The Ultimate Divide

And the Illusion of Armageddon

The recent events in Iran, Pakistan, Lebanon and even inside the United States, show that we are experiencing a deep divide in our world. You can see it and you can touch it. It affects elections like the ones we have recently seen in the U.S., Iran and Lebanon. It crosses boundaries of geography, ethnicity, religion or cultures. The new divide is not sectarian. We have seen in Lebanon that both the Hezbollah-led alliance and March 14 coalition both had Muslim and Christian factions as a part of each. This divide is not nationalistic. We have seen some right-wing American Neoconservatives publicly or secretly wishing that Ahmadinijad would win the elections so that a final confrontation between the U.S. and Iran would imminently draw near. Islamist fanatics also supported Ahmadinijad for what appears to be different reasons, but really it is because of the same motive. A quest for confrontation. A death wish for the bloodiest self-fulfilling prophecies of all time, Armageddon.

The new divide cuts deeply through our societies. It disrupts peaceful coexistence in our homelands and our world. It brings the threat of civil war closer to our towns and cities. It competes to control our media and our education systems. In one way, the new divide could be seen as being between the moderate and the traditional. The old and the new. Between the liberals and the conservatives. Between the fanatically religious and the secular. Between those who believe in changeable human laws and those who insist on following what they see as the timeless divine will of God. Between things we can debate and things which some consider to be unbound by time, place or logic. But ultimately, the divide is really between those who believe that our problems can be solved through dialogue, diplomacy, economic cooperation and even sanctions; and those who believe that war is inevitable. The divide is between those who believe that we, with all our differences can co-exist, and those who believe that it is either us or them. Between those who think that we can differ but still maintain amicable relations and those who think that either you are with us, the good, or you are against us siding with the axis of evil. The divide is between fear-mongers and promoters of xenophobia on one hand and those who simply believe that people are more or less the same everywhere on the other.

The national divide in Egypt, Lebanon or Iran is not a simple political disagreement within one agreed framework. It is often a disagreement on the nature of the framework which should govern agreements and disagreements. The debate in Washington about torture is not the result of a political disagreement. It represents a disagreement over a basic moral question, are the principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights truly universal? Do Geneva conventions apply equally to us and to others? Are they only binding for others or are they binding for all of us? The same divide occurred a few years ago in the over whether or not the United States has the right to invade Iraq, without a United Nations mandate or a consensus from the international community. The problems in Pakistan are not caused by a minority or an isolated rebel group, they represent a national divide between a large portion of the population who supports or at least sympathizes with Taliban with its extremist and violently confrontational ideology, and moderates who want to resolve conflict through peaceful means and dialogue.

Needless to say, that the absence of an effective and fair International Justice System, stands behind the widening of this divide and the empowerment of the extremist ideology. When peaceful means failed and failed for decades, violence started to be marketed as a potentially more successful alternative.

The clash of civilizations assumes that a country or a group of countries belong to a distinctive civilization. Funny enough, the new roles of globalization weaken the validity of such classification. The truth is that the clash is happening within each society. It is a clash of mindsets. A clash of values and personal ideologies. The ideological commonalities cut across societies just like global market segmentation takes place. The clash, therefore, can be more accurately seen as a clash between those who believe in tolerance, diplomacy, peaceful struggle and would only consider war as a last resort in self-defense on one hand and those who believe in exclusivity, violent confrontations and pre-emptive strikes on the other hand.

The reason why many Israeli settlers refuse to leave their illegal settlements is because they believe that this land has been promised to them by God. Many Muslims also believe that they must control Jerusalem because of other religious reasons. During the crusades, Christian warriors believed they had to reclaim the holy land. Too many promises for the same piece of land. Muslims, Christians and Jews sadly have come to believe in Armageddon. The final war where God rewards the righteous, the faithful and the virtuous and delivers victory to his chosen people. The trouble is, each party believes that they are the chosen people. As soon as an attack on Gaza takes place, Muslim mosque preachers of the Friday prayers start telling the stories of Armageddon and how "a rock will tell the faithful that an enemy Jew is hiding behind it, so that the faithful can slay that enemy." Funny enough, the idea of Armageddon had no mention in the Koran and was most likely borrowed by late interpreters from biblical sources. Some Jewish sects and more recently Zionist Christians also believe in Armageddon with different intentions, to say the least. On the way to Armageddon, Islamist extremists, right-wing Neocon extremists, Zionist extremists, do all go hand in hand, till they arrive to the battlefield of course, there it will be a different story of which no one will live to tell. Perhaps Armageddon was once necessary as a potent psychological mobilization mechanism for survival in the past. But times have changed. Armageddon has become the scariest self-fulfilling prophecy of all times. But the good news is, as much as it is self-fulfilling it also is surely self-defeating.

The idea that there is a chosen nation, or a chosen people, or children of God, despite being so deeply rooted in the religious beliefs of Muslims, Christians and Jews is self-defeating because it gives moral justification to the notion that some of us are better or "more equal than others". The struggle of who exactly is better will continue to fuel war and conflict till doom's day, AKA Armageddon. One thing is for sure, Man, by his very nature seeks equality and freedom and rejects bondage and inferior treatment. Thus, ideologies which favor one race, one nation or one religion can fuel wars for centuries, but because Man ultimately seeks peace, safety, comfort and prosperity, these ideas are at the end self-defeating.

Armageddon, at least in the way it is currently being taught, is an illusion. Not because wars will never happen. Unfortunately we will witness wars every now and then. But the idea that Armageddon is a final war whereby one religion or one people will win an ultimate victory, military or otherwise, and then reign supreme happily ever after, as the world witnesses "the end of history", will just never happen. Wars, straight or asymmetric will just continue to erupt until a world order of equality and justice is established. Man will always seek freedom, dignity and equality and this will ultimately defeat Nazism, fascism and promoters of any sort of exclusive supremacy to any group, nation, race, religion or civilization.

But as for now, this divide will continue, until such time that the ominous promise of Armageddon is finally discredited.

Obama vs. Obama

Obama Egypt Speech:

Will Obama The Man Keep Up With Obama The Legend?

Read this in Huffington Post:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/01/obama-egypt-speech-will-o_n_209932.html

Obama vs. Obama

During his visit to Cairo, Obama can write a new chapter in history. The idea that the American President will address Islamic Nations from Cairo, capital of Egypt and home to Al Azhar University carries a symbolic gesture that can open the door for a new era of dialogue and understanding between the West and Muslims. For decades, Muslims have been accumulating negative feelings of victimization and accusing the U.S. of using double standards especially as a result of the lingering Palestinian suffering. Muslims blame the U.S. for its blind support to Israel shielding it from Security Council resolutions and international justice. During the last 8 years, the curve of the relationship dived to its lowest levels ever, with President Bush’s decision to invade Afghanistan and Iraq and his “War on Terror” which Muslims saw as being mainly directed against them.

The war against extremism and violence, however, is a war of minds and hearts. Hearts that could never be won through use of military power or invasion. With every civilian casualty falling in the crossfire in Iraq for instance, the U.S. would acquire new enemies and lose potential friends. The war against fanaticism should have been fought against injustice, intolerance, poverty and oppression. It should have been fought through creation of opportunity, hope and change of dire circumstances leading to frustration and despair. This gesture to address Muslim grievances comes at a critical hour in the history of our world. This opportunity may not come again.

The war against extremism, hatred and exclusion is everyone’s war. Obama should engage Muslims everywhere to side with peace, freedom and tolerance. During his campaign, Obama enjoyed tremendous support in this part of the world. People placed very high hopes on Obama to deliver the change he promised and fix what they saw as decades-long problems. Upon his historic victory, most Muslims cheered and celebrated. The biggest challenge facing the American President is this image of a Superhero-Obama who can fix all problems and solve all complex issues. Obama must therefore walk on very thin ice in trying to balance between aspirations and realities. Between promises and policies. Between what is said now and what can practically be implemented during his term or terms as a President. For instance he must try to balance between Israel’s security and Palestinian rights. Between amicable relations with existing regimes ruling Muslim countries and long-term friendship with the people who regard these regimes as oppressive and corrupt. Between regional stability and demands for reform and democracy.

Some pessimists regard the choice of Cairo as the venue for this historic address as blow which undermines U.S. commitment to democracy and human rights. Supporters of neocon hard-line confrontational approaches are now saying “we told you so”, pointing out that this choice of venue gives a blank check to oppressive regimes and shows that the new administration’s support for democracy in the Middle East has waned. Aly Eddin Helal, a senior ranking member of the ruling NDP party in Egypt, in an interview with Al Ahram Daily paper last Friday, saw the visit as a signal that critics of the Egyptian regime who had been calling for democracy, reform and respect of human rights have lost their bets. Optimists, on the other hand, believe that Obama’s policy of using soft power, with publicized friendly gestures towards governments carries a less visible side within. They believe that tough diplomacy demanding progress and reform behind closed doors has been much more effective than Bush’s blunt rhetoric which was ill-received and produced negative reactions from old stubborn leaders in an area of the world where public scolding leads to losing face.

The stakes are high and so are the expectations. Muslims will listen to Obama and he has a chance to get to their hearts and minds. He can frankly tell Muslims that they need to change their ways. But he has to provide them with alternative means of getting their justice. The United Nations and the structure of the Security Council have both failed to justly address Muslim issues. This contributed to rise of terrorism and political advances enjoyed by extremist political factions. Obama now has what no other Western leader have ever had, a feeling amongst people in this part of the world that they can relate to him. That he in turn can relate to them and understand suffering of the weak and the marginalized. That their pleas can find sympathetic ears from someone who managed to move through the ranks and achieve what was once considered an impossible accomplishment. Obama remains hero of the people. And that is a tough place to be. Obama the man has to try hard to keep up with Obama the legend. This is the challenge before Obama.

Written By
Ayman Nour
&
Wael Nawara

UN Book or the Jungle Book? ... o o o

Statehood Responsibilities and

the Principle of Proportionality

By:

Wael Nawara

Today, I was discussing the massacres in Gaza with a friend and he said ... "well, you poke a bear, even lightly, you should expect that the bear would eat you." I had to agree with that argument about the bear. But then I thought, well, a bear is a wild animal. It has neither a mind nor a conscience. A bear has no choice. The bear is just an animal.

I denounce Hamas for killing Israeli civilians and for taking Gazans as hostages for months to achieve some political gains which are related to Hamas alone, and not to the Palestinian cause or the Palestinian people. But the massacres which Israel performed in Gaza are war crimes of the worst proportions.

Are we to allow States to act like animals? Would this be OK? To act like you were in Jungle Book?


I would like us to reflect for a moment on the concept of "responsibility" and the concept of "proportionality". Israel, as a State has a responsibility to act like a state. Hamas is not a state. It is an organization. Some, perhaps even many say, it is a terrorist organziation. Hamas claims itself as a resistance movement which started in the eighties, with a bunch of kids throwing stones at Israeli soldiers of the occupation forces which in return crushed the children's bones with heavy rocks and hammers. As Oslo peace process reached a dead end, Hamas unfortunately started adopting violence. This shift, in my opinion, did more damage to the Palestinian cause than anything that has happened during the past 20 years.


When Hamas attacks Israel and kills innocent civilians, Israel is expected to have some response and try to protect its citizens. As a State, Israel, on the other hand, must respond with reasonably proportional force. But to kill children and civilians in this way, is neither proportional nor responsible. This behavior is not Stately.


Israel, therefore, must bear consequences to its choices. Hamas is already classified by many countries as a Terrorist Organization. Israel should today be classified as a State which uses, endorses and mass-produces terrorism. Israel must pay.


So, what should we do?


Shall we bring Israel to pay for these war crimes, as responsible states should be expected to?


Or shall we start to consider Israel as a mindless bear which threatens its neighbors and world peace at large?


Shall the UN and the Security Council deal with Israel as per its charter, as per the Book?


Or shall we endorse the Jungle Book?

Find a Solution or One will be Imposed upon you

Enough is Enough

Our Patience is Running out

By:

Wael Nawara

I look at the decades-long suffering of Palestinians and Gazans and I cannot help it but sympathize with them. I look at the centuries-long suffering and prosecution of Jews and I also cannot help it but sympathize with them as well. I think the whole world one way or another sympathizes with both sides. Each side has a touching story to tell and a number of seemingly good claims, be it religious, Biblical, Quranic, legal, civil, birth-right or otherwise.


But this sympathy, our sympathy, did not seem to have helped either party.


Palestinians and Israelis are somehow like cousins. Many Israelis and Palestinians look alike, cook alike and they even sound alike! But they have been fighting for decades and they seem to be determined to go on. I am not suggesting that they enjoy it, but it just seems that they will still go on fighting like that for a while.


Some friends ask me: “What is it to you? Why do you write or even bother to think about this? It is ultimately the Israelis and Palestinians who suffer and get to lose the most. So, it is up to them to find a solution.” In fact, they sadly point out, that the more they, Israelis and Palestinians suffer, the stronger their urge would be to find a settlement.


The trouble is, the bloody scenes are very disturbing. They haunt you. I mean, if the World will close an eye on murdering Gazan children or blowing up Israeli civilians, where does it stop? If the world had decided to close an eye on gassing Jews on the hands of the Nazi regime, the genocide against the people of Kosovo or Darfur where would we be today? Moreover, we are literally getting injured in the crossfire. When your neighbor’s home is on fire, you are bound to take an interest, lest the fire may spread to your own home and burn your own children too. And this is not just because we, in Egypt, are their next-door neighbors. Neighborhoods much farther away around the world in this global village, where borders and distances are ever diminishing, are also getting injured in the crossfire. The conflict has spilled over to many lands. It is fueling hatred and maniplulating extremist religious sentiments North, East, West and South.


In any conflict, a solution or a PATH, a strategy towards a solution, be it negotiation, arbitration, resorting to the Internal Court of Justice or the UN, should ideally come from the parties in concern: in this case Israelis and Palestinians. But this does not seem to be the case here. It simply does not work. Even wars, for many decades, did not work.


Several countries in the region, including Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Israel waged or got entangled in one war after another but wars never brought about a settlement to the original problem, the Israeli-Palestinian problem. So, they, or some of them, abandoned wars or pretended to be doing so and chose the path of peace, or appeared as if they had made that choice. Yet not a dawn of a solution even seemed remotely apparent at the horizon. We waited and waited, patiently hosting one round of negotiations and mediations after another, yet, the situation seems to only deteriorate.

Israel claims that Hamas is a terrorist organization which fires missiles indiscriminately at Israeli civilian population. That Arafat was a no-good greedy negotiator who showed no gratitude to generous Israeli offers. Palestinians claim that Israelis are using their military advantage to impose an unjust solution. Hamas says that it is a resistance movement which started with kids throwing stones facing armed soldiers who crushed the children's bones. Hamas further reminds us that such violent tactics were first used by the founding fathers of Israel including prominent members of successive Israeli cabinets, such as former Premiere Menachem Begin, also a former Irgun’s member, who was involved in the mass-murder of civilians in incidents such as the one which occurred in Deir Yasin in 1948 as well as the bombing of King David Hotel, Jerusalem, which was filled with civilians including women and children at the time, in 1946. If these were the heroes and founders of Israel, Hamas is following their seemingly successful example. After all, Israel managed to erect a state in 1948 through the use of such tactics and others. The other side claims that several warnings to evacuate King David Hotel prior to bombing were made and ignored. The dispute goes on.


I am personally getting fatigued by this whole situation. I no longer believe that negotiations can bring about a settlement which is deemed fair and acceptable by both parties. Maybe it is because of the power-parity, maybe because each side is clinging to its story and holy claims or whatever. Each party always complains that the other party is the one responsible for the failure of negotiations.


OK, how about we adopt a new direction, settlement through Binding Arbitration, say with the International Court of Justice. Arbitration seemed to have worked well for the Taba dispute between Egypt and Israel. Why shouldn’t it work for Israelis and Palestinians?


I think that the World Patience will one day soon come to an end. It will reach its limit. Our patience will just run out. And if the conflicting parties cannot reach an amicable solution, the WORLD must step in, find and impose a solution on their behalf, through the UN or through ICJ or whatever special court, where both parties are invited to make their claims and substantiate their case and are required to abide by the ruling. The International Community must have enough balls to enforce such a verdict/solution perhaps if necessary through economic sanctions, even blockade or by whatever means deemed fit.


We should tell them clearly and we should tell them now:


Find a solution or a solution will be imposed upon you by the International Community. Patience, sympathy and compassion are all great virtues. But everything has a limit.

Hypocrisy of Egyptian NeoCons

Liberals ...

Damaging the Liberal Cause

Recently, we have witnessed a commendable campaign to bring President Bashir of Sudan to the International Criminal Court (ICC) for crimes committed against humanity in Darfur ...

Honorable Judge Bastawisi, wrote an important article in Al Masry Al Youm in support of this measure, and explained that the REAL GUARANTY against having heads of states tried before the court, is to INSTALL INDEPENDENT JUDICIARY on a National Level, where fair trial is guaranteed of every one and for every credible claim ...

What amazes me, is that so called, self-proclaimed, Egyptian NeoCons, were very much SUPPORTIVE of bringing President Bashir to trial ... what I do not understand is, how can they do that, when they know that that the United States under NeoCon administration tried everything possible to undermine the court including pressuring other states to refrain from cooperation with the court.

Under Clinton Administration (Democrat), the United States of America was one of only 7 nations (joining China, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Qatar and Israel) to vote against the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) in 1998.

But the Bush administration's hostility to the ICC has increased dramatically in 2002 under the Bush administration. The U.S. opposition to the ICC was in stark contrast to the strong support for the Court by most of America's closest allies.

In an unprecedented diplomatic maneuver, the Bush administration effectively withdrew the U.S. signature on the treaty. The Bush administration then went requesting states around the world to approve bilateral agreements requiring them not to surrender American nationals to the ICC !

The U.S Congress passed the American Servicemembers' Protection Act (ASPA), which was signed into law by President Bush, which prohibits U.S. cooperation with the ICC; allowing the U.S. to "invade the Hague, Netherland, seat of the ICC"تصريح بغزو لا هاي (!!) by authorizing the President to "use all means necessary and appropriate" to free U.S. personnel (and certain allied personnel) detained or imprisoned by the ICC, in addition to punishment for States that join the ICC treaty: refusing military aid to States' Parties to the treaty (except major U.S. allies), etc.

When I see "Egyptian" NeoCons Supporting, in fact promoting, Trial of President Bashir of Sudan before ICC, when the NeoCons passed a Law allowing INVASION of another Sovereign State to illegally extradite possible US offenders tried before the very same court, ICC ... when I see that ...




I say that this is Hypocrisy of the highest proportions ...

And for the avoidance of doubt, I am with and whole-heartedly for, the fair Trial of Bashir before ICC, and I am for fair trial of every person who is suspected of commiting crimes against humanity but may go unpunished under the inadequacy of national or local laws, also before ICC.

But I am asking self-proclaimed "Liberals" to stop their systematic use of double standards which has in fact damaged the Liberal cause and has given "Liberalism" a bad name, a bad name which it does not deserve.

I say to those claiming to be liberals and freedom fighters, who insist that "Islamic Extremism" is a threat to our country and to our world, I tell them, that the only chance that liberals have in reaching out to the people and gaining their trust and votes, thus curbing "Extremists" from climbing the seats of power, is for Liberals to WALK the TALK, to embrace Liberal values and principles and APPLY them equally on friends and adversaries alike, without DISCTINCTION between those we like and those who are unpopular.

The real test of our integrity is NOT when we fight for the the freedoms of those whom we like. The Real Test of our Integrity is not when we defend our friends. The real test of our integrity is when we fight for the freedoms of those who are unpopular. Those whom we do not particularly like. The real test of our integrity, is when we tell friends that we believe they are WRONG.

Please stop your double-standards and hypocrisy, for they have damaged the Liberal Cause a great deal.






*************************



Read HJ Bastawisi's Article in Al Masry Al Youm


المستشار هشام البسطويسي يكتب: نعم
يجب أن يحاكم البشير دوليا ولو اعتصم بحصانة مغتصبة

٢٢/٧/٢٠٠٨

http://www.almasry-alyoum.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=114295

Post-Realism Demystified

Post-Realism:

What does it Mean?

By
Wael Nawara

In simple and short words, Post-Realism refers to a new "realization", that force and military might alone have not managed to provide security for the "strong".

Political Romanticism
In the fifties and sixties, many politicians, specially in the "Third World Countries", relied on rhetoric using terms such as "Justice", "Equality", "International Law", etc., to demand what they believed to be their nations' rightful dues. After a long era of colonialism, Third World Countries were demanding self-determination and natural justice.

The Heroes of this period of "Political Romanticism", were leaders like Nasser and Nehru. Their argument amounted to the proposition that "stronger" and "richer" states should adhere to such concepts on moral grounds. Third World countries, suddenly made a majority in the U.N. General Assembly! All kinds of UN resolutions sponsored by "Third World Countries" and "Non-Aligned Movement" were passed in the UN General Assembly. UN General Assembly had no "Veto Powers" for any member state, big or small and its resolutions of course were non-binding !

Nasser was promoting the end of colonialism and imperialism and insisting that "Peace" can only be built on "Justice". He even sought to promote what he thought as "social justice" at home, through successive waves of land re-distribution, nationalization, fixing of the prices of food, basic commodities, and housing rents, expanding government employment to accommodate every graduate of a free education system, and a package of socialist laws and measures which practically ruined and crippled the Egyptian Economy for decades to come. But these populist measures and the sort of romantic rhetoric which characterized that period, fueled the passions of hundreds of millions of dreamers around the world.

So, in summary, during the era or age of Political Romanticism, politicians just referred to terms and concepts like Justice, Equality and Peace, as principles all states should adhere to, on moral grounds!

An Era of Realism
Egypt's humiliating defeat in 1967 proved the romantic dreams which Nasser had promoted, in fact ended as dreadful nightmares, at least for Egyptians, Arabs, Syrians, Jordanians, Lebanese and other Arabs. Romanticists were awakened by a sobering reality, that "force", and not "justice", wins land and redraws national borders. Sadat, who became President after Nasser's death in 1970, was the champion of the new period. An age of "Realism" started.

This "Realism" had started to show itself in Egypt's foreign policy as early as November 1967, when Nasser formally accepted UN Security Council resolution. In the summer of 1972, Sadat asked the Soviets to withdraw their troops and military experts from Egypt. The Americans were surprised that he never consulted with them before making such a decision. He never asked for a price or attempted to draft even a memo of understanding with the Americans of the arrangements which would follow such an evacuation. Kicking out the Soviets, I believe, was an early turning point in the cold war. A point which signified perhaps a small victory for the West, but it was a small victory of far-reaching consequences as it started to permanently upset the power balance favoring the United States and the West. That turning point sent the curve of the Cold War on a one-way route which ended some 17 years later when Berlin Wall was demolished by the People of East and West Germany in 1989.

Egypt has seen this before. The British and French Empires signed their own death warrants in Portsaid, Egypt in 1956, when they attacked Egypt, employing Israel as their Bullying Agent, and were forced to withdraw primarily as a result of American pressure but also Soviet displeasure that the weaker allies of the Second World War would double-cross them and continue to act as a Great world powers without consulting the new world powers countries which really decided the fate of World War II, the USA and the USSR.

In November 1973, immediately after the seize fire was affected on the wake of the 1973 October War, Yum Kippur War, Sadat took yet another step into the "Age of Reason", the "Age of Realism", when he consorted with Kissinger in November 1973, and gave him his vision of the peace in the region and of the power shift in the cold-war world. Sadat, acknowledged the Arab defeat and wanted to create peace and prosperity based on new power balance. He realized that Egypt and the Arabs would be unable to defeat Israel either by their own weakness or because the world powers simply would not allow it. So, he became a "Realist".

What is "Realism"?

Realism is that we ask Palestinians to negotiate with Israelis under gun-point and demand that they (the Palestinians) be content with the outcome of such negotiations despite the power parity. Imagine a thug who stops you in the street, points a gun to your head and strips you off your wallet. You go to the police to file a report and the police tells you to go and negotiate with the robber to get back your wallet, some of your money, credit cards and ID cards. "But the robber is armed, officer?"

Realism is that we ask the Tibetans to calm down because China is a Superpower. Realism is that we ask Kuwait to accept the invasion of its strong neighbor, Iraq, gracefully!

In short, politicians of the Age of "Realism" adopted the approach that "force" and immediate "self-interest" alone govern foreign policy and the behavior states towards one another. Realism is the opposite of the rule of law, it is to accept that we shall be ruled by the law of the jungle. Force and might alone can protect you and yours. But even a bully goes to sleep. Even the strongest of us blinks. Even the strongest has weak children?

Post Realism
In 1978, Egypt formally made peace with Israel. But we must ask ourselves today, has this peace paid dividends? The state of War between Egypt and Israel ended. Egypt regained Sinai. But the problem was neither Egypt nor Sinai. The problem was, is, always has been and will remain for many years to come, Palestine.

Hundreds of millions of Palestinians, Arabs, Israelis, Citizens of New York, London, Madrid, & even Visitors of Bali have had to pay for the Palestinian problem until this very day.

We have learned from bitter experience the same lessons which made individuals, our ancestors, devise and submit to local laws thousands of years ago. Osiris, or Aser, it is said, gave Egyptians Laws of Maat and took them out of their savagery. Now, we see that "security" (in relation to, and against, terrorist attacks) has become the highest item on every nation's "interest", specially the "strong" and "rich" who have much more to lose. What sadly happened on the morning of 9/11 and the chain of events which followed, have proved that "the strong" is vulnerable to terrorism and terrorism is fueled by injustice.

The battle against terrorism, unlike traditional warfare, can not be won through armies or hi-tech weaponry alone. As knowledge of simple yet devastating technologies became available to everyone, it became easy to breach security if one is disgruntled enough to be so determined to trade his or her own life with the lives of "targets", civilians or otherwise, but usually civilians who are most vulnerable at their workplace, during traveling, in the streets, in the tube, in a supermarket or a shopping mall, in a restaurant, in a bus or even sitting at home minding their own business.

This experience suggests that the war against terror can only be won though re-establishing and re-instatement of the principles of justice, this time not as a moral necessity, but as security prerequisite!

Anyone of us can fall a victim to terror. There is no guaranty. No insurance. The only insurance, which does not eliminate, but considerably reduces the risk, is to erect an effective and efficient "International Justice System".

We learned to install "Justice Systems" on local and national levels. This was the basis of civilization. For civilization is built on accumulation. Such accumulation would not have been possible unless stability, security, safety and property are protected. Why would anyone work or build or farm, if he or she knows that their hard-earned fortunes can be taken away by some robber who will go unpunished, with no law, no enforcement to deter the perpetrators?
The League of Nations and its upgrade version, The United Nations and its institutions such as The International Court of Justice (ICJ) as well as other Independent International Institutions affiliated with the United Nations, such as International Criminal Court (ICC) were meant to play that role, but unfortunately, as we have pointed out in a previous article, the United States, being the "strong", has consistently worked towards undermining the United Nations and any attempt to install or develop an effective system for International Justice.

Good News?

The good news is, even inside the United States, more and more people are now realizing the necessity of reforming the United Nations. Senator Obama, who is the Democratic Party Nominee in the Presidential Elections due in a few weeks' time, has showed "some" support to the concept of working towards reforming the United Nations.
،،

America cannot meet this century's challenges alone; the world cannot meet them without America.

…

In addition, we need effective collaboration on pressing global issues among all the major powers -- including such newly emerging ones as Brazil, India, Nigeria, and South Africa. We need to give all of them a stake in upholding the international order. To that end, the United Nations requires far-reaching reform.

In fact, President Bush, in his farewell speech to the United Nations also called on the UN to

،،

open the door to a new age of transparency, accountability, and seriousness of purpose.

But as you may guess, the reform which Bush seeks for the United Nations is slightly a wee bit different from that which is required to truly minimize injustices, conflict and terror.

Conclusion

Post-Realism is a new realization, that the principles of Justice are not just words or moral rhetoric, they represent "behavioral solutions" which the evolution of our civilization and cultures have provided us with for "survival". In business terms, accepting to submit to a "Justice System", local or international, is like an insurance policy which reduces the "risk" of being victimized, both to the strong and the weak alike. Should we decide now to neglect these principles and resort to "might" and "strength" alone, we might just as well stop complaining about terrorism, violence or international conflicts, demand that beauty pageant contestants stop babbling about "world peace" and accept the world as dangerous as it is, can and will become.

،،

Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.

—Matthew 26:52, King James Version

Post Realism 2

A Quest for International Law:
UN Version 3.0



Realists tell you it does not exist. That there is no such a thing as International Law. And even if there was, there was no way of enforcing it. Their arguments make a lot of sense. Their logic is pure Realism at its finest :

• There is no International Law.
• Laws are made by the stronger.
• the UN is Useless, can not & should not have a role in resolving conflicts or promoting justice
• Because there are dictators who might sign international treaties we should not have treaties

Realism is great. But Guess what. It did not work. It did not protect the strong. The minute that the strong decided to break the spirit of International Law, which it did not really acknowledge as a concept, the strong became weak, exposed and vulnerable ... we all become vulnerable in absence of the law ... because the law, JUSTICE, is an insurance policy for all of us ...

So. Realism did not quite seem to work.

Hence, comes this notion of Post-Realism. A Search for International Law. A Pursuit of Happiness, not just for the Americans, Europeans or Japanese but for every nation. A Quest for Justice not just for Egyptians, Palestinians & Syrians but for Israelis, Tibetans, Indians, Sri Lankans, Cubans, Russians, Armenians, Ethiopians, etc., ... justice for all ... justice for everyone. For we have learned that no Nation can be happy alone ... while the rest of the world suffers.

Realism talks about what's possible in terms of our own past experience of how things used to happen.

At one moment of Man's journey ... there were no states ... there was no law, there was no electricity or telephones.

When one man, possibly code name Osiris, or Azer, but he really represents the civilizing spirit in every society, had the idea, that Man should not kill another man for food ... that a concept of "property" exists ... at that precise moment ... the concept of LAW was Born:

"
And Aser gave his fellow men (probably Egyptians :) Laws, taught them how to farm and how to make wine ... and taught them how to honor the gods (do good really) .. he took them out of their savagery.

If MAN insisted on being realist all along that journey of civilization ... we would never have LAWS or States ... or Electricity ... or wine ... :)



الواقعية تشبه إلى حد بعيد المنهج السلفي
أن نفعل
كما رأينا آباءنا يفعلون

والمحافظون ما هم إلا نوع مودرن شوية من السلفيين
سلفيين ببدل وكرافتات يعني



But luckily, Man has never given up the gift of "Dreaming" ... for he was endowed with imagination and vision , the ability to see things ... not only as they are ... or as they used to be ... but as they COULD BE.

This is the power of Vision my friends ... we should never lose sight of that ... and we should never let anyone tell us that things can't get better on the grounds that things are indeed dire ... for when things are bad ... this is the best time when Man can install something better ... only when it is bad ... that traditionalists and conservatives will accept a new solution which may allow things to be less bad ... or simply better ...




But most of all, we should never fall victims of Realism at bad times, because when things are bad ... Realism really becomes another word for pessimism.



Now, we have to ask ourselves: is this the best Man can do?

International Justice: is it really "No-can-do"?

I am not talking here about Palestine or Israel, I am talking about everything ... about Kyoto and the Ozone Layer ... I am talking about kids starving in Africa and conflicts breaking in Georgia. I am talking about it all. Wouldn't be nice to have something, an international institution, which can actually provide a framework for International Law, including arbitration, letigation and enforcement?

Guess what. Such an institution exists. In fact, version 2.0 of that institution does exist. It is called the United Nations. Version 1.0 (the League of Nations, rest-in-peace) was full of bugs, and because it was so buggy it did not manage to prevent the horrors of World War 2. World Peace "Crashed" and 40 million people died. So in 1945, the warring nations, after the war, developed version 2.0, and sat on its Security Council. And it did manage to prevent War again between the five.

But guess what. It had no room for the weak. It did not listen to the poor. So, the weak decided, to take the Law in its own hand, launching a "Parallel War", using terror and killing civilians instead of engaging in a formal conventional war for which the weak had no capacity to handle or chance to win.

Isn't this always the case? When the Law fails to deliver justice, people resort to violence, hire thugs and take the law in their own hands?


So,I say that now, it is time for UN version 3.0

And please, this time, we need the weak to sit on the table with the strong.

The poor with the rich.

This is how we can rid ourselves of this Bad Karma which seems to be haunting us. Catching up with us where we least expect it.

Let us work on UN Version 3.0 and improve our Karma a little. Shall we?

:)