The following is an archived copy of a message sent to a Discussion List run by the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.

Views expressed in this archived message are those of the author, not of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.

[Main archive index/search] [List information] [Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[casi] Yes, we should violate international law!!

Translated from Arabic from
Posted October 7, 2003

Yes, we should violate international law!!
By: Dr. Tha’er Dori

Right from the beginning I must state: in order for us
to be a nation worthy of respect, at terms with its
past and aspiring for a better future, we should
violate international law. With this shocking
introduction I begin, having started loosing my nerves
every time one of those who show concern for Iraq and
who defends Arabs, stands up to try to convince us
that Iraq did not violate international law and that
Arabs respect what is called international law and
that they love it and offer it the biggest room in
their houses, and when it visits them it gets the
first place and they the threshold.. and so forth..

But what is this international law?

They are no doubt pointing to the collection of rules
and norms which has governed international relations
since World War II and continues to do so. Those were
imposed by the victors in that war, who make up only
one fifth of the world’s population, and who tailored
that law according to their wishes without as much as
glancing at the third world; four fifths of the
world’s population. Even within that fifth, some
nations were dealt injustice by this international

Don’t rush me, I will give examples!

The bases of this international law were personified
in the United Nations and its crowned King, the
Security Council; comprising of fifteen members: five
of them original, deciding everything, and the rest
guests of honor; camouflage to give the matter a touch
of democracy. Here I have to borrow from a friend of
mine who explained it as being similar to Boards of
Directors of big companies. The small shareholder, who
owns one share, seems to have equal rights with that
who owns one quarter of the shares, having the right
to attend meetings and vote on decisions. But in the
end, that who decides matters is the Board of
Directors which is made up of the biggest
Those big shareholders in the Security Council are
called the Permanent Members, who have the right to
object to any law they don’t like or is in conflict
with their interests. If anyone of those says no to
any issue, the matter is settled.. If a member would
suggest, in an effort to record scientific facts, a
law that states that the sun rises from the east, and
the US or France or the UK or Russia or China would
object, the resolution would not be adopted, and
consequently anyone who says that the sun rises from
the east would be in breach of international law.

Take the issue of Nuclear Weapons. These countries
that have the Veto right all own and stock nuclear
weapons, and have tested nuclear bombs and other
Weapons of Mass Destruction. Some have used them, like
the US. But those countries have felt that developing
countries started acquiring the technologies that
would allow them to own those weapons, so they adopted
a Treaty banning Nuclear Weapons. Of course, those
five countries own the weapons and enjoy its warmth
and would not hesitate to use it when necessary and
perhaps not necessary, as the US did with Japan. But
the sons of the slaves, the developing countries, this
inferior section of the human race, is forbidden from
owning nuclear weapons. And if they even dare think
about this, the entire world’s wrath will be heaped on
their heads for violating international law and the
Treaty for the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.
And they will then have to immediately open their
establishments and military bases to the world’s
spies, who are dressed in the uniforms of
international organizations and who carry the badge of
International Law.

Is this a law worthy of respect? And is any of the
people of the third world, who thinks of respecting
it, himself worthy of respect?

Another issue. You sit in God’s peace in your house,
farming your land, making children and you are not
known to have had any form of conflict with your
neighbor. For you live in peace and do not desire your
neighbor’s wife nor envy him his property. God has
blessed you. But the Big Five have another opinion.
They have discovered that a homeless person in Europe
or someone who has a problem deserves to replace you
in your house and sleep with your wife and make your
children his. They voted on this resolution and none
of them used his Veto. And by convincing and coercion
they managed to get the other four votes, and they
would have gotten them in many ways. You must
therefore comply with international law and empty your
house and leave it, handing over your wife and
children to the stranger, who has the legal right
according to international law. And if you do not do
that, or object, or are late in complying, you become
in breach of international law.

Is this story the product of imagination?

Certainly not. This is the story of the usurpation of
Palestine. The Security Council decided that the
Palestinian living in Haifa is not entitled to his
house or land or sky or sea, and he has to give them
to the Jew from Russia or Poland or Germany. And when
the Palestinian and his Arab cousin objected, they
were considered outlaws and violators of international
law. Any person who thinks of going back to his home
in Carmel is a dangerous criminal who violated
international law.

Is this a law worthy of respect? And is the one who
respects it worthy of respect?

I have decided to reply to anyone who accuses us of
violating international law by saying:
- Yes sir, we violated international law, and we will
try to violate it again and again until we break out
of the bottle in which we were put.

One final word:
Might and having it is what makes the law in your

A man was traveling the desert on a camel. He passed a
man next to his mare which was giving birth. When she
finally gave birth and the colt was delivered, the
owner of the camel held it and said “Thank God, my
camel has given birth to a colt”.
The owner of the mare complained that that was his
colt, the son of his mare, which she gave birth to
only minutes ago. He tried to explain with the
language of logic and knowledge, which is that camels
do not give birth to colts, but the thief insisted on
his stand: the colt is the son of my camel.
Finally they went to the judge, and each explained his
side of the story. The thief was strongly built,
shaking his fist while talking, which intimidated the
judge. The owner of the mare presented his story with
the softness of people of logic.
The judge gave his verdict, after carefully eying the
thief’s muscles, saying: “If this power equals that
power, camels don’t give birth to colts. But if this
power is not equal to that power, they do give birth
to colts”.

And this is the tale of International Law; a law by
the powerful.

Should we then respect it?!!

Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search

Sent via the discussion list of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
To unsubscribe, visit
To contact the list manager, email
All postings are archived on CASI's website:

[Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]