 1967.

It concluded in reading that “any decisions and actions, which purport to have altered the character, status or demographic composition of the Holy City of Jerusalem have no legal effect, are null and void and must be rescinded in compliance with relevant resolutions of the Security Council.”[21]


The motion was proposed by Yemen and Turkey.[22]


In introducing the resolution as Chair of the Arab Group, Yemen’s Amabassador said the US decision was a “blatant violation of the rights of the Palestinian people, as well as those of all Christians and Muslims.” He emphasized that it constituted a “dangerous breach of the Charter of the United Nations and a serious threat to international peace and security, while also undermining the chances for a two‑State solution and fuelling the fires of violence and extremism.”[23]

Turkey, who was the co-sponsor of the draft resolution, also spoke as current Chair of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation(OIC).[23] Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu said that Trump’s decision was an outrageous assault to all universal values. “The Palestinians have the right to their own state based on 1967 borders with East Jerusalem as its capital. This is the main parameter and only hope for a just and lasting peace in the region. However, the recent decision of a UN Member State to recognise Jerusalem, or Al-Quds, as the capital of Israel, violates international law, including all relevant UN resolutions.”[22]

The General Assembly heard from Palestinian Foreign Minister Riad Al‑Malki, who said that the meeting was “not because of any animosity to the United States of America” but instead the sessions was “called to make the voice of the vast majority of the international community — and that of people around the world — heard on the question of Jerusalem/Al‑Quds Al‑Sharif.” He called the US decision to recognise Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and to move its embassy there “an aggressive and dangerous move” which could inflame tensions and lead to a religious war that “has no boundaries.” He added that though the decision would have no impact on the city’s status, it would nevertheless compromise the role of the United States in the Middle East peace process.[23] He urged member states to reject “blackmail and intimidation.”[5]

US Ambassador Nikki Haley then said that her country was “singled out for attack” because of its recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. She added that: “The United States will remember this day in which it was singled out for attack in the General Assembly for the very act of exercising our right as a sovereign nation,” Haley said. We will remember it when we are called upon to once again make the world’s largest contribution to the United Nations, and so many countries come calling on us, as they so often do, to pay even more and to use our influence for their benefit.”[15] She added that: “America will put our embassy in Jerusalem. That is what the American people want us to do, and it is the right thing to do. No vote in the United Nations will make any difference on that…this vote will make a difference in how Americans view the UN.”[22]

Israel’s Ambassador Danny Danon then told the assembly that the vowed that “no General Assembly resolution will ever drive us from Jerusalem.”[4]

Venezuela’s Ambassador, speaking for the Non‑Aligned Movement (NAM), expressed “grave concern about Israel’s ongoing violations in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including attempts to alter the character, status and demographic composition of the City of Jerusalem. [It was] slso concerned about the decision to relocate the United States embassy [and] warned that such provocative actions would further heighten tensions, with potentially far‑reaching repercussions given the extremely volatile backdrop.[23]

Other speakers included, Pakistan, Indonesia, Maldives, Syria, Bangladesh, Cuba, Iran and China.[23]

Malaysia’s Ambassador Datuk Seri Mohammed Shahrul Ikram Yaakob said that, as a member of the OIC and NAM, “Malaysia joins the international community in expressing our deep concern and rejects the decision by the United States to recognise Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. It is also an infringement of the Palestinian people’s rights and their right to self determination.” He called for a peaceful two-state solution and that Malaysia is concerned the situation will only feed into the agenda of extremists.”[2]

Other speakers included, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and South Africa. The Permanent Observer for the Holy See, Tomasz Grysa, emphasised that Jerusalem was most sacred to the Abrahamic faiths and a symbol for millions of believers around the world who considered it their “spiritual capital.” Its significance went “beyond the question of borders, a reality that should be considered a priority in every negotiation for a political solution.” The Holy See, he said, called for a “peaceful resolution that would ensure respect for the sacred nature of Jerusalem and its universal value…reiterating that only international guarantee could preserve its unique character and status and provide assurance of dialogue and reconciliation for peace in the region.”[23]

After the motion was passed, more speeches continued with Estonia, who also spoke on behalf of other states. Australia’s Ambassador then explained her country’s government did “not support unilateral action that undermined the peace process [and] it did not believe today’s text would help to bring the parties back to the negotiating table.”[23]

Other speakers included, Paraguay, whose Ambassador said that the country would abstain because “the question of Jerusalem was a matter for the Security Council, as the primary body responsible for the maintenance of international peace and security.”[23] This was followed by El Salvador, Argentina and Romania.[23]

Canada’s Ambassador Marc-Andre Blanchard called the proposal “one-sided”[23] and said: “We are disappointed that this resolution is one sided and does not advance prospects for peace to which we aspire, which is why we have abstained on today’s vote.” He, however, added that Canada wanted to emphasise Jerusalem’s special significance to the Abrahamic religions of Jews, Muslims and Christians. “Denying the connection between Jerusalem and the Jewish, Muslim and Christian faiths undermines the integrity of the site for all. We also reiterate the need to maintain the status quo at Jerusalem’s Holy sites.[19]

Nicaragua’s explained its support of the resolution, as it “rebuffed recent unilateral attempts to modify the character and status of Jerusalem. Such unilateral actions were in blatant violation of resolution 2234 (2016) and others…unilateral actions jeopardised peace and stability in the Middle East and drew the international community further away from a solution.”[23]

Mexico’s Ambassador then explained the abstention and emphasised that convening an emergency session was a disproportionate response. “The United States must become part of the solution, not a stumbling block that would hamper progress…the international community was further than ever from agreement.”[23]

The Czech Republic then said that while it supported the European Union position, it had abstained because it “did not believe the draft resolution would contribute to the peace process.”[23]

Armenia said that is position “remained unchanged. The situation should be resolved through negotiations paving the way for lasting peace and security.”[23]

Hungary echoed Armenia’s stance and said it would not comment on the foreign relations of the United States.[23]

Latvia then spoke, before Estonia re-took the floor to say it had also spoken on behalf of Albania, Lithuania and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.[23]


Vote[24] Quantity States
Approve 128 Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cape Verde, Cambodia, Chad, Chile, China, Comoros, Republic of the Congo, Costa Rica, Cuba, Cyprus, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominica, Ecuador, Egypt, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guinea, Guyana, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Ivory Coast, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Laos, Lebanon, Liberia, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Monaco, Montenegro, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Russia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Seychelles, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Somalia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, Macedonia, Tunisia, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Vietnam, Yemen, Zimbabwe.
Reject 9 Guatemala, Honduras, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, Togo, United States.
Abstain 35 Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Australia, Bahamas, Benin, Bhutan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Cameroon, Canada, Colombia, Croatia, Czech Republic, Dominican Republic, Equatorial Guinea, Fiji, Haiti, Hungary, Jamaica, Kiribati, Latvia, Lesotho, Malawi, Mexico, Panama, Paraguay, Philippines, Poland, Romania, Rwanda, Solomon Islands, South Sudan, Trinidad and Tobago, Tuvalu, Uganda, Vanuatu.
Absent 21 Central African Republic, Democratic Republic of the Congo, East Timor, El Salvador, Georgia, Guinea-Bissau, Kenya, Mongolia, Myanmar, Moldova, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Samoa, San Marino, São Tomé and Príncipe, Sierra Leone, Swaziland, Tonga, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, Zambia.



Israel – Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu rejected the result shortly after it was announced in call it “preposterous,” while he also thanked the states that supported “the truth” by not participating in “the theatre of the absurd.” He added that: “Jerusalem is our capital. Always was, always will be…But I do appreciate the fact that a growing number of countries refused to participate in this theatre of the absurd. So I appreciate that, and especially I want to again express our thanks to [US] President (Donald) Trump and Ambassador [Nikki] Haley, for their stalwart defence of Israel and their stalwart defence of the truth.” Defence Minister Avigdor Liberman, reminded Israelis of the longstanding Israeli disdain for such votes. “Let us just remember that this is the same UN about which our first ambassador to the organisation, Abba Eban, once said: ‘If Algeria introduced a resolution declaring that the earth was flat and that Israel had flattened it, it would pass by a vote of 164 to 13 with 26 abstentions’. There is nothing new in what just happened at the UN.” He also praised the US as “the moral beacon shining out of the darkness.” Minister of Strategic Affairs and Public Security Gilad Erdan said: “The historic connection between Israel and Jerusalem is stronger than any vote by the ‘United Nations’ — nations who are united only by their fear and their refusal to recognise the simple truth that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel and the Jewish people.”

    • However, opposition Joint List Chairman and MK Ayman Odeh called the vote a wake-up call for Israel: “In the international arena, there still exists a large and definitive majority that believes that the Palestinian people, like all other nations, deserve a place in this world and the right to self-determination. This evening’s vote by the majority of the world’s nations against Trump’s announcement, in spite of the pressure and threats, flies in the face of Trump’s and Netanyahu’s diplomatic policy and is a clear statement by the international community in support of peace and the right of the Palestinians to an independent state, whose capital is East Jerusalem,”[8]

Haaretz‘s Noa Landau, wrote, in citing unnamed diplomatic sourced, that Israel was particularly disappointed with countries like India that have enhanced bilateral relations with it recently. “The main disappointment in Israel was with the countries that have enhanced bilateral relations in recent years, especially those that share a particularly conservative worldview with the Netanyahu government. For example, India – whose Prime Minister, Narendra Modi, visited Israel in July, a tour that was memorable mainly for the pastoral photographs of him and Netanyahu embracing and wading in the waves – voted for the resolution against Israel and the United States.”[8]


At a “Solidarity to Save Jerusalem” rally organised by the Barisan National government in Malaysia, one of the attendees Association of NextGen Christians of Malaysia President Joshua Hong said at the Putra Mosque: “We are here because we feel that the decision made by President Trump on announcing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel is merely a political decision. He added that the decision also hurts Christian and Arabic churches in Palestine and not just the Muslims. “To us as Christians, Jerusalem is a city of peace and after that announcement, we feel there is no more peace.I think it is not right and unjust. We believe we should continue pursuing the sustainable peace solution for Palestine and Israel, rather than just a single nation declaring it just like that.” He claimed that about 50 members of the group turned up in a show of support for the Palestinian people..[2]

25 Superstitions People Actually Believe

List of Banks owned by the Rothschild Family

“Give me control over a nations currency, and I care not who makes its laws” – Baron M.A. Rothschild


Afghanistan, Bank of Afghanistan,
Albania, Bank of Albania,
Algeria, Bank of Algeria,
Argentina, Central Bank of Argentina,
Armenia, Central Bank of Armenia,
Aruba, Central Bank of Aruba,
Australia, Reserve Bank of Australia,
Austria, Austrian National Bank,
Azerbaijan, Central Bank of Azerbaijan Republic,
Bahamas, Central Bank of The Bahamas,
Bahrain, Central Bank of Bahrain,
Bangladesh, Bangladesh Bank,
Barbados, Central Bank of Barbados,
Belarus, National Bank of the Republic of Belarus,
Belgium, National Bank of Belgium,
Belize, Central Bank of Belize,
Benin, Central Bank of West African States, (BCEAO),
Bermuda, Bermuda Monetary Authority,
Bhutan, Royal Monetary Authority of Bhutan,
Bolivia, Central Bank of Bolivia,
Bosnia, Central Bank of Bosnia and Herzegovina,
Botswana, Bank of Botswana,
Brazil, Central Bank of Brazil,
Bulgaria, Bulgarian National Bank,
Burkina Faso, Central Bank of West African States, (BCEAO),
Burundi, Bank of the Republic of Burundi,
Cambodia, National Bank of Cambodia,
Came Roon, Bank of Central African States,
Canada, Bank of Canada – Banque du Canada,
Cayman Islands, Cayman Islands Monetary Authority,
Central African Republic, Bank of Central African States,
Chad, Bank of Central African States,
Chile, Central Bank of Chile,

China, The People’s Bank of China,

Colombia, Bank of the Republic,
Comoros, Central Bank of Comoros,
Congo, Bank of Central African States,
Costa Rica, Central Bank of Costa Rica,
Côte d’Ivoire, Central Bank of West African States, (BCEAO),
Croatia, Croatian National Bank,
Cuba, Central Bank of Cuba,
Cyprus, Central Bank of Cyprus,
Czech Republic, Czech National Bank,
Denmark, National Bank of Denmark,
Dominican Republic, Central Bank of the Dominican Republic,
East Caribbean area, Eastern Caribbean Central Bank,
Ecuador, Central Bank of Ecuador,
Egypt, Central Bank of Egypt ,
El Salvador, Central Reserve Bank of El Salvador,
Equatorial Guinea, Bank of Central African States,
Estonia, Bank of Estonia,
Ethiopia, National Bank of Ethiopia,
European Union, European Central Bank,


Fiji, Reserve Bank of Fiji,
Finland, Bank of Finland,
France, Bank of France,
Gabon, Bank of Central African States,
The Gambia, Central Bank of The Gambia,
Georgia, National Bank of Georgia,
Germany, Deutsche Bundesbank,
Ghana, Bank of Ghana,
Greece, Bank of Greece,
Guatemala, Bank of Guatemala,

Guinea Bissau, Central Bank of West African States, (BCEAO),
Guyana, Bank of Guyana,
Haiti, Central Bank of Haiti ,
Honduras, Central Bank of Honduras,
Hong Kong, Hong Kong Monetary Authority,
Hungary, Magyar Nemzeti Bank,
Iceland, Central Bank of Iceland,
India, Reserve Bank of India,
Indonesia, Bank Indonesia,
Iran, The Central Bank of the Islamic Republic of Iran,

Iraq, Central Bank of Iraq,

Ireland, Central Bank and Financial Services Authority of Ireland,
Israel, Bank of Israel,
Italy, Bank of Italy,
Jamaica, Bank of Jamaica,
Japan, Bank of Japan,
Jordan, Central Bank of Jordan,
Kazakhstan, National Bank of Kazakhstan,
Kenya, Central Bank of Kenya,
Korea, Bank of Korea,
Kuwait, Central Bank of Kuwait,
Kyrgyzstan, National Bank of the Kyrgyz Republic,
Latvia, Bank of Latvia,
Lebanon, Central Bank of Lebanon,
Lesotho, Central Bank of Lesotho,

Libya, Central Bank of Libya,


Uruguay, Central Bank of Uruguay,
Lithuania, Bank of Lithuania,
Luxembourg, Central Bank of Luxembourg,
Macao, Monetary Authority of Macao,
Macedonia, National Bank of the Republic of Macedonia,
Madagascar, Central Bank of Madagascar,
Malawi, Reserve Bank of Malawi,
Malaysia, Central Bank of Malaysia,
Mali, Central Bank of West African States, (BCEAO),
Malta, Central Bank of Malta,
Mauritius, Bank of Mauritius,
Mexico, Bank of Mexico,
Moldova, National Bank of Moldova,
Mongolia, Bank of Mongolia,
Montenegro, Central Bank of Montenegro,
Morocco, Bank of Morocco,
Mozambique, Bank of Mozambique,
Namibia, Bank of Namibia,
Nepal, Central Bank of Nepal,
Netherlands, Netherlands Bank,
Netherlands Antilles, Bank of the Netherlands Antilles,
New Zealand, Reserve Bank of New Zealand,
Nicaragua, Central Bank of Nicaragua,
Niger, Central Bank of West African States, (BCEAO),
Nigeria, Central Bank of Nigeria,
Norway, Central Bank of Norway,
Oman, Central Bank of Oman,
Pakistan, State Bank of Pakistan,
Papua New Guinea, Bank of Papua New Guinea,
Paraguay, Central Bank of Paraguay,
Peru, Central Reserve Bank of Peru,
Philip Pines, Bangko Sentralng Pilipinas,
Poland, National Bank of Poland,
Portugal, Bank of Portugal,
Qatar, Qatar Central Bank,
Romania, National Bank of Romania,
Russia, Central Bank of Russia,

Rwanda, National Bank of Rwanda,
San Marino, Central Bank of the Republic of San Marino,
Samoa, Central Bank of Samoa,
Saudi Arabia, Saudi Arabian Monetary Agency,

Senegal, Central Bank of West African States, (BCEAO),
Serbia, National Bank of Serbia,
Seychelles, Central Bank of Seychelles,
Sierra Leone, Bank of Sierra Leone,
Singapore, Monetary Authority of Singapore,
Slovakia, National Bank of Slovakia,
Slovenia, Bank of Slovenia,
Solomon Islands, Central Bank of Solomon Islands,
South Africa, South African Reserve Bank,
Spain, Bank of Spain,
Sri Lanka, Central Bank of Sri Lanka,
Sudan, Bank of Sudan,
Surinam, Central Bank of Suriname,
Swaziland, The Central Bank of Swaziland,
Sweden, Sveriges Riksbank,
Switzerland, Swiss National Bank,

Tajikistan, National Bank of Tajikistan,
Tanzania, Bank of Tanzania,
Thailand, Bank of Thailand,
Togo, Central Bank of West African States, (BCEAO),
Tonga, National Reserve Bank of Tonga,
Trinidad and Tobago, Central Bank of Trinidad and Tobago,
Tunisia, Central Bank of Tunisia,
Turkey, Central Bank of the Republic of Turkey,

Uganda, Bank of Uganda,
Ukraine, National Bank of Ukraine,
United Arab Emirates, Central Bank of United Arab Emirates,

United Kingdom, Bank of England,

United States, Federal Reserve, Federal Reserve Bank of New York,


Vanuatu, Reserve Bank of Vanuatu,
Venezuela, Central Bank of Venezuela,

Vietnam, The State Bank of Vietnam,
Yemen, Central Bank of Yemen,
Zambia, Bank of Zambia,
Zimbabwe, Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe,
Bank For International Settlements, (BIS),

List of active separatist movements in Africa

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a list of currently active separatist movements in Africa. Separatism includes autonomism and secessionism. What is and is not considered an autonomist or secessionist movement is sometimes contentious. Entries on this list must meet three criteria:

  1. They are active movements with living, active members.
  2. They are seeking greater autonomy or self-determination for a geographic region (as opposed to personal autonomy).
  3. They are the citizen/peoples of the conflict area and not comes from other country.

Under each region listed is one or more of the following:


Berber flag.svg Kabyle


Flag of Cabinda Province.svg Cabinda

United Kingdom British Overseas Territories

Chagos Islands (currently British Indian Ocean Territory)

(The Chagossians wish to have the right of return to the Chagos Islands who were evicted over 40 years ago to make way for British Army and US Army base)


Bakassi Peninsula

Flag of The Federal Republic of Southern Cameroons.svg Ambazonia (member of the Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization and Organization of Emerging African States)

 Central African Republic


Flag of Mohéli.svg Mohéli


 Democratic Republic of the Congo


Coptic flag.svg Copts

Bir Tawil

  • Ethnic group: Ababda
    • Proposed state: Republic of Ababda
    • Status: Technically independence as both Egypt and Sudan do not claim or control the region but no political organisation within the region currently governs Bir Tawil.


 Equatorial Guinea

Bubi nationalist flag.svg Bioko



Secessionist movements
  • Mayotte continues to have autonomist movements despite the island having voted to become France’s 101st department in 2011.[18]

 Ivory Coast



Flag of Cyrenaica.svg Cyrenaica




MNLA flag.svg Azawad


Flag of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic.svg Western Sahara

Flag of the Republic of the Rif.svg Arrif


Flag of CANU.svg Caprivi




Flag of Biafra.svg Biafra


Niger Delta

Flag of the Ogoni people.svg Ogoni


Boko Haram islamists



Flag of Casamance.svg Casamance



 South Africa

Afrikaner Vryheidsvlag.svg Boere-Afrikaners nation’s

CapePartLogo.gif Cape Party

 South Sudan



Beja Nation

Flag of Darfur.svg Darfur



Flag of Zanzibar.svg Zanzibar


Flag of Buganda.svg Buganda


Flag of Barotseland.svg Barotse



Arabian rulers align themselves with Zionism and imperialism against Islamic Iran

From top left to bottom right: King Fahd, Crown Prince Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz al-Saud, Prince Sultan bin Abdul Aziz, Prince Salman, Prince Nayef, Prince Saud al-Faisal, Prince Nawaf bin Abdul Aziz, Bandar bin Sultan, Prince Turki al-Faisal, Muhammad bin Fahd, Abdul Aziz bin Fahd, Khalid bin Sultan.

During his visit to San Francisco, California, to sign the United States Charter in 1945, then-Foreign Minister Prince Faisal bin Abdulaziz met with President Harry Truman.

The meeting between King Abdulaziz and President Franklin D. Roosevelt on Febuary 14, 1945 set the stage for close Saudi-U.S. relations.

The meeting between King Abdulaziz and President Franklin D. Roosevelt on Febuary 14, 1945 set the stage for close Saudi-U.S. relations.

Sultan Muhammad ibn Yousuf (L), his son Prince Moulay Hassan (C), the future King of Morocco, Saudi Arabia’s King Saud ibn Abd al-Aziz (2nd-L) and Morocco Prince Moulay Abdullah (L) walk together during King’s visit to Casablanca 20 February 1957. Ibn Yousuf was recognized as the legitimate Sultan of Morocco after Sultan Muhammad ibn Arafa renounced the throne and withdrew in 1955 to the international zone of Tangier. Prince Moulay Hassan was proclaimed heir of the throne in July 1957 and in August his father assumed the title of King. On the death of King Muhammad in February 1961 the Prince ascended the throne as King Hassan II. He is 20the of the Filali line of sharifs, or descendants of the Prophet, who have ruled Morocco since 1631.

Crown Prince Faisal bin Abdulaziz met with President John F. Kennedy in Washington, DC, in 1962

King Faisal bin Abdulaziz with President Lyndon B JohnsonRichard Nixon in 1966.

King Faisal bin Abdulaziz met with President Richard Nixon in 1971.

King Khaled bin Abdulaziz and then-Crown Prince Fahd with President Carter in Riyadh in 1978.

Commander of the National Guard Prince Abdullah bin Abdulaziz met with President Ford in the White House in 1976.

Crown Prince Fahd met with President Jimmy Carter and former President Gerald Ford during a visit to Washington, DC, in 1977.

Charles and Diana With Saudi Royals at, Victoria St.

Charitable: Prince Charles meets King Abdullah and his 400 strong entourage as the Saudi royal arrives for his state visit in the UK

Lost in translation? Prince Charles and Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall, are greeted by Saudi Prince Bandar Bin Sultan on their arrival at Riyadh in 2006.

King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia Visits with Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom on October 30, 2007

George W. Bush with his Saudi Arabian friends. The Saudi Royal family donated millions to Bush’s election campaign.

The Prince and Princess of Wales meeting King Fahd and the Saudi Arabia royal family at Gatwick Airport for their state visit to England, March 1987. The Princess is wearing a Catherine Walker military style jacket and hat.

Prince Charles and Diana, Princess of Wales, ‘enthralled’ the sheikhs during their tour of Gulf states in 1989

President Ronald Reagan welcomed King Fahd to the White House in 1985.

USA/Great Britain/King Fahd financed Iraq Iran War but when Saddam Hussein entered Kuwait [Worst than Saudi Arabia] Fahd ordered Saudi Retard Toady Mutawwas to Issue Fatwa against the Same Saddam. Debauch Saudi Wahabi Somersault Fatwa of Takfeer against Saddam Hussein. In 1996 then-UN Ambassador Madeleine Albright was asked by 60 Minutes correspondent Lesley Stahl, in reference to years of U.S.-led economic sanctions against Iraq, “We have heard that half a million children have died. I mean, that is more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?” To which Ambassador Albright responded, “I think that is a very hard choice, but the price, we think, the price is worth it.”

King Fahd and President George Bush met in Riyadh in November 1990 to discuss the liberation of Kuwait.

Above: George W. Bush with Saudi Prince Bandar, the Saudi Arabian ambassador to the United States.

King Fahd hosted a visit to Saudi Arabia by President Bill Clinton in October 1994. Their meeting was attended by Ambassador Prince Bandar.

Prince Sultan bin Abdulaziz and Saudi Arabian Ambassador to the U.S. Prince Bandar bin Sultan bin Abdulaziz met with Secretary of Defense William Cohen in the Pentagon in 1999.

– From left to right: Dick Cheney, Prince Bandar, Condoleezza Rice, and George W. Bush, on the Truman Balcony of the White House on September 13, 2001. [Source: White House] –

During a meeting at the White House on September 20, 2001, Minister of Foreign Affairs Prince Saud Al-Faisal assured President George W. Bush of Saudi Arabia’s full cooperation in the fight against terrorism.


Abu Dharr

From left: Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, President Barack Obama, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and Jordan’s King Abdullah II at the White House, 01 Sep 2010

alt=””id=”BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5542963575266033842″ />

Muslim public opinion in general and Arabian public opinion in particular is at a loss to properly understand the Islamic Republic of Iran. Many people have an intuitive feeling that the Islamic orientation in Iran is for the long-term benefit of Muslims worldwide. The moneyed classes, the political elites, and the sectarian protagonists don’t see things that way — their instincts tell them that the Islamic Republic of Iran is expansionist and, therefore, a threat!

President George W. Bush, right, kisses the Emir of Kuwait, Sheik Sabah al-Ahmed al-Sabah, left, during his arrival at Kuwait International Airport, Friday, Jan. 11, 2008, in Kuwait City, Kuwait.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel welcomed Kuwait’s emir, Sheikh Sabah, when he arrived for talks in Berlin on April 26.

Shaking Hands: Iraqi President Saddam Hussein greets Donald Rumsfeld, then special envoy of President Ronald Reagan, in Baghdad on December 20, 1983. REFERENCE: US NATIONAL SECURITY ARCHIVE Shaking Hands with Saddam Hussein: The U.S. Tilts toward Iraq, 1980-1984 National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 82 Edited by Joyce Battle February 25, 2003 http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/

‘A picture speaks a thousand words’ Sons of Late. King Faisal [Great Great Great Maternal Grandson of Mutawwa Sheikh Mohammad Bin Abd Al Wahab] Turki Al Faisal and Saud Al Faisal with NEO CON Ex- US Vice President Dick” Cheney [Wahabis are one big fraud] – Prince Saud, Prince Turki,Vice President and Mrs. Cheney http://www.saudiembassy.net/archive/2006/news/page562.aspx Man is known by the company he keeps DEATH SQUADS: Seymour Hersh, Dick Cheney & Secret Assassination Wing http://chagataikhan.blogspot.com/2009/05/seymor-hersh-dick-cheney-secret.html

Some of them have come out of their diplomatic silence and stated in public that Iran is more dangerous than Israel. They, at politically sensitive times, remind us that Iran occupies three United Arab Emirates islands, that Iran oppresses the Ahwazi population of Arab descent, that Iran is coordinating its moves inside Iraq with the American occupation forces, and that the Shi‘i populations of Iraq and the (Arabian) Gulf owe their allegiance to Shi‘i Iran and not to their own people. (Remember the Jordanian King and the Egyptian Pharaoh-cum-president who talked about a Shi‘i crescent a couple of years ago). And finally they say that Iran is using the Palestinian issue as a diplomatic Trojan Horse to salvage its nuclear program.

King Abdullah- King of Jordan, Wife and Parents

King Abdullah’s (left) previous visit to Washington, april 2009 to speak with Obama about the Middle East Peace Process.

The President met with His Highness Shaykh Al-Ahmad Al-Jaber Al Sabah, the Amir of Kuwait today in the Oval Office.

Queen bee: Queen Rania of Jordan and husband King Abdullah II chat with Sarah and Gordon Brown outside No 10 Downing Street
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1194760/Sarah-Brown-welcomes-fashionable-First-Lady-youthful-Queen-Rania-Jordan-arrives-No-10.html#ixzz14NpHStTQ

Shimon Peres, Queen Rania, Abdullah II of Jordan
Queen Rania knows the rules of the game that she is so willingly to play that she will sell out her people and the truth.

Jordan’s Queen Rania, left, and Morocco’s Princess Lalla Salma, wife of King Mohammed VI, with Princess Lalla Meryem, the King’s sister, center behind, leave “Dar El Bir Oua Lihsane” charity center in Marrakesh, Morocco, Monday Jan. 14, 2008.

Sheikha Mozah,wife Amir of Qatar in Paris on June 23,2010.
Anyone who has the time and the patience to go through the official Arabian press gets the unmistakable impression that the Islamic Republic of Iran is “Zionist danger” on the verge of going nuclear while a forty year-old nuclear Zionist Israel is the Arabians’ comrade in arms. Don’t be surprised if the media networks belonging to Arabian petro-interests imply that President Mahmud Ahmadinejad is the new Holy Persian Emperor. When it comes to Islamic Iran there is a common denominator that is shared by Arabian nationalists, Islamic sectarians, and westoxicated liberals. The glue that keeps these otherwise contradictory elements together is the Saudi riyal, the American dollar, and the euro.

This motley assortment of religious and ideological types cannot see several hundred nuclear bombs and weapons in Israel; rather they have their eyes fixed on an Iran that is rumored primarily by Tel Aviv and Washington to be in a matter of a few years in possession of nuclear weapons. The Arabian media have a topsy-turvy view of facts. The political neanderthals in Riyadh, Cairo, and ‘Amman who are leading the Afro-Asian Arabian flock are preparing public opinion for an alignment of imperialism, Zionism, and Arabian munafiqs against the Islamic political order in Iran. There is a new tripartite force in the womb of the Holy Land precincts from Makkah to Jerusalem. The anti-intellectual and artless politicians in Arabian countries want to survive by any means necessary on their thrones and in the palaces; and if that means they shall politically cohabit with the evil governments of Israel and its American bedfellow then that is exactly what they will do. For the bloodline rulers of Arabia, the Lord of Makkah no longer counts; it is the lord of Washington to whom they should submit.

Some oily but squeaky Muslims from the Gulf and the Peninsula say with all the political ingenuousness that goes with it, “Why doesn’t the Islamic Republic of Iran relinquish control of the three islands of Abu Musa, the major Tunb and the minor Tunb (al-Tunb al-Kubra and al-Tunb al-Sughra)

to its rightful owner — the United Arab Emirates? As if the Islamic Republic of Iran sent in its armed forces and occupied these three islands. Their short and shallow memory does not tell them that the Islamic Republic of Iran assumed responsibility of its geographical areas — including these three islands — from the late and never lamented Shah, who was the darling of the Saudi regime and the political ally of the (Arabian) Gulfers when Arabian nationalism under the tutelage of the late Jamal ‘Abd al-Nasir was at its peak.

Arab leaders (L to R) Prince Ali of Jordan, King Abdullah of Jordan, President Ali Abdullah Saleh of Yemen, Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, and President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt follow the hearse carrying the coffin of Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat during the funeral ceremony in Cairo.

Suzanne Mubarak, the wife of Egyptian President … [Suzanne Mubarak]

It was not the Islamic Republic of Iran that grabbed the southern territories of al-Ahwaz, otherwise referred to in official Ba‘thi political literature as ‘Arabistan, from al-ummah al-‘arabiyah (the Arabian Nation).

Imam Ruhullah Musavi Khomeini,the founder of Islamic Republic of Iran

Let us refresh these Islamist history losers that the Islamic State in Iran assumed political responsibility for a vast area of land that includes many nationalities such as the Persians, Arabians, Kurds, Baluchis, Uzbeks, Lurs, and Turks. The only thing all these people have in common is their Islamic character and civilization. The majority of these peoples happen to have Shi‘i persuasion as their denominational preference. It may not be off the mark to say that there are some non-Shi‘i and non-Persian Muslims in Iran who feel they are not full political and civic participants of the Islamic State. And it is on the mark to acknowledge that the leadership in the Islamic State understands this very well and is doing whatever it can — given the war conditions imposed on it — to ameliorate this situation.


Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei (R) speaks with Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal (2nd R) during an official meeting in Tehran, Iran on December 15, 2009.

The Arabian political mind, void of its Islamic content, has a problem. It wants to pick a fight with non-Arabians because of slivers of territories parceled out by British and French colonialists to Iranians and Turks at a time when all of these Arabians combined do not have the will-power to forge one united and coordinated political order, that is, government. The same problem exists between Arabian nationalists and Turks in what the Turks call the region of Hatay and the Arabians call Iskandarun between Turkey and Syria. Let us face the facts: the Arabian countries suffer from backdoor occupation — the non-representative Arabian regimes — and from in-your-face occupations — Palestine, Iraq, Ceuta and Melilla (Moroccan areas).
Spain’s North African enclaves

Neutral Zones at the Boundaries Dividing Ceuta and Melilla from Morocco
Somalia has become a failed nation-state; Sudan is threatened with the same destiny as Somalia, and lurking not far behind is Morocco. The United Arab Emirates, that is so sensitive about the Arab identity of its three “Iranian” occupied Islands, has lost its own Arabian identity. Arabians in their United Arab Emirates are the overwhelming minority — while foreigners and slave-laborers constitute 80% of its population.

To be blunt: at a time when Islamic Iran broke out of the global Zionist-imperialist network 31 years ago, the Arabian political elites have prostituted themselves to the same network of political rape and economic plunder. The social world — as the physical world — does not tolerate a vacuum. So when Iraq presented a void, Islamic Iran moved in. Why should anyone in his Islamic mind be bothered by an Islamic neighbor moving into Iraq to dislodge an imperialist intruder — the USA? The Arabian political and elitist crybabies have their own selves to blame; and if they could see through the emotional knots they are in they can easily identify the Saudi family kingdom for the socio-economic and politico-military mess that they are all in.
If these same Arabian myopics could put on their corrective Islamic lenses they would realize that the leadership in Islamic Iran has gone out on a political limb in its support of the Palestinians who are neither Iranian nor Shi‘is; inside of Islamic Iran there are sectarian and nationalist pressure groups who are not convinced that their government is looking out for them. These, too, in a very roundabout way, are allies of the Arabian nationalists and Islamic sectarians.

Islamic Iran, hence Arab Iran, is the powerhouse of the whole region. It is the only principled and reliable supporter of the Islamic Resistance against Zionist occupation and expansionism. In view of this, it is Islamic Iran that is working on liberating what everyone says is Arab land, not Iranian land. Over the past two decades, it was the Arabian regimes that helped militarist American imperialism to occupy Iraq. Take Islamic Iran out of the equation and the Islamic Resistance in Lebanon and Palestine become sitting ducks for the Israeli Zionist bombers and shooters.

If the Arabians cannot do a thing to support their Palestinian brothers they should stop blaming Islamic Iran for helping them. The same Arabian regimes that backed the American occupation of Iraq are also the ones that give backbone to anti-Islamic and anti-Iranian propaganda.

While the officials and their media mouthpieces are in knots over Islamic Iran, the imperialist regime in Washington and its Zionist client in Tel Aviv are not confused by nationalism or sectarianism as they take a hard look at Islamic Iran. In the latest development the US regime has stationed a second aircraft carrier, the USS Abraham Lincoln in the waters separating Arabia and Persia. It is anchored in the Arabian and what many naive Muslims would say “Sunni” ruled Bahrain. This is the first time in the past two years that the US political-military elite has stationed two of its aircraft carriers in the Gulf between Arabia and Persia. While the Arabians are in a confused mess about “what is Iran” the USS Harry S. Truman with its four squadrons of Hornet and Super Hornet fighter-bombers, surveillance and command craft, electronic warfare craft, squadrons of helicopters and transports are marking time for the Zionists in Washington to give them their strike-commands.

To prove their loyalties, the Saudi and Egyptian armed forces secretly coordinated their first-ever joint military exercises in October. It was called Exercise Tabuk-2 and it was a mock exercise to repulse not Israeli but Iranian armed forces. This was reported to have taken place between Oct 17 and Oct 21, under the command of the acting Saudi Aviation and Defense Minister his highness Prince Khalid ibn Sultan, son of Prince Sultan and half brother of Bandar ibn Sultan (both Bandar and Sultan are said to be recuperating from serious medical problems in Morocco, the first undergoing five medical procedures and the second fighting his last days against terminal illness. Saudi press reports said Bandar returned to the kingdom in mid-October).

And there you have it: the perfect alliance between kafirs and munafiqs in contravention of the ayah that instructs committed Muslims not to confederate their political and military secrets with Zionists and imperialists, “O You, who are firmly committed [to Allah’s power and authority]! Do not predicate al-Yahud and al-Nasara (politico-military Jews and Christians) as your superior allies…” (5:82).