Vol 10, No.5
THE INEXTINGUISHABLE FIRE By Dina Elmuti
“They will not criminalize us, rob us of our true identity, steal our individualism, depoliticize us, churn us out as systemized, institutionalized, decent law-abiding robots. We refuse to lie here in dishonor!” - Bobby Sands, Provisional Irish Republican Army
Deir Yassin, Palestine, Live from Palestine, 9 April 2010: It’s as if the very moment I passed by Bab al-Amud or Damascus Gate in Jerusalem’s Old City, I was transported back in time to a forbidden place, a place I was forced to feel as though I was illegally trespassing through just by gazing at it, a place now belonging to others. “This place you talk about no longer exists. It’s been long gone.” That’s what they continue to say with such impunity and disregard, but those sentiments of deterrence wouldn’t stop me. They never had before, and they wouldn’t stand a chance now. I was determined to go back, to see it all again with my own eyes, to capture every sight so the memories would be engraved in my head forever, despite any and all pretentious constructions that would be made without our permission. Despite all the renovations
and reconstructions to make it “their own,” it would always be Deir Yassin to me. “Deir Yassin,” she says with a sadness, a sense of loss in her eyes each time she speaks of the atrocious day she lost her home. “Deir Yassin,” she says with a childlike innocence in her voice as she recalls sweet memories before her entire world was completely denatured by evil. “Deir Yassin,” the imperishable words of my grandmother continue to resonate with me each day for she made me promise to never forget, and that’s a promise I intend to keep to her. I followed the imperiously-placed road signs leading to Givat Shaul until the memories began flooding back, one by one. With no place to park, I took the chance of leaving the yellow-plated car on the side of the road, near the abandoned blue fence so I would be able to step
back in time on foot. In the cool breeze of that afternoon, standing on the ledge overlooking the Har HaMenuchot cemetery in scenic view of the Jewish Holocaust memorial, Yad Vashem, I inhaled deeply and digested the view of what was now known as Givat Shaul. As I stood there taking in the surreal surroundings of Mount Herzl and Yad Vashem, I was overcome by emotions as the tales of my grandmother soon came to life right before my very eyes. continued next page
O IL AND S OVEREIGNTY : C LARIFICATION APPRECIATED The statement by the Malaysian Ministry
THE PEAK OIL CRISIS: THE ERUPTION OF EYJAFJALLAJOKULL
of Foreign Affairs issued on the 3rd of May 2010, helps to clarify the actual status ....................................................... P.3
By Tom Whipple ......................................... page 5
ALLEGATIONS ABOUT ISRAELI INFILTRATION - A THOROUGH PROBE The International Movement for a Just World (JUST) welcomes the probe by four bodies into the allegations made by Opposition Leader ................................................. P.3
REFLECTING ON THE FIRST FIVE YEARS OF THE GLOBAL ARTICLE 9 CAMPAIGN By Kawasaki Akira
................................... page 6
NUCLEAR TERRORISM AND NUCLEAR WEAPONS: THE ROLE OF RELIGION By Chandra Muzaffar ................................... page 8
TEN REASONS EAST JERUSALEM DOES NOT BELONG TO JEWISH-ISRAELIS
By Juan Cole .............................................. page 9
By Perdana Global Peace Organisation ........ page 4
SANCTIONS AGAINST IRAN AN ACT OF WAR
THE PALESTINIANS ARE WINNING THE LEGITIMACY WAR: WILL IT MATTER?
By Ron Paul
By Richard Falk ........................................ page10
............................................ page 5
2 I N T E R N AT I O N A L
continued from page 1
“See right there,” she pointed behind me, “that was my father’s stone quarry, and there’s the grain mill.” For as long as I live, I’ll never forget the look on her face, the way her lips quivered, the way she tapped her tired fingers on her chest with such pride, and the high pitch in her voice as she spoke with such nostalgia. As a little girl, she played house with her friends at the nearby monastery surrounded by fig, almond and apple trees, just as any child would do, oblivious to the tragedy that awaited them. At eight years old though, her childhood was no longer one free of trauma and injustice. In less than a day, she was forced to leave everything she had ever known behind, taking nothing with her but the clothes on her back. Sixty-two years ago, she had once called this place home. This was home, and without her knowledge, her permission, or her right, it was all taken away. Someone else callously decided it was no longer hers to claim. The thought of that still makes me feel as though I’ve been kicked repeatedly in the stomach. It’s difficult to return to Deir Yassin without suddenly becoming transfixed by the blatant ethnic cleansing and hypocrisy lying on the very ground once belonging to the native Palestinians who called this very ground home less than seven decades ago. Chilling tales and memories have allowed Deir Yassin to live on in the hearts and minds of countless worldwide, allowing it to be deemed as so much more than just a name associated with death, destruction and pillaging. Deir Yassin will continue to resonate as a lesson of resilience and determination to never forget. Before walking back to the car and bidding my farewell to Deir Yassin once again, I stood on the ledge overlooking Mount Herzl with the hope of trying to absorb and digest all that I had seen that day. Standing there captivated by all that I had taken notice of this time, I couldn’t help but feel as though my blood began to boil. Looking onto the grand, monumental view of Yad Vashem erected to honor those who so unjustly lost their lives in the Holocaust, I stood on the land
where my own family too lost their livelihoods and lives so unjustly without so much as a marker to honor them. A mile away from Deir Yassin sits a memorial to commemorate the victims of the Holocaust, to remind the world of the inhumanity that took place with such impunity. Today, it continues to remind the world of the atrocities that took place with a timeless, ubiquitous message of “never to forget man’s inhumanity to man.” I can’t help but feel as though the overwhelming irony is shamelessly mocking me as I stand there on the other side of Yad Vashem in Deir Yassin, where a massacre took place 62 years ago. I stood there honoring those whose names don’t appear in a museum, whose voices are rarely, if ever, heard in the media, and whose legacies are insolently ignored and omitted from textbooks and classrooms, rendering them invisible to so many in the world. Standing there, I wonder if those who visit the museum look over to the other side and even know what occurred there some 60 years ago, whether or not they question what happened, and whether or not they feel any sympathy like they do for their own. Deir Yassin carries with it such magnitude, for it is not just the story of a massacre, but the story of two peoples — the victims and the victims of those victims — whose fates allowed them to be conjoined on stolen land. Wiped off the post-1948 maps of Israel, Deir Yassin can never and will never be wiped out of the minds of Palestinians worldwide, those under occupation and those in the diaspora. No matter how the maps and signs are altered, I will always find a way back to Deir Yassin, because it is my moral responsibility to return and keep its legacy alive. This is where I come from. This is where my family, who are still alive and well to remember, suffered. This is where injustice took place, and I will never forget. After all, it was Simon Wiesenthal who said that “hope lives when people remember,” when observing the suffering of the Jews at the hands of injustice. Likewise, the suffering of the Palestinians deserves to be dignified as well. As any people who have been
MAIN ARTICLE subjugated and oppressed, Palestinians too will hold on to their relentless refusal to concede and forget. Despite all the agony, anguish and traumatizing memories that have echoed with her throughout her life, my grandmother’s eyes still light up just at the sound of hearing Deir Yassin. Today, this place that’s been associated with such pain and suffering to so many continues to instill such pride and joy in her. I’ve never known such strength and resilience, but I hope to learn from it every single day. So, today, I commemorate the 62nd anniversary of the Deir Yassin Massacre. Commemorating Deir Yassin is not to create a sadistic exploitation of the suffering of a people. It is a reminder to us all that injustice did take place there, and that it is our responsibility to remember that the atrocities and intolerance we see and hear about today had their inception with Deir Yassin. Deir Yassin, which catapulted the Nakba, our catastrophe, is an undeniable marker of unabashed injustice, and it will continue to deter any prevarication and the notion that “ignorance is bliss.” Deir Yassin signifies that Palestinians existed and still exist, and we will never give up without a fight. David Ben Gurion, Israel’s first prime minister, was mistaken when he arrogantly asserted that “the old will die and the young will forget,” for he underestimated the indomitable will of the Palestinian people. Despite heartache, pain and suffering, we will never relinquish a dream so embedded in our hearts and minds. Yes, the old may die, but the young will never able to forget, and to paraphrase Bobby Sands, “our revenge will be the laughter of our children,” those who will carry on this dream and fight for justice. This dream will live on in the hearts of generation after generation; it is an inextinguishable fire burning inside our hearts, and what we say today will be our lifelong commitment to it. 10 April, 2010 Dina Elmuti is a graduate student in the Masters in Social Work program at Southern Illinois University at Carbondale. Source: Electronic Intifada
3 I N T E R N AT I O N A L
S T A T E M E N T S
SOVEREIGNTY: CLARIFICATION APPRECIATED
The statement by the Malaysian Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued on the 3rd of May 2010, helps to clarify the actual status of the two oil Blocks that have generated a great deal of concern among Malaysians in the last four days. We now know that Blocks L and M, which we assumed belonged to Malaysia, are “situated within Brunei’s maritime areas, over which Brunei is entitled to exercise sovereign rights under the relevant provision of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982(UNCLOS 1982).” What this means, in simple language, is that under international law it is Brunei that has sovereignty over Blocks L and M, which coincide with Brunei’s Blocks J and K.
On the whole, the Exchange of Letters between former Prime Minister, Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, and the Sultan of Brunei, appears to have taken into account the interests of both countries. The establishment of a Commercial Arrangement Area (CAA) incorporating the two blocks provides for a sharing of revenues from oil and gas exploration between the two countries. The agreement also contains principles pertaining to the demarcation of maritime and land boundaries between the two countries which had remained unresolved for 20 years. If the Ministry of Foreign Affairs had come out with a clarification as soon as the issue erupted, the Malaysian public might have reacted differently. It is a pity that neither Petronas, nor Tun Abdullah nor Prime Minister
Mohd. Najib alluded to the Law of the Sea in their comments on the status of the Blocks. Former Prime Minister, Dr. Mahathir Mohamad himself, who was the first to highlight the question of our sovereign rights over the oil blocks in his blog posting, should have given due consideration to the question of international law. Based upon Dr. Mahathir’s comment, I had criticised the ceding of our sovereign rights over oil to Brunei in a statement on the 1st of May 2010. I was wrong. I am glad that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs has tried to convey the true picture. Dr. Chandra Muzaffar, President, International Movement for a Just World (JUST). 4 May, 2010.
ALLEGATIONS ABOUT ISRAELI INFILTRATION A THOROUGH PROBE The International Movement for a Just World (JUST) welcomes the probe by four bodies into the allegations made by Opposition Leader, Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, about Israeli agents infiltrating Bukit Aman. Infiltration by any foreign agent or element into the sanctum sanctorum of a nation’s internal security system — the nation’s police force — is a grave violation of its national sovereignty and integrity. When that infiltration has been allegedly carried out by agents of a state with whom Malaysia has no diplomatic relations, the matter assumes even greater seriousness. This is why one hopes that the probe being conducted by the police, the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC), the National Security Council and a parliamentary select committee, will be thorough and detailed. The whole truth should be made known to the public. Once the probe is completed, the Home Minister, Datuk Seri
Hishammuddin Tun Hussein, should make a comprehensive Ministerial Statement in parliament. Total transparency and accountability is particularly critical in this instance because the allegations have come from an individual who has close and extensive ties with leading champions of Israeli and Zionist interests in politics, in finance, in the media, and in tertiary education. No other Malaysian politician has forged such a relationship with individuals of the likes of Paul Wolfowitz, the former US Deputy Secretary of Defence and ex- President of the World Bank, who fervently believes that Israeli military dominance and power in the Middle East serves US interests. One of the principal advocates of the invasion and occupation of Iraq in furtherance of Israeli goals in the region, Wolfowitz was described by Anwar as his “great friend,” a person in whom he has “faith,” in a speech in the US on 19 June 2006.
Why should a man with such links want to expose so-called Israeli infiltration into our police force? Is it because he is trying to regain support from his Malay-Muslim constituency-- a constituency that has become increasingly disillusioned with his politics? Is it an attempt to divert attention from his sodomy trial which may raise questions about his moral conduct? Or, is it because Anwar is incensed that a Washington lobbyist and public relations corporation by the name of Apco — with quite a few former Israeli diplomats and retired military chieftains on its advisory panel — has managed to turn the tables on him, and has succeeded in projecting a positive image of Prime Minister Mohd Najib and the Malaysian government in the US and elsewhere? Whatever the motive, the four party probe should be able to provide us with some answers. Chandra Muzaffar, 15 April, 2010.
4 I N T E R N AT I O N A L
A R T I C L E S
ARTICLES BLAIR HIDES
TO AVOID INDICTMENT By Perdana Global Peace Organisation
War criminal Tony Blair, the keynote speaker at the National Achievers Conference organized by Success Resources, a sycophant Singapore outfit at the Sunway Pyramid Convention Centre in Kuala Lumpur, hid in fear at the threat that members of the Malaysian anti-war NGOs would throw slippers at him and that members of the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission would serve an indictment for war crimes. Extensive security measures were put in place before his arrival for the three day event. For the first time, delegates to the conference had no itinerary of the speakers invited to speak at the convention. Organizers and delegates were not even told when speakers were scheduled to speak. There was a total black out! Delegates have to wear a special wrist band for the entire duration of the convention for identification purposes and anyone without the security wrist band was not allowed to enter the vicinity of the convention hall. Acting Chairman of the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission Zainur Zakaria, Chief Prosecutor of the War Crimes Commission Matthias Chang, two members of the Perdana Global Peace Organisation (PGPO) Ram Karthigasu and Christopher Chang, a representative of the Malaysian Kwong Siew Association (one of the largest Chinese clan association in the country) Elvis Ng and two representatives of the Iraq Community in Malaysia Associate Prof. Dr Mahmoud Khalid Mahmoud Almsafir and Prof. Dr Khalid A.S. Alkhateeb evaded the security by registering themselves as participants. At 8.30 am, members of more than 50 NGOs and their affiliates gathered at the entrance of the convention centre to protest against the visit of war criminal Blair. Undercover teams were dispatched to the three separate entrances to confront and attempt to serve the war crime indictment on Blair. But he could not be seen entering the convention centre. He had entered surreptitiously and was hiding in a VIP room just above the convention hall where the function was held. His original schedule was 10.00am this morning. But organisers
issued statements that no schedule is available. British and Malaysian security officers were seen patrolling the corridors and had identified the seven War Crimes Commission delegates who were waiting for Blair. They kept a close watch on the delegates. They tried to mislead the Commission members by spreading rumours that Blair would not be speaking today. Hints were given that Blair would be speaking on Sunday in the hope that the seven delegates would abandon their vigil. At 11.25am, the seven delegates discovered that Blair was hiding in the VIP room just above the convention hall. They took their positions, with three members tasked with taking photographs. At 11.30am Blair and his security team descended from the VIP room and walked towards the VIP entrance of the convention hall. Chang and Zainur rushed forward to serve the indictment, while the Iraqi representatives loudly denounced Blair – “mass murderer, war criminal, shame on you”, repeatedly. Blair was obviously unsettled and put on an embarrassed smile. Chang and Zainur were prevented from handing the indictment to Blair by over 30 British and Malaysian security personnel. Both of them denounced Blair within earshot, “War criminal, shame on you! Mass Murderer”! Zainur also shouted at the Malaysian security personnel, “Why are you protecting a war criminal”? The security officers could only respond with a silly expression. Having arrogantly told the Chilcot Inquiry in London that he had no regrets for invading Iraq notwithstanding there were no WMDs, Blair displayed cowardice in face of only seven delegates from the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission. The Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission stated that this is only the beginning of a global campaign to ostracise war criminals like Blair and George Bush and urge people the world over to adopt similar campaign against Bush and Blair. While the seven delegates were attempting to serve the indictment to Blair
inside the convention centre, members of NGOs carried banners and placards condemning Blair and the organizers as well as sponsors for the events. Banners which were in Bahasa Malaysia, English and Chinese, representing the different races involved in the protest, displayed bold words which called Blair a war criminal and mass murderer who was responsible for the death of one million Iraqis. There were also banners telling Blair that he was not welcome on Malaysian soil. One also condemned the Malaysian sponsors, saying they were shameless for bringing in a war criminal to talk on achievement when Blair’s only achievement was to cause the death of a million Iraqis, including women and children. A Malaysian sponsor, the NTV7, a television station under the Media Prima Group stable, which was listed by the organisers as the event’s official media, had pulled out two days ago and distanced itself from the event. A sizeable number of Iraqis living in Malaysia made their presence felt with many bringing along their spouses and children to join the protest. They also took the opportunity to join the Malaysian NGOs to step and trample on Blair’s posters and they threw slippers at a banner displaying Blair’s mug shot. The demonstration was initiated by the Perdana Global Peace Organisation (PGPO) which is under the leadership of former Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad. It is strongly backed by Perkasa and the Malaysian Kwong Siew Association. Perkasa president Datuk Ibrahim Ali and the Kwong Siew Association president Michael Ho were both present to support the protest. Ibrahim and Michael Ho were also involved in attempting to serve the indictment to Blair but they were not allowed to enter the convention centre and they managed to pass the indictment to a representative. 24 April, 2010 Issued by the Perdana Global Peace Organisation (PGPO), Kuala Lumpur
5 I N T E R N AT I O N A L
A R T I C L E S
SANCTIONS AGAINST IRAN AN ACT OF WAR By Ron Paul Statement on Motion to Instruct Conferees on HR 2194, Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability and Divestment Act - April 22, 2010 Mr. Speaker I rise in opposition to this motion to instruct House conferees on HR 2194, the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability and Divestment Act, and I rise in strong opposition again to the underlying bill and to its Senate version as well. I object to this entire push for war on Iran, however it is disguised. Listening to the debate on the Floor on this motion and the underlying bill it feels as if we are back in 2002 all over again: the same falsehoods and distortions used to push the United States into a disastrous and unnecessary one trillion dollar war on Iraq are being trotted out again to lead us to what will likely be an even more disastrous and costly war on Iran. The parallels are astonishing. We hear war advocates today on the Floor scare-mongering about reports that in one year Iran will have missiles that can hit the United States. Where have we heard this bombast before? Anyone remember the claims that Iraqi drones were going to fly over the United States and attack us? These “drones” ended up being pure propaganda – the UN chief
weapons inspector concluded in 2004 that there was no evidence that Saddam Hussein had ever developed unpiloted drones for use on enemy targets. Of course by then the propagandists had gotten their war so the truth did not matter much. We hear war advocates on the floor today arguing that we cannot afford to sit around and wait for Iran to detonate a nuclear weapon. Where have we heard this before? Anyone remember thenSecretary of State Condoleeza Rice’s oftrepeated quip about Iraq: that we cannot wait for the smoking gun to appear as a mushroom cloud. We need to see all this for what it is: Propaganda to speed us to war against Iran for the benefit of special interests. Let us remember a few important things. Iran, a signatory of the Nuclear NonProliferation Treaty, has never been found in violation of that treaty. Iran is not capable of enriching uranium to the necessary level to manufacture nuclear weapons. According to the entire US Intelligence Community, Iran is not currently working on a nuclear weapons program. These are facts, and to point them out does not make one a supporter or fan of the Iranian regime. Those
THE PEAK OIL CRISIS: THE ERUPTION
pushing war on Iran will ignore or distort these facts to serve their agenda, though, so it is important and necessary to point them out. Some of my well-intentioned colleagues may be tempted to vote for sanctions on Iran because they view this as a way to avoid war on Iran. I will ask them whether the sanctions on Iraq satisfied those pushing for war at that time. Or whether the application of ever-stronger sanctions in fact helped war advocates make their case for war on Iraq: as each round of new sanctions failed to “work” – to change the regime – war became the only remaining regime-change option. This legislation, whether the House or Senate version, will lead us to war on Iran. The sanctions in this bill, and the blockade of Iran necessary to fully enforce them, are in themselves acts of war according to international law. A vote for sanctions on Iran is a vote for war against Iran. I urge my colleagues in the strongest terms to turn back from this unnecessary and counterproductive march to war. 24 April, 2010 Congressman Ron Paul is a member of the United States House of Representatives Source: Countercurrents.org
By Tom Whipple A number of years back we were traveling along the southern coast of Iceland when in a small fishing village I noticed what appeared to be air raid sirens affixed to poles. As it was difficult to imagine that the Russians, even at their most belligerent, were planning a tactical air strike on a handful of fishermen's cottages in the middle of the North Atlantic, I inquired of our guide as to the sirens' purpose. To my surprise I was told that just up the valley was an enormous glacier sitting on top of an equally enormous, but temporarily dormant, volcano. Should the sirens sound it meant that the volcano was erupting and we should run for the highest mountain in sight and start climbing for our lives before a tsunami of newly melted glacier came roaring down the valley and swept us all into the sea.
The eruption of the Eyjafjallajokull volcano last week and the subsequent halting of air traffic for five days across Europe serve as a reminder of how vulnerable our civilizations remain to forces of nature despite our seeming mastery of fossil fuels. The last time Eyjafjallajokull erupted was in 1821-1823 and the eruptions continued for over a year. Even more alarming is that 60 years later a sister Icelandic volcano called Laki erupted for 8 months. It sent 3.4 cubic miles of lava, 8 million tons of hydrogen fluoride and 120 million tons of sulfur dioxide into the air. This eruption created environmental havoc around the earth for many years. In Britain, some 30,000 were killed by the toxic gases and in many countries still more perished from
the extremes of heat and cold. There were famines in Europe, Africa and the Far East. North America underwent one of the longest and coldest winters on record with the Mississippi freezing down to New Orleans and ice forming in the Gulf of Mexico. Such is the power of a large volcanic eruption. Scientists tell us that the melting of Iceland's glaciers reduces pressure on the rock and allows the "hotspot" of magna below the island to break through more frequently. Thus the long term trend, even in excruciating slow geologic time of course, is for increasing volcanic activity over the Icelandic "hot spot."
continued next page
6 I N T E R N AT I O N A L
continued from page 5 As with the droughts in China and Venezuela, the returns are not yet in on how much damage Iceland's eruption of 2010 will ultimately cause. Volcanologists have no basis, other than past precedents, for estimating whether the eruptions will last for days, weeks, or months. History, however, seems to suggest that the current crater will not develop into anything approaching the eruptions of Laki in 934
AD and 1783 which are the two largest eruptions in terms of ash ejection in the last 1,000 years. There is however still another nearby volcano called Katla which has a history of erupting in sympathy with Eyjafjallajokull. So far Katla is showing no signs of activity, but should it erupt, it is likely to be far more dangerous and cause much more disruption than we are currently witnessing. While Eyjafjallajokull is still erupting vigorously, the ash is no longer being blown as high into the air and much of the magna is being ejected in the form of molten lava which does not threaten European air space. However, should the volcano resume spewing ash high into the
atmosphere for an extended period, there will obviously be serious economic disruptions - first in Europe and eventually all over the world. Patterns of energy demand will be affected and slowing economic activity could temporarily reduce the demand for oil products. In the last week some 100,000 flights were cancelled and the demand for jet fuel fell by two thirds. Europe typically uses some 1.2 million barrels a day (b/d) of jet fuel not counting the fuel loaded on long-haul flights bound for European destinations from around the world. Should restrictions on flying over Europe have to be reinstated for an extended period, the reduction in demand would clearly impact the global consumption of oil which has recently been forecast in increase substantially in 2010. An equally important aspect of a significant reduction in flying over Europe is the impact on the general level of global economic activity. Already the fresh food business which relies on air transport to move produce to market has been severely impacted as has air freight in general. Overnight deliveries of documents, small packages, and parts have already been severely hampered and in a few cases have forced factories to close. The past week has shown that even small volcanic eruptions in Iceland can do serious economic damage across Europe. Losses in the first five days of restricted air travel are currently estimated to be on the order of $1.2 billion and are likely to
A R T I C L E S grow as the travel situation will take many weeks to return to normal. Without frequent and reliable air transport, discretionary travel is likely to fall precipitously. After the hundreds of thousands of travelers who are currently caught in distant lands by the eruption have made their way home, much of the global tourist industry is likely to suffer until the eruptions cease. The nature, extent, and duration of business travel will change significantly so long as air travel is restricted. The bottom line of the last few weeks is that there will be many more factors shaping the end of the oil age than a simple geologic reduction in the amount of oil that can be pumped. We already know about "above ground factors" such as wars, nationalism, lack of investment, and their affect on global oil production and the price of oil products. It is now becoming apparent that Mother Nature in the form of droughts, earthquakes, hurricanes and erupting volcanoes is likely to have a significant voice in how the oil age ends too. 22 April, 2010 Tom Whipple is one of the most highly respected analysts of peak oil issues in the United States. A retired CIA analyst who has been following the peak oil story since 1999, Tom is the editor of the daily Peak Oil News and the weekly Peak Oil Review Source: Counter Currents, originally published April 21, 2010 at Fall Church News-Press
THE FIRST FIVE YEARS OF THE GLOBAL ARTICLE 9 CAMPAIGN By Jay Gilliam The Global Article 9 Campaign is celebrating its fifth anniversary this year! During that time, the Campaign has been successfully promoting peace constitutions and advocating for the abolition of war in Japan and around the world. To commemorate this fifth anniversary, throughout this year we will be looking back on the start of the Global Article 9 Campaign and how it has changed since 2005. Below is the excerpt of an interview on the Campaign's beginnings and evolution with Kawasaki Akira, Executive Committee Member of Peace
Boat and Secretary General of the Japan Organizing Committee of Global Article 9 Conference to Abolish War held in May 2008. Question: How did the idea of the campaign emerge? Kawasaki: The campaign began in 2005, I remember, at the occasion of the global conference of the NGO network the Global Partnership for the Prevention of Armed Conflict. It is an international NGO network starting from 2002 and focusing on how to prevent armed conflict and how to
shape the focus in the security debate from reaction of the conflict to prevention of the conflict. In that, global NGOs and Northeast Asian NGOs gathered and discussed ways to prevent armed conflicts, and in that discussion, many groups that participated from outside of Japan recognized the value of the Japanese Article 9 in that character of nonmilitarism, non-violence, and the action agenda adopted by the network formally recognized the value of Article 9 as the foundation of Asia/Pacific continued next page
7 I N T E R N AT I O N A L
continued from page 6 peace. I was part of that process, and we Japanese members were so inspired in the discussion, because usually we thought that Article 9 was a domestic, legal, political issue. But it was a fresh experience for us to hear very positive remarks about our Article 9 from the international and global scope. So, inspired by that, we discussed with colleagues, especially in Northeast Asia, neighboring countries, and NGO groups and launched that campaign.
Question: Initially, what were the core mission, issues and goals of the Campaign? Kawasaki: Very simply: globalizing Article 9. The concept of Article 9 was the core mission. To make Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution known to the people of the world, literally known to the people in the world, was one mission. Also, to share its spirit, for example, peaceful settlement of disputes and peaceful prevention of disputes. And also shifting resource allocation from military to human needs and highlighting the rights to live in peace. And, lastly, creating international peace mechanisms made from non-military ways. Those concepts and spirits we shared and implemented by countries in the world. That's the core mission. Question: How has the Campaign evolved and changed since its inception? Kawasaki: I think at the starting point it was a very Asia/Pacific focused initiative. But as time goes by and as it progresses, especially in the process of having the Article 9 conference in 2008, where nearly 200 participants from more than 40 countries gathered, it has become truly global and not limited to an Asia/Pacific focus. In the Asia/ Pacific focus, the discussion tends to become how to curb Japanese militarization. It is one very important point. But by having, let's say Latin American participation or European participation or even African participation, the scope became really diverse and deep and really global. Question: Why do you think it is important to focus on peace constitutions?
Kawasaki: Because it's getting more and more relevant in the contemporary world. Because we see increasing failures by traditional militaristic approaches to solutions to the world. Look at Iraq. Look at Afghanistan. All of those, or the War on Terror. Nearly a decade has passed since the US start of the War on Terror, but we see increases of the terrorism, increases of the violence. So, the people are realizing that this approach is not the best solution and more and more military spending is questionable, especially in light of this serious economic recession. So, as an alternative to this political and economic trend in the first decade of the 21st century, having a peace constitution is important not from a legal perspective but rather for presenting an alternative to the political and economic system of the world. Question: When you talk about peace constitutions, what do you mean? Kawasaki: It's a very broad concept, but any constitution that refers to peace can be said to be a peace constitution. Some people in Japan say that the Japanese peace constitution is the peace constitution because, it's true that the Japanese peace constitution is very strict because it does not allow use of force in general. For example, when we look at the Ecuadorian constitution, it is talking about the ban of foreign military bases, but not its own military base. Its own military base is allowed. Or for example, if we talk about the Italian constitution, Article 11 refers to the non-aggression, and Korean constitution also refers to non-aggression, so it is similar to (Japan's) Article 9.1, which refers to non-aggression. But we have section 2 of renouncing armed forces. So, some people criticize Italian or Korean's (as) really limited, but I would say that all of those should be included as peace constitutions and should be diverse versions and all united as, you can say, peace constitutions. Question: With that said, do you have an ideal type of peace constitution, and if you do, what is it?
A R T I C L E S
Kawasaki: My sense is that I don't want to have such kind of legal approach, because I think the peace constitution process is important. I think each constitution should have some shortages. Maybe the Japanese is very good in the text, but the biggest shortage in the Japanese constitution is the gap with the reality, as you know. So, it's very easy to criticize the Japanese constitution from that perspective. Even pointing out that gap, I still see the value in the Japanese constitution. How to broaden that class style or compilation of fragmented constitutions where each of them has shortages. Broadening them as an international movement to increase and deepen the peace constitution is very important, so I don't want to take such an approach to identify or define the best peace constitution. Question: Ok, so what should be the minimum traits or characteristics of a peace constitution? Kawasaki: The minimum characteristics should be to deny or to seriously doubt militaristic approach(es) to the problems of the country or the problems of the world. That's the minimum part. 1 April, 2010 This interview is part of a series of interviews with leaders, supporters, and conference participants of the Global Article 9 Campaign conducted by former Peace Boat and Global Article 9 Campaign intern Jay Gilliam. Jay Gilliam is currently carrying out research on the Global Article 9 Campaign and peace constitutions around the world. He is enrolled in a Master's Program in Peace Studies & Conflict Resolution at International Christian University in Tokyo, Japan.
8 I N T E R N AT I O N A L
A R T I C L E S
NUCLEAR TERRORISM AND NUCLEAR WEAPONS: THE ROLE OF RELIGION By Chandra Muzaffar In some circles, ‘nuclear terrorism’ is linked to the acquisition, possession, proliferation and utilization of nuclear weapons by terrorists. However, for the victims of a nuclear attack, it does not matter whether the perpetrator is a terrorist organization, or a state that possesses nuclear weapons. A nuclear attack is nuclear terrorism. The harrowing accounts of some of the survivors of the bomb attacks upon Hiroshima and Nagasaki, — the Hibakusha — are testimony to the terror that griped the citizens of these two Japanese cities on 6 and 9 August 1945. One such Hibakusha, Setsuko Thurlow, who was then a 13 year-old schoolgirl in Hiroshima, narrates how her schoolmates “were incinerated and vaporized without a trace…” And the perpetrator of that terror was not a conventional terrorist. It was the United States of America. This is why the attempt to present the acquisition of nuclear weapons by terrorists as a much greater threat to humanity than the possession of nuclear weapons by states, is fallacious. Both portend calamity. While no terror outfit has as yet gained access to nuclear weapons, there are at least eight or nine nuclear weapons’ states. Apart from the fact that it is a state that had deployed its nuclear arsenal with devastating consequences on two occasions, it is also a state that has allegedly threatened to flex its nuclear muscle on at least four occasions. Besides, if terrorist networks seek nuclear weapons, it is because there are a few states that monopolize nuclear weapons. Indeed, it is because there is a nuclear states’ club, that other states are also determined to acquire the capability to produce nuclear weapons. What this means is that the only way to curb the proliferation of nuclear
weapons, including their spread to terrorist groups, is to eliminate all nuclear weapons. That there is no alternative to complete and comprehensive nuclear disarmament is a hackneyed cliché that is worth repeating over and over again. In this regard, the New Start (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty) signed between the US and Russia in Prague on 8 April 2010 which pares down their arsenals to 1,550 warheads each is a modest step forward. At the 47 nation nuclear summit hosted by the US, its president, Barack Obama, renewed his pledge to work towards a world without nuclear weapons. He sees it as a quest that will go beyond his generation. Perhaps this is the right moment for citizens’ groups all over the world to accelerate and expedite the mobilization of the masses for a global campaign for total disarmament. A signature campaign that targets millions of people may be an idea worth pursuing. The signatures could be presented to governments and the United Nations. Groups that have been conducting such campaigns on the nuclear issue, and on other issues, should come together to plan this mass mobilization. Our expanding gamut of information and communication technologies (ICT) could play a major role in this endeavor. Total disarmament is part of the UN Convention on Nuclear Security proposed by the Prime Minister of Malaysia, Najib Razak, at the recent nuclear summit in Washington. A UN Convention would presumably make the elimination of all nuclear weapons the responsibility of the entire global community and not just a matter to be resolved through bilateral negotiations between nuclear powers. It should not only provide for the effective monitoring of the disarmament process but also prohibit
the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons. At the same time however the Convention should reiterate the right of all nations, big and small, to harness nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. For the Convention to succeed, and for nuclear disarmament to become a reality, one has to draw upon a resource that has seldom been utilized in the quest for a nuclear weapons free world. This is religion. It is potentially a powerful resource since more than 80 percent of the world’s population is attached to some religion or other. Besides, religion has a greater capacity to change an individual’s outlook and attitude than most other instruments of transformation. The values and principles embodied in all our religions suggest that the manufacture and deployment of nuclear weapons is an unconscionable act. From an Islamic perspective for instance there are at least three reasons why nuclear weapons are morally reprehensible. One, they kill indiscriminately: the vast majority of the victims are bound to be civilians. Two, they harm and injure unborn generations, as we have seen in the progeny of some of the Hibakusha. Three, nuclear weapons devastate the physical environment. Of course, there are Muslim jurists, just as there are Christian, Jewish, Hindu and Buddhist theologians who endorse nuclear weapons. Their stance is influenced more by power and ego than by the enduring humane and compassionate values and principles that lie at the heart of their faiths. On the nuclear question, as with many other issues of great import that confront us today, it is these values and principles that should triumph. 19 April, 2010.
9 I N T E R N AT I O N A L
A R T I C L E S
TEN REASONS EAST JERUSALEM DOES NOT BELONG TO JEWISH-ISRAELIS By Juan Cole Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu told the American Israel Public Affairs Council on Monday that "Jerusalem is not a settlement." He continued that the historical connection between the Jewish people and the land of Israel cannot be denied. He added that neither could the historical connection between the Jewish people and Jerusalem. He insisted, "The Jewish people were building Jerusalem 3,000 years ago and the Jewish people are building Jerusalem today." He said, "Jerusalem is not a settlement. It is our capital." He told his applauding audience of 7500 that he was simply following the policies of all Israeli governments since the 1967 conquest of Jerusalem in the Six Day War. Netanyahu mixed together Romanticnationalist clichĂŠs with a series of historically false assertions. But even more important was everything he left out of the history, and his citation of his warped and inaccurate history instead of considering laws, rights or common human decency toward others not of his ethnic group. So here are the reasons that Netanyahu is profoundly wrong, and East Jerusalem does not belong to him. 1. In international law, East Jerusalem is occupied territory, as are the parts of the West Bank that Israel unilaterally annexed to its district of Jerusalem. The Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 and the Hague Regulations of 1907 forbid occupying powers to alter the lifeways of civilians who are occupied, and forbid the settling of people from the occupiers' country in the occupied territory. Israel's expulsion of Palestinians from their homes in East Jerusalem, its usurpation of Palestinian property there, and its settling of Israelis on Palestinian land are all gross violations of international law. Israeli claims that they are not occupying Palestinians because the Palestinians have no state are cruel and tautological. Israeli claims that they are building on empty territory are laughable. My back yard is empty, but that does not give Netanyahu the right to put up an apartment complex on it.
2. Israeli governments have not in fact been united or consistent about what to do with East Jerusalem and the West Bank, contrary to what Netanyahu says. The Galili Plan for settlements in the West Bank was adopted only in 1973. Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin gave undertakings as part of the Oslo Peace Process to withdraw from Palestinian territory and grant Palestinians a state, promises for which he was assassinated by the Israeli far right (elements of which are now supporting Netanyahu's government). As late as 2000, then Prime Minister Ehud Barak claims that he gave oral assurances that Palestinians could have almost all of the West Bank and could have some arrangement by which East Jerusalem could be its capital. Netanyahu tried to give the impression that far rightwing Likud policy on East Jerusalem and the West Bank has been shared by all previous Israeli governments, but this is simply not true. 3. Romantic nationalism imagines a "people" as eternal and as having an eternal connection with a specific piece of land. This way of thinking is fantastic and mythological. Peoples are formed and change and sometimes cease to be, though they might have descendants who abandoned that religion or ethnicity or language. Human beings have moved all around and are not directly tied to any territory in an exclusive way, since many groups have lived on most pieces of land. Jerusalem was not founded by Jews, i.e. adherents of the Jewish religion. It was founded between 3000 BCE and 2600 BCE by a West Semitic people or possibly the Canaanites, the common ancestors of Palestinians, Lebanese, many Syrians and Jordanians, and many Jews. But when it was founded Jews did not exist. 4. Jerusalem was founded in honor of the ancient god Shalem. It does not mean City of Peace but rather 'built-up place of Shalem." 5. The "Jewish people" were not building Jerusalem 3000 years ago, i.e. 1000 BCE. First of all, it is not clear when exactly Judaism as a religion centered on the worship of the one God took firm
form. It appears to have been a late development since no evidence of worship of anything but ordinary Canaanite deities has been found in archeological sites through 1000 BCE. There was no invasion of geographical Palestine from Egypt by former slaves in the 1200s BCE. The pyramids had been built much earlier and had not used slave labor. The chronicle of the events of the reign of Ramses II on the wall in Luxor does not know about any major slave revolts or flights by same into the Sinai peninsula. Egyptian sources never heard of Moses or the 12 plagues & etc. Jews and Judaism emerged from a certain social class of Canaanites over a period of centuries inside Palestine. 6. Jerusalem not only was not being built by the likely then non-existent "Jewish people" in 1000 BCE, but Jerusalem probably was not even inhabited at that point in history. Jerusalem appears to have been abandoned between 1000 BCE and 900 BCE, the traditional dates for the united kingdom under David and Solomon. So Jerusalem was not 'the city of David,' since there was no city when he is said to have lived. No sign of magnificent palaces or great states has been found in the archeology of this period, and the Assyrian tablets, which recorded even minor events throughout the Middle East, such as the actions of Arab queens, don't know about any great kingdom of David and Solomon in geographical Palestine. 7. Since archeology does not show the existence of a Jewish kingdom or kingdoms in the so-called First Temple Period, it is not clear when exactly the Jewish people would have ruled Jerusalem except for the Hasmonean Kingdom. The Assyrians conquered Jerusalem in 722. The Babylonians took it in 597 and ruled it until they were themselves conquered in 539 BCE by the Achaemenids of ancient Iran, who ruled Jerusalem until Alexander the Great took the Levant in the 330s BCE. Alexander's descendants, the Ptolemies ruled Jerusalem until 198 when Alexander's other descendants, the Seleucids, took the city. With the Maccabean Revolt in 168 BCE, the Jewish Hasmonean kingdom did rule Jerusalem until 37 BCE, though continued next page
10 I N T E R N AT I O N A L
continued from page 9 Antigonus II Mattathias, the last Hasmonean, only took over Jerusalem with the help of the Parthian dynasty in 40 BCE. Herod ruled 37 BCE until the Romans conquered what they called Palestine in 6 CE (CE= 'Common Era' or what Christians call AD). The Romans and then the Eastern Roman Empire of Byzantium ruled Jerusalem from 6 CE until 614 CE when the Iranian Sasanian Empire conquered it, ruling until 629 CE when the Byzantines took it back.
Jerusalem. It existed for perhaps 2700 years before anything we might recognize as Judaism arose. Jewish rule may have been no longer than 170 years or so, i.e., the kingdom of the Hasmoneans. 8. Therefore if historical building of Jerusalem and historical connection with Jerusalem establishes sovereignty over it as Netanyahu claims, here are the groups that have the greatest claim to the city:
A R T I C L E S under the Achaemenids, for three years under the Parthians (insofar as the last Hasmonean was actually their vassal), and for 15 years under the Sasanids. E. The Greeks, who ruled it for over 160 years if we count the Ptolemys and Seleucids as Greek. If we count them as Egyptians and Syrians, that would increase the Egyptian claim and introduce a Syrian one.
A. The Muslims, who ruled it and built it over 1191 years.
F. The successor states to the Byzantines, which could be either Greece or Turkey, who ruled it 188 years, though if we consider the heir to be Greece and
Crusaders conquered it. The Crusaders killed or expelled Jews and Muslims from the city. The Muslims under Saladin took it back in 1187 CE and allowed Jews to return, and Muslims ruled it until the end of World War I, or altogether for about 1192 years.
B. The Egyptians, who ruled it as a vassal state for several hundred years in the second millennium BCE.
add in the time the Hellenistic Greek dynasties ruled it, that would give Greece nearly 350 years as ruler of Jerusalem.
C. The Italians, who ruled it about 444 years until the fall of the Roman Empire in 450 CE.
Adherents of Judaism did not found
D. The Iranians, who ruled it for 205 years
G. There is an Iraqi claim to Jerusalem based on the Assyrian and Babylonian conquests, as well as perhaps the rule of the Ayyubids (Saladin's dynasty), who were Kurds from Iraq.
The Muslims conquered Jerusalem in 638 and ruled it until 1099 when the
WINNING THE LEGITIMACY : 9. Of course, JewsW areAR historically to Jerusalem by the Temple, WILL IT MATTER? connected whenever that connection is dated to. But ARE
By Richard Falk
Ever since the Balfour Declaration in 1917 gave the formal approval of the British government to the establishment of ‘a Jewish homeland’ profound issues of legitimacy were present in the conflict recently known as the Israel/Palestine Conflict. This original colonialist endorsement of the Zionist project has produced a steady erosion of the position of the Palestinian people on historic Palestine, which dramatically worsened over the course of the past 43 years of occupation of the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip. It has worsened due to an oppressive military occupation by Israel that involves fundamental denials of rights and pervasive violations of international humanitarian law, and because Israel has
been allowed to establish ‘facts on the ground,’ which are more properly viewed as violations of Palestinian rights, especially the establishment of extensive settlements and a separation wall constructed on occupied Palestinian territories in violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention. These developments have been flagrantly unlawful, and made the whole treatment of the Palestinian people illegitimate, as well as the occasion of continuous intense and pervasive suffering. For decades, the Palestinian political forces have exercised their right of resistance in various ways, including the extraordinary nonviolent Intifada of 1987, but also engaging in armed resistance in defense of their territory. The Palestinians definitely enjoy a right of
that link mostly was pursued when Jews resistance, were not inalthough politicalsubject controltoofthe thelimits city, of international humanitarian law, which under Iranian, Greek and Roman rule. It rules outtherefore deliberate cannot betargeting deployedoftocivilians make a and non-military targets. Such tactics of demand for political control of the whole resistance challenge Israel at its point of city. maximum comparative advantage due both to Jews its total militaryand dominance, 10. The of Jerusalem the rest of achieved in part by large subsidies from Palestine did not for the most part leave the United States, and to its ruthless after the failure of the Bar Kochba revolt disregard forRomans civilian innocence. against the in 136 CE. They continued to live there and to farm in In recent years, with Palestine underespecially Roman beginning rule and then the brutal experience of the Lebanon War Byzantine. They gradually converted to of 2006 and even more dramatically in Christianity. After 638 CE all but the 10 aftermath of the Israeli Invasion of Gaza percent gradually converted to Islam. The in 2008-09 (Dec. 27, 2008-Jan. 18, present-day Palestinians are2009), the there has been a notable of descendants of the ancientchange Jews and emphasis in Palestinian strategy. The new have every right to live where their continued next page ancestors have lived for centuries. PS: The sources are in the underlined hyperlinks, especially the Thompson
11 I N T E R N AT I O N A L
continued from page 10 strategy has been to initiate what might be described as a second war, ‘a legitimacy war,’ that is essentially based on the reliance on a variety of nonviolent tactics of resistance. Armed resistance has not been renounced by the Palestinians, but it has been displaced by this emphasis on nonviolent tactics. The essence of this legitimacy war is to cast doubt on several dimensions of Israeli legitimacy: its status as a moral and law abiding actor, as an occupying power in relation to the Palestinian people, and with respect to its willingness to respect the United Nations and abide by international law. Those that wage such a legitimacy war seek to seize the high moral ground in relation to the underlying conflict, and on this basis, gain support for a variety of coercive, but nonviolent, initiatives designed to put pressure on Israel, on governments throughout the world, and on the United Nations, to deny normal participatory rights to Israel as a member of international society. These tactics also aim to mobilize global civil society to exhibit solidarity with the Palestinian struggle to achieve legitimate rights, taking the principal form of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions Campaign (BDS) that operates throughout the entire world, which serves as a symbolic battlefield. But there are other forms of action, as well, including the Free Gaza Movement and Viva Palestina that aim specifically at symbolically breaking the blockade of food, medicine, and fuel imposed in mid-2007, a form of collective punishment that has caused great suffering for the entire 1.5 million population of the Gaza Strip, damaging the physical and mental health of all those living under occupation. Although the UN has been a failure so far as offering protection (beyond its essential role in providing humanitarian relief in Gaza) to the Palestinians under occupations or even in relation to the implementation of Palestinian rights under international law, it is a vital site of struggle in the legitimacy war. The whole storm unleashed by the Goldstone Report involves challenging the UN to impose accountability on the Israeli political and military leadership for their alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity associated with the Gaza attacks at the end of 2008. Even if the United States shields Israelis from accountability pursuant to the procedures of the UN,
including the International Criminal Court, the confirmation of allegations of criminality by the Goldstone Report is a major victory for the Palestinians in the legitimacy war, and lends credibility to calls for nonviolent initiatives throughout the world. The Goldstone Report also endorses ‘Universal Jurisdiction’ as a means to gain accountability, encouraging national criminal courts of any country to make use of their legal authority to hold Israeli political and military leaders criminally responsible for war crimes and crimes against humanity. Tzipi Livni, the current Kadima opposition leader in Israel, who had been Foreign Minister during the Gaza attacks, canceled a visit to Britain after she received word that a warrant for her arrest upon arrival had been issued. Even if Israeli impunity is not overcome, the authoritativeness of the Goldstone Report lends weight to calls around the world to disrupt normal relations with Israel by boycotting cultural and academic activities, by disrupting trade relations through divestment moves or through refusals to load and unload ships and planes carrying cargo to or from Israel, and by pressuring governments to impose economic sanctions. The historic inspiration for this legitimacy war is the anti-apartheid campaign waged with such success against the racist regime that ruled South Africa during the late 1980s and early 1990s. Undoubtedly the Palestinian political motivation to focus their energies on waging a legitimacy war came from a variety of sources: disillusionment with efforts by the UN and the United States to find a just solution for the conflict; realization that armed resistance could not produce a Palestinian victory and played into the hands of Israeli diversionary tactics by making ‘terrorism’ the issue; recognizing that the events in Lebanon and Gaza generated throughout the world widespread anger against Israel and sympathy for the Palestinians, which is gradually weakening earlier European and North American deference to Israel due to Jewish victimization in the Holocaust; and a growing sense that the worldwide Palestinian diaspora communities and their allies could be enlisted to join in the struggle if its essential nature was that of a legitimacy war. Israeli official and unofficial support groups have recently recognized the threat posed to their expansionist settler
A R T I C L E S colonial grand strategy by this recourse by Palestinians to a legitimacy war. Israeli think tanks have described ‘the global justice movement’ associated with these tactics as a greater threat to Israel than Palestinian violence, and have even castigated reliance on international law as a dangerous form of ‘lawfare.’ The Israeli Government and Zionist organizations around the world have joined in the battle through a massive investment in public relations activities that include propaganda efforts to discredit what is sometimes called ‘the Durban approach.’ As with other Israeli tactics, in their defensive approach to the legitimacy war, there is an absence of selfcriticism involving an assessment of Palestinian substantive claims under international law. For Israel a legitimacy war is a public relations issue pure and simple, a matter of discrediting the adversary and proclaiming national innocence and virtue. Despite its huge advantage in resources devoted to this campaign, Israel is definitely losing the legitimacy war. Even if the Palestinians win the legitimacy war there is no guaranty that this victory will produce the desired political results. It requires Palestinian patience, resolve, leadership, and vision, as well as sufficient pressure to force a change of heart in Israel, and probably in Washington as well. In this instance, it would seem to require an Israeli willingness to abandon the core Zionist project to establish a Jewish state, and that does not appear likely from the vantage point of the present. But always the goals of a legitimacy war appear to be beyond reach until mysteriously attained by the abrupt and totally unexpected surrender by the losing side. Until it collapses the losing side pretends to be unmovable and invincible, a claim that is usually reinforced by police and military dominance. This is what happened in the Soviet Union and South Africa, earlier to French colonial rule in Indochina and Algeria, and to the United States in Vietnam. It is up to all of us dedicated to peace and justice to do all we can to help the Palestinians prevail in the legitimacy war and bring their long ordeal to an end. 23 March, 2010. Richard Falk is one of the world’s leading analysts of International Politics. He is a member of JUST’s International Advisory Panel (IAP).
P.O BOX 288 Jalan Sultan 46730 Petaling Jaya Selangor Darul Ehsan MALAYSIA www.just-international.org
The International Movement for a Just World is a nonprofit international citizensâ€™ organisation which seeks to create public awareness about injustices within the existing global system. It also attempts to develop a deeper understanding of the struggle for social justice and human dignity at the global level, guided by universal spiritual and moral values. In furtherance of these objectives, JUST has undertaken a number of activities including conducting research, publishing books and monographs, organising conferences and seminars, networking with groups and individuals and participating in public campaigns. JUST has friends and supporters in more than 130 countries and cooperates actively with other organisations which are committed to similar objectives in different parts of the world.
INTERNATIONAL MOVEMENT FOR A JUST WORLD (JUST)
Bayaran Pos Jelas Postage Paid Pejabat Pos Besar Kuala Lumpur Malaysia No. WP 1385
About the International Movement for a Just World (JUST)
It would be much appreciated if you could share this copy of the JUST Commentary with a friend or relative. Better still invite him/her to write to JUST so that we can put his/her name on our Commentary mailing list.
Please donate to JUST by Postal Order or Cheque addressed to: International Movement for a Just World P.O. Box 288, Jalan Sultan, 46730, Petaling Jaya, Selangor Darul Ehsan, Malaysia or direct to our bank account: Account No. 5141 9633 1748 Malayan Banking Berhad, Damansara Utama Branch, 62-66 Jalan SS 21/35, Damansara Utama, 47400, Petaling Jaya, Selangor Darul Ehsan, MALAYSIA Malaysian Tax Exemption no. LHDN.01/35/42/51/179-6.5755 Donations from outside Malaysia should be made by Telegraphic Transfer or Bank Draft in USD$