WHO forces UN policy objectives to erode national sovereignty, starting with Israel

The World Health Organization (WHO) last month used its health agenda to enforce its Israel policy objectives.

Israel was the only country singled out at the 75th World Health Assembly in Geneva last month for “violating health rights” after claims that Israeli soldiers and civilians systematically abuse Palestinian Authority (PA) children. The operative claimed this “wanton abuse” negatively affects the children’s mental health.

“Palestinian children are exposed to unacceptable levels of violence in the occupied Palestinian territories. They are exposed to daily violence from the occupation army’s soldiers and the illegal Israeli settlers,” said the operative, claiming that Israelis are attacking children in their homes, on the way to school, during class, and on the way home from school.

“[The] murdering of children, the repetitive attacks on schools and health facilities, the denial of humanitarian access, these Israeli settlers’ violence against children request a deep reflection on their mental health and a concrete reaction from the international community in line with ‘health for all’.”

He called on the WHO and other UN entities such as UNRWA and UNICEF to “assess” Israel’s “human rights violations”. Iran, Syria, North Korea, Russia, Venezuela, and Cuba were just some of the 75 countries who immediately condemned Israel and adopted a resolution to hold the same discussion again next year. The resolution also called to draft a report on the “Health conditions in the occupied Palestinian territory, including east Jerusalem, and in the occupied Syrian Golan.”

“Out of 25 items on the current world health assembly’s agenda, only one focused on a specific country — Israel,” said UN Watch Executive Director Hillel Neuer in a statement.

“There has been no agenda item or resolution adopted on any other country, conflict, civil war or political impasse. Nothing on Syria, where hospitals and other medical infrastructure are deliberately bombed by Syrian and Russian forces; nothing on Afghanistan where the Taliban takeover has led to a collapse in basic health systems; and nothing on Ethiopia where more than 5 million people in Tigray are in dire need of humanitarian support, including health care, due to the conflict there,” said Neuer.

The resolution upheld UN policy, according to which Israel is required to both recognize “Palestine” as an independent country and to sustain it with Israel’s own resources, while also maintaining open borders.

Just as it was singled out by the WHO, Israel remains the most condemned country in the world by the United Nations General Assembly and Human Rights Council. Since 2015, Israel has received 140 condemnations, compared to 64 for all other countries combined.

“Palestinian” nationalism is the first national movement in world history conceived for the express purpose to serve as an instrument for the genocide of an existing nation. The language signed in 1978 by Menachem Begin at Camp David specified for the first time in history that “Palestine People” would henceforth be “Palestinian Arabs,” thus setting the basis for evicting Palestinian Jews.

In practice, the Palestinian Authority has brutalized Arabs living within the areas where the government of Israel has allowed them to control, as well as in places outside these areas.

But Israel is not the only country whose sovereignty is being eroded by the UN’s growing singular authority under the guise of “global health”.

Countries are working with the WHO to draft amendments to the globalist body’s International Health Regulations (IHR) which would surrender sovereignty to the WHO regarding very broadly defined public health crises, subject to the whim of the WHO director-general.

Globalist governments are also currently negotiating a “Pandemic Accord” which will bind all countries to a single WHO-supervised approach to preventing and managing pandemics.

That approach includes global vaccine passports to limit travel and redefine borders under the WHO’s authority. Members of the G20 in November signed a declaration to work with the World Health Organization in requiring vaccine passports for international travel. 

The World Health Organization this month announced its “digital health partnership” with the European Commission. According to the WHO, the passport system will allow “global mobility” and protect people not only from “future health threats” but also from those that are “on-going”.

Ultimately, those threats will be determined by the WHO’s parent organization the United Nations which is asking member countries to award it singular authority over their populations to respond to “global shocks”.

In a proposal titled “Our Common Agenda” and published in March, United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres requested approval to implement, at will, a set of undefined protocols called an “Emergency Platform” in response to global catastrophes.

“I propose that the General Assembly provide the Secretary-General and the United Nations system with a standing authority to convene and operationalize automatically an Emergency Platform in the event of a future complex global shock of sufficient scale, severity and reach,” wrote Guterres.

Without defining the term “global shocks”, the UN chief invoked COVID-19 and the 2022 “cost of living crisis” as examples and warned that more global shocks — driven by factors such as “climate change,” cyberattacks, or events involving “biological agents” — are impending.

Guterres’ main concern is that “global shocks” may compromise the UN's Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) for 2030, an agenda which pins global crises such as poverty, hunger and unemployment on the climate. The goals, agreed to by all member states in 2015, demand that governments establish frameworks which compel civil societies and the private sector to “fight climate change” and enforce “social inclusion”. 

For its part, the WHO promotes the UN’s SDG by tying health to “climate change”.

In the pending Pandemic Accord, the WHO requires countries to adopt a One Health approach to healthcare which ties human health to climate change.

“The Parties, recognizing that the majority of emerging infectious diseases and pandemics are caused by zoonotic pathogens, commit . . . to promote and implement a One Health approach that is coherent, integrated, coordinated and collaborative among all relevant actors, with the application of existing instruments and initiatives,” says the accord.

The stated pretext of One Health claims that because pandemic diseases are zoonotic and spread from animals to humans, human health must be looked at in the context of animals and the environment or what is called the “human-animal-environment interface”.

Governments must therefore “address the drivers of the emergence and re-emergence of disease at the human-animal-environment interface, including but not limited to climate change, land use change, wildlife trade, desertification and antimicrobial resistance.”

Countries are required to coordinate One Health–based activities with the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), and the World Organization for Animal Health (WOAH), which together form the One Health Quadripartite.

The WHO’s One Health approach has been endorsed by the World Economic Forum (WEF) which praised the ideology’s focus on climate change:

We will have a better chance of suppressing infectious diseases only if we adopt what the WHO calls a One Health approach and integrate predictive modelling and surveillance used in both infectious disease control and climate change.