just commentary may 2010

Vol 10, No.5 May 2010

STATEMENTS

THE INEXTINGUISHABLE FIRE

ARTICLES

OIL AND 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 ....................................................... P.3

By Perdana Global Peace Organisation ........ page 4

continued next page

By Dina Elmuti

By Tom Whipple ......................................... page 5

BLAIR HIDES TO AVOID INDICTMENT

By Chandra Muzaffar ................................... page 8

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.

“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

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

ARTICLES

By Ron Paul ............................................ page 5

THE PEAK OIL CRISIS: THE ERUPTION OF

EYJAFJALLAJOKULL

REFLECTING ON THE FIRST FIVE YEARS

OF THE GLOBAL ARTICLE 9 CAMPAIGN

NUCLEAR TERRORISM AND NUCLEAR

WEAPONS: THE ROLE OF RELIGION

By Kawasaki Akira ................................... page 6

TEN REASONS EAST JERUSALEM DOES NOT

BELONG TO JEWISH-ISRAELIS

By Juan Cole .............................................. page 9

THE PALESTINIANS ARE WINNING THE

LEGITIMACY WAR: WILL IT MATTER?SANCTIONS AGAINST IRAN AN ACT OF WAR

By Richard Falk ........................................ page10

I N T E R N A T I O N A L M O V E M E N T F O R A J U S T W O R L D

2

M A I N A R T I C L E

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

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

I N T E R N A T I O N A L M O V E M E N T F O R A J U S T W O R L D S T A T E M E N T S

3

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.

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.

ALLEGATIONS ABOUT ISRAELI INFILTRATION -

A THOROUGH PROBE

OIL AND SOVEREIGNTY: CLARIFICATION APPRECIATED

STATEMENTS


4

A R T I C L E S

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

BLAIR HIDES TO AVOID INDICTMENT

ARTICLES

By Perdana Global Peace Organisation


5

A R T I C L E S

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

SANCTIONS AGAINST IRAN AN ACT OF WAR

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 then-

Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice’s oft-

repeated 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 Non-

Proliferation 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

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

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. continued next page

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."

THE PEAK OIL CRISIS: THE ERUPTION OF EYJAFJALLAJOKULL

By Tom Whipple

By Ron Paul

A R T I C L E SI N T E R N A T I O N A L M O V E M E N T F O R A J U S T W O R L D

6

continued next page

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

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 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 non-

militarism, non-violence, and the action

agenda adopted by the network

formally recognized the value of Article

9 as the foundation of Asia/Pacific

THE FIRST FIVE YEARS OF THE GLOBAL ARTICLE 9 CAMPAIGN

By Jay Gilliam


A R T I C L E SI N T E R N A T I O N A L M O V E M E N T F O R A J U S T W O R L D

7

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?


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

A R T I C L E S

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.

NUCLEAR TERRORISM AND NUCLEAR WEAPONS:

THE ROLE OF RELIGION

By Chandra Muzaffar


9

A R T I C L E S

continued next page

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 Romantic-

nationalist clichés 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

TEN REASONS EAST JERUSALEM DOES NOT

BELONG TO JEWISH-ISRAELIS By Juan Cole

I N T E R N A T I O N A L M O V E M E N T F O R A J U S T W O R L D A R T I C L E S

10


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

resistance, although subject to the limits

of international humanitarian law, which

rules out deliberate targeting of civilians

and non-military targets. Such tactics of

resistance challenge Israel at its point of

maximum comparative advantage due

both to its total military dominance,

achieved in part by large subsidies from

the United States, and to its ruthless

disregard for civilian innocence.

In recent years, especially beginning with

the brutal experience of the Lebanon War

of 2006 and even more dramatically in the

aftermath of the Israeli Invasion of Gaza

in 2008-09 (Dec. 27, 2008-Jan. 18, 2009),

there has been a notable change of

emphasis in Palestinian strategy. The new

continued next page

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.

The Muslims conquered Jerusalem in 638

and ruled it until 1099 when the

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.

Adherents of Judaism did not found

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. The Muslims, who ruled it and built it

over 1191 years.

B. The Egyptians, who ruled it as a vassal

state for several hundred years in the

second millennium BCE.

C. The Italians, who ruled it about 444

years until the fall of the Roman Empire

in 450 CE.

D. The Iranians, who ruled it for 205 years

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.

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

add in the time the Hellenistic Greek

dynasties ruled it, that would give Greece

nearly 350 years as ruler of Jerusalem.

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.

9. Of course, Jews are historically

connected to Jerusalem by the Temple,

whenever that connection is dated to. But

that link mostly was pursued when Jews

were not in political control of the city,

under Iranian, Greek and Roman rule. It

cannot therefore be deployed to make a

demand for political control of the whole

city.

10. The Jews of Jerusalem and the rest of

Palestine did not for the most part leave

after the failure of the Bar Kochba revolt

against the Romans in 136 CE. They

continued to live there and to farm in

Palestine under Roman rule and then

Byzantine. They gradually converted to

Christianity. After 638 CE all but 10

percent gradually converted to Islam. The

present-day Palestinians are the

descendants of the ancient Jews and

have every right to live where their

ancestors have lived for centuries.

PS: The sources are in the underlined

hyperlinks, especially the Thompson

THE PALESTINIANS ARE WINNING THE LEGITIMACY WAR:

WILL IT MATTER?By Richard Falk

I N T E R N A T I O N A L M O V E M E N T F O R A J U S T W O R L D A R T I C L E S

11

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

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 self-

criticism 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).


INTERNATIONAL MOVEMENTFOR A JUST WORLD (JUST)P.O BOX 288Jalan Sultan46730 Petaling JayaSelangor Darul EhsanMALAYSIAwww.just-international.org

Bayaran Pos JelasPostage Paid

Pejabat Pos BesarKuala Lumpur

MalaysiaNo. WP 1385

The International Movement for a Just World isa nonprofit international citizens’ organisationwhich seeks to create public awareness aboutinjustices within the existing global system.It a lso attempts to develop a deeperunderstanding of the struggle for social justiceand human dignity at the global level, guided byuniversal spiritual and moral values.

In furtherance of these objectives, JUST hasundertaken a number of activities includingconducting research, publishing books andmonographs, organising conferences andseminars, networking with groups and individuals and participating in public campaigns.

JUST has friends and supporters in more than130 countries and cooperates actively withother organisations which are committed to

similar objectives in different parts of the world.

About the International Movement for aJust World (JUST)

It would be much appreciated if you

could share this copy of the JUST Com-

mentary with a friend or relative. Bet-

ter still invite him/her to write to JUST

so that we can put his/her name on our

Commentary mailing list.

TERBITAN BERKALA

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$

just commentary may 2010

Documents