>>Funny how the un supported a war with iraq, which was very important to Israel Except the UN never supported the war with iraq https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_and_the_Iraq_War >>On September 16, 2004 Secretary-General of the United Nations Kofi Annan, speaking on the invasion, said, "I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN Charter. From our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was **illegal**."[3] You give into binary thinking and you want reality to fit your narrative, and that's your flaw, like many here. Binary thinking is comfortable, it provides a false sense of clarity, to begin with, needless to mention the misleading "narrative fitting" efforts when it comes to it... Problem is that you're only fooling yourself in the end, as demonstrated above The UN never supported the invasion of irak ... The US (and therefore israel) have a love hate relationship with the UN. Factually, they can override pretty much any resolution/sanction imposed by the UN, that's a given. How? Sheer military and financial power, that's it. Who's going to stop the US army anyway? Who can afford that? Answer: nobody, not even china, unless of course they have no other alternative then they are forced to at least try, just like russia, but they don't want to go there for obvious reasons Now that being said, they can't do it (override any UN resolution) whenever and wherever they want, there are limits, beyond which extraordinary events/excuses are required to do so... Such as 911 since you brought the topic on the table. Palestinians don't count evidently, nobody's going to get shot for palestinians The "anglozio" world order, relies upon institutions such as the UN, or the world bank, which in turn rely on rules, agreements, contracts, that they themselves brought on the table. The biding agreements of course don't directly go against the interests of the anglozio empire that's a given, otherwise they would have been vetoed, evidently The thing is, if you start to systematically infringe upon every single "courts and rules" you have yourself created to control your environment... You're going to destroy those tools, factually, and they (anglozios) don't want that, they don't want to destroy their tools of soft power, because that's what those institutions such as the UN are ultimately, to them, nothing more. Those are soft power tools/means of leverage There isn't a single member of the UN that is forced at gun point to participate to the UN general assembly, and to adhere to its charter, that's not how it works They have an interest to do so, lybia and iraq and iran and china and russia included. Now if they have zero interests to do so, they'll just leave... And then what? The US and israel are stuck into a circle jerk called the UN? What would be the point? Rhetorical question