Peace Circle

Friday

A Human Approach to World Peace

When we rise in the morning and listen to the radio or read the newspaper, we are confronted with the same sad news: violence, crime, wars, and disasters. I cannot recall a single day without a report of something terrible happening somewhere. Even in these modern times it is clear that one's precious life is not safe. No former generation has had to experience so much bad news as we face today; this constant awareness of fear and tension should make any sensitive and compassionate person question seriously the progress of our modern world.

It is ironic that the more serious problems emanate from the more industrially advanced societies. Science and technology have worked wonders in many fields, but the basic human problems remain. There is unprecedented literacy, yet this universal education does not seem to have fostered goodness, but only mental restlessness and discontent instead. There is no doubt about the increase in our material progress and technology, but somehow this is not sufficient as we have not yet succeeded in bringing about peace and happiness or in overcoming suffering.

We can only conclude that there must be something seriously wrong with our progress and development, and if we do not check it in time there could be disastrous consequences for the future of humanity. I am not at all against science and technology - they have contributed immensely to the overall experience of humankind; to our material comfort and well-being and to our greater understanding of the world we live in. But if we give too much emphasis to science and technology we are in danger of losing touch with those aspects of human knowledge and understanding that aspire towards honesty and altruism.

Science and technology, though capable of creating immeasurable material comfort, cannot replace the age-old spiritual and humanitarian values that have largely shaped world civilization, in all its national forms, as we know it today. No one can deny the unprecedented material benefit of science and technology, but our basic human problems remain; we are still faced with the same, if not more, suffering, fear, and tension. Thus it is only logical to try to strike a balance between material developments on the one hand and the development of spiritual, human values on the other. In order to bring about this great adjustment, we need to revive our humanitarian values.

I am sure that many people share my concern about the present worldwide moral crisis and will join in my appeal to all humanitarians and religious practitioners who also share this concern to help make our societies more compassionate, just, and equitable. I do not speak as a Buddhist or even as a Tibetan. Nor do I speak as an expert on international politics (though I unavoidably comment on these matters). Rather, I speak simply as a human being, as an upholder of the humanitarian values that are the bedrock not only of Mahayana Buddhism but of all the great world religions. From this perspective I share with you my personal outlook - that:
Universal humanitarianism is essential to solve global problems;
Compassion is the pillar of world peace;
All world religions are already for world peace in this way, as are all humanitarians of whatever ideology;
Each individual has a universal responsibility to shape institutions to serve human needs.

Solving Human Problems through Transforming Human Attitudes


Of the many problems we face today, some are natural calamities and must be accepted and faced with equanimity. Others, however, are of our own making, created by misunderstanding, and can be corrected. One such type arises from the conflict of ideologies, political or religious, when people fight each other for petty ends, losing sight of the basic humanity that binds us all together as a single human family. We must remember that the different religions, ideologies, and political systems of the world are meant for human beings to achieve happiness. We must not lose sight of this fundamental goal and at no time should we place means above ends; the supremacy of humanity over matter and ideology must always be maintained.

By far the greatest single danger facing humankind - in fact, all living beings on our planet - is the threat of nuclear destruction. I need not elaborate on this danger, but I would like to appeal to all the leaders of the nuclear powers who literally hold the future of the world in their hands, to the scientists and technicians who continue to create these awesome weapons of destruction, and to all the people at large who are in a position to influence their leaders: I appeal to them to exercise their sanity and begin to work at dismantling and destroying all nuclear weapons. We know that in the event of a nuclear war there will be no victors because there will be no survivors! Is it not frightening just to contemplate such inhuman and heartless destruction? And, is it not logical that we should remove the cause for our own destruction when we know the cause and have both the time and the means to do so? Often we cannot overcome our problems because we either do not know the cause or, if we understand it, do not have the means to remove it. This is not the case with the nuclear threat.

Whether they belong to more evolved species like humans or to simpler ones such as animals, all beings primarily seek peace, comfort, and security. Life is as dear to the mute animal as it is to any human being; even the simplest insect strives for protection from dangers that threaten its life. Just as each one of us wants to live and does not wish to die, so it is with all other creatures in the universe, though their power to effect this is a different matter.

Broadly speaking there are two types of happiness and suffering, mental and physical, and of the two, I believe that mental suffering and happiness are the more acute. Hence, I stress the training of the mind to endure suffering and attain a more lasting state of happiness. However, I also have a more general and concrete idea of happiness: a combination of inner peace, economic development, and, above all, world peace. To achieve such goals I feel it is necessary to develop a sense of universal responsibility, a deep concern for all irrespective of creed, colour, sex, or nationality.

The premise behind this idea of universal responsibility is the simple fact that, in general terms, all others' desires are the same as mine. Every being wants happiness and does not want suffering. If we, as intelligent human beings, do not accept this fact, there will be more and more suffering on this planet. If we adopt a self-centred approach to life and constantly try to use others for our own self-interest, we may gain temporary benefits, but in the long run we will not succeed in achieving even personal happiness, and world peace will be completely out of the question.

In their quest for happiness, humans have used different methods, which all too often have been cruel and repellent. Behaving in ways utterly unbecoming to their status as humans, they inflict suffering upon fellow humans and other living beings for their own selfish gains. In the end, such shortsighted actions bring suffering to oneself as well as to others. To be born a human being is a rare event in itself, and it is wise to use this opportunity as effectively and skillfully as possible. We must have the proper perspective that of the universal life process, so that the happiness or glory of one person or group is not sought at the expense of others.

All this calls for a new approach to global problems. The world is becoming smaller and smaller - and more and more interdependent - as a result of rapid technological advances and international trade as well as increasing trans-national relations. We now depend very much on each other. In ancient times problems were mostly family-size, and they were naturally tackled at the family level, but the situation has changed. Today we are so interdependent, so closely interconnected with each other, that without a sense of universal responsibility, a feeling of universal brotherhood and sisterhood, and an understanding and belief that we really are part of one big human family, we cannot hope to overcome the dangers to our very existence - let alone bring about peace and happiness.

One nation's problems can no longer be satisfactorily solved by itself alone; too much depends on the interest, attitude, and cooperation of other nations. A universal humanitarian approach to world problems seems the only sound basis for world peace. What does this mean? We begin from the recognition mentioned previously that all beings cherish happiness and do not want suffering. It then becomes both morally wrong and pragmatically unwise to pursue only one's own happiness oblivious to the feelings and aspirations of all others who surround us as members of the same human family. The wiser course is to think of others also when pursuing our own happiness. This will lead to what I call 'wise self-interest', which hopefully will transform itself into 'compromised self-interest', or better still, 'mutual interest'.

Although the increasing interdependence among nations might be expected to generate more sympathetic cooperation, it is difficult to achieve a spirit of genuine cooperation as long as people remain indifferent to the feelings and happiness of others. When people are motivated mostly by greed and jealousy, it is not possible for them to live in harmony. A spiritual approach may not solve all the political problems that have been caused by the existing self-centered approach, but in the long run it will overcome the very basis of the problems that we face today.

On the other hand, if humankind continues to approach its problems considering only temporary expediency, future generations will have to face tremendous difficulties. The global population is increasing, and our resources are being rapidly depleted. Look at the trees, for example. No one knows exactly what adverse effects massive deforestation will have on the climate, the soil, and global ecology as a whole. We are facing problems because people are concentrating only on their short-term, selfish interests, not thinking of the entire human family. They are not thinking of the earth and the long-term effects on universal life as a whole. If we of the present generation do not think about these now, future generations may not be able to cope with them.


Compassion as the Pillar of World Peace

According to Buddhist psychology, most of our troubles are due to our passionate desire for and attachment to things that we misapprehend as enduring entities. The pursuit of the objects of our desire and attachment involves the use of aggression and competitiveness as supposedly efficacious instruments. These mental processes easily translate into actions, breeding belligerence as an obvious effect. Such processes have been going on in the human mind since time immemorial, but their execution has become more effective under modern conditions. What can we do to control and regulate these 'poisons' - delusion, greed, and aggression? For it is these poisons that are behind almost every trouble in the world.

As one brought up in the Mahayana Buddhist tradition, I feel that love and compassion are the moral fabric of world peace. Let me first define what I mean by compassion. When you have pity or compassion for a very poor person, you are showing sympathy because he or she is poor; your compassion is based on altruistic considerations. On the other hand, love towards your wife, your husband, your children, or a close friend is usually based on attachment. When your attachment changes, your kindness also changes; it may disappear. This is not true love. Real love is not based on attachment, but on altruism. In this case your compassion will remain as a humane response to suffering as long as beings continue to suffer.

This type of compassion is what we must strive to cultivate in ourselves, and we must develop it from a limited amount to the limitless. Undiscriminating, spontaneous, and unlimited compassion for all sentient beings is obviously not the usual love that one has for friends or family, which is alloyed with ignorance, desire, and attachment. The kind of love we should advocate is this wider love that you can have even for someone who has done harm to you: your enemy.

The rationale for compassion is that every one of us wants to avoid suffering and gain happiness. This, in turn, is based on the valid feeling of '1', which determines the universal desire for happiness. Indeed, all beings are born with similar desires and should have an equal right to fulfill them. If I compare myself with others, who are countless, I feel that others are more important because I am just one person whereas others are many. Further, the Tibetan Buddhist tradition teaches us to view all sentient beings as our dear mothers and to show our gratitude by loving them all. For, according to Buddhist theory, we are born and reborn countless numbers of times, and it is conceivable that each being has been our parent at one time or another. In this way all beings in the universe share a family relationship.

Whether one believes in religion or not, there is no one who does not appreciate love and compassion. Right from the moment of our birth, we are under the care and kindness of our parents; later in life, when facing the sufferings of disease and old age, we are again dependent on the kindness of others. If at the beginning and end of our lives we depend upon others' kindness, why then in the middle should we not act kindly towards others?
The development of a kind heart (a feeling of closeness for all human beings) does not involve the religiosity we normally associate with conventional religious practice. It is not only for people who believe in religion, but is for everyone regardless of race, religion, or political affiliation. It is for anyone who considers himself or herself, above all, a member of the human family and who sees things from this larger and longer perspective. This is a powerful feeling that we should develop and apply; instead, we often neglect it, particularly in our prime years when we experience a false sense of security.

When we take into account a longer perspective, the fact that all wish to gain happiness and avoid suffering, and keep in mind our relative unimportance in relation to countless others, we can conclude that it is worthwhile to share our possessions with others. When you train in this sort of outlook, a true sense of compassion - a true sense of love and respect for others – becomes possible. Individual happiness ceases to be a conscious self-seeking effort; it becomes an automatic and far superior by-product of the whole process of loving and serving others.

Another result of spiritual development, most useful in day-to-day life, is that it gives a calmness and presence of mind. Our lives are in constant flux, bringing many difficulties. When faced with a calm and clear mind, problems can be successfully resolved. When, instead, we lose control over our minds through hatred, selfishness, jealousy, and anger, we lose our sense of judgement. Our minds are blinded and at those wild moments anything can happen, including war. Thus, the practice of compassion and wisdom is useful to all, especially to those responsible for running national affairs, in whose hands lie the power and opportunity to create the structure of world peace.


World Religions for World Peace

The principles discussed so far are in accordance with the ethical teachings of all world religions. I maintain that every major religion of the world - Buddhism, Christianity, Confucianism, Hinduism, Islam, Jainism, Judaism, Sikhism, Taoism, Zoroastrianism - has similar ideals of love, the same goal of benefiting humanity through spiritual practice, and the same effect of making their followers into better human beings. All religions teach moral precepts for perfecting the functions of mind, body, and speech. All teach us not to lie or steal or take others' lives, and so on. The common goal of all moral precepts laid down by the great teachers of humanity is unselfishness. The great teachers wanted to lead their followers away from the paths of negative deeds caused by ignorance and to introduce them to paths of goodness.

All religions agree upon the necessity to control the undisciplined mind that harbours selfishness and other roots of trouble, and each teaches a path leading to a spiritual state that is peaceful, disciplined, ethical, and wise. It is in this sense that I believe all religions have essentially the same message. Differences of dogma may be ascribed to differences of time and circumstance as well as cultural influences; indeed, there is no end to scholastic argument when we consider the purely metaphysical side of religion. However, it is much more beneficial to try to implement in daily life the shared precepts for goodness taught by all religions rather than to argue about minor differences in approach.

There are many different religions to bring comfort and happiness to humanity in much the same way as there are particular treatments for different diseases. For, all religions endeavour in their own way to help living beings avoid misery and gain happiness. And, although we can find causes for preferring certain interpretations of religious truths, there is much greater cause for unity, stemming from the human heart. Each religion works in its own way to lessen human suffering and contribute to world civilization. Conversion is not the point. For instance, I do not think of converting others to Buddhism or merely furthering the Buddhist cause. Rather, I try to think of how I as a Buddhist humanitarian can contribute to human happiness.

While pointing out the fundamental similarities between world religions, I do not advocate one particular religion at the expense of all others, nor do I seek a new 'world religion'. All the different religions of the world are needed to enrich human experience and world civilization. Our human minds, being of different calibre and disposition, need different approaches to peace and happiness. It is just like food. Certain people find Christianity more appealing, others prefer Buddhism because there is no creator in it and everything depends upon your own actions. We can make similar arguments for other religions as well. Thus, the point is clear: humanity needs all the world's religions to suit the ways of life, diverse spiritual needs, and inherited national traditions of individual human beings.

It is from this perspective that I welcome efforts being made in various parts of the world for better understanding among religions. The need for this is particularly urgent now. If all religions make the betterment of humanity their main concern, then they can easily work together in harmony for world peace. Interfaith understanding will bring about the unity necessary for all religions to work together. However, although this is indeed an important step, we must remember that there are no quick or easy solutions. We cannot hide the doctrinal differences that exist among various faiths, nor can we hope to replace the existing religions by a new universal belief. Each religion has its own distinctive contributions to make, and each in its own way is suitable to a particular group of people as they understand life. The world needs them all.

There are two primary tasks facing religious practitioners who are concerned with world peace. First, we must promote better interfaith understanding so as to create a workable degree of unity among all religions. This may be achieved in part by respecting each other's beliefs and by emphasizing our common concern for human well-being. Second, we must bring about a viable consensus on basic spiritual values that touch every human heart and enhance general human happiness. This means we must emphasize the common denominator of all world religions – humanitarian ideals. These two steps will enable us to act both individually and together to create the necessary spiritual conditions for world peace.

We practitioners of different faiths can work together for world peace when we view different religions as essentially instruments to develop a good heart - love and respect for others, a true sense of community. The most important thing is to look at the purpose of religion and not at the details of theology or metaphysics, which can lead to mere intellectualism. I believe that all the major religions of the world can contribute to world peace and work together for the benefit of humanity if we put aside subtle metaphysical differences, which are really the internal business of each religion.

Despite the progressive secularization brought about by worldwide modernization and despite systematic attempts in some parts of the world to destroy spiritual values, the vast majority of humanity continues to believe in one religion or another. The undying faith in religion, evident even under irreligious political systems, clearly demonstrates the potency of religion as such. This spiritual energy and power can be purposefully used to bring about the spiritual conditions necessary for world peace. Religious leaders and humanitarians all over the world have a special role to play in this respect.

Whether we will be able to achieve world peace or not, we have no choice but to work towards that goal. If our minds are dominated by anger, we will lose the best part of human intelligence - wisdom, the ability to decide between right and wrong. Anger is one of the most serious problems facing the world today.


Individual Power to Shape Institution

Anger plays no small role in current conflicts such as those in the Middle East, Southeast Asia, the North-South problem, and so forth. These conflicts arise from a failure to understand one another's humanness. The answer is not the development and use of greater military force, nor an arms race. Nor is it purely political or purely technological. Basically it is spiritual, in the sense that what is required is a sensitive understanding of our common human situation. Hatred and fighting cannot bring happiness to anyone, even to the winners of battles. Violence always produces misery and thus is essentially counter-productive. It is, therefore, time for world leaders to learn to transcend the differences of race, culture, and ideology and to regard one another through eyes that see the common human situation. To do so would benefit individuals, communities, nations, and the world at large.

The greater part of present world tension seems to stem from the 'Eastern bloc' versus 'Western bloc' conflict that has been going on since World War II. These two blocs tend to describe and view each other in a totally unfavourable light. This continuing, unreasonable struggle is due to a lack of mutual affection and respect for each other as fellow human beings. Those of the Eastern bloc should reduce their hatred towards the Western bloc because the Western bloc is also made up of human beings - men, women, and children. Similarly those of the Western bloc should reduce their hatred towards the Eastern bloc because the Eastern bloc is also human beings. In such a reduction of mutual hatred, the leaders of both blocs have a powerful role to play. But first and foremost, leaders must realize their own and others' humanness. Without this basic realization, very little effective reduction of organized hatred can be achieved.

If, for example, the leader of the United States of America and the leader of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics suddenly met each other in the middle of a desolate island, I am sure they would respond to each other spontaneously as fellow human beings. But a wall of mutual suspicion and misunderstanding separates them the moment they are identified as the 'President of the USA' and the 'Secretary-General of the USSR'). More human contact in the form of informal extended meetings, without any agenda, would improve their mutual understanding; they would learn to relate to each other as human beings and could then try to tackle international problems based on this understanding. No two parties, especially those with a history of antagonism, can negotiate fruitfully in an atmosphere of mutual suspicion and hatred.

I suggest that world leaders meet about once a year in a beautiful place without any business, just to get to know each other as human beings. Then, later, they could meet to discuss mutual and global problems. I am sure many others share my wish that world leaders meet at the conference table in such an atmosphere of mutual respect and understanding of each other's humanness.

To improve person-to-person contact in the world at large, I would like to see greater encouragement of international tourism. Also, mass media, particularly in democratic societies, can make a considerable contribution to world peace by giving greater coverage to human interest items that reflect the ultimate oneness of humanity. With the rise of a few big powers in the international arena, the humanitarian role of international organizations is being bypassed and neglected. I hope that this will be corrected and that all international organizations, especially the United Nations, will be more active and effective in ensuring maximum benefit to humanity and promoting international understanding. It will indeed be tragic if the few powerful members continue to misuse world bodies like the UN for their one-sided interests. The UN must become the instrument of world peace. This world body must be respected by all, for the UN is the only source of hope for small oppressed nations and hence for the planet as a whole.

As all nations are economically dependent upon one another more than ever before, human understanding must go beyond national boundaries and embrace the international community at large. Indeed, unless we can create an atmosphere of genuine cooperation, gained not by threatened or actual use of force but by heartfelt understanding, world problems will only increase. If people in poorer countries are denied the happiness they desire and deserve, they will naturally be dissatisfied and pose problems for the rich. If unwanted social, political, and cultural forms continue to be imposed upon unwilling people, the attainment of world peace is doubtful. However, if we satisfy people at a heart-to-heart level, peace will surely come.

Within each nation, the individual ought to be given the right to happiness, and among nations, there must be equal concern for the welfare of even the smallest nations. I am not suggesting that one system is better than another and all should adopt it. On the contrary, a variety of political systems and ideologies is desirable and accords with the variety of dispositions within the human community. This variety enhances the ceaseless human quest for happiness. Thus each community should be free to evolve its own political and socio-economic system, based on the principle of self-determination.

The achievement of justice, harmony, and peace depends on many factors. We should think about them in terms of human benefit in the long run rather than the short term. I realize the enormity of the task before us, but I see no other alternative than the one I am proposing - which is based on our common humanity. Nations have no choice but to be concerned about the welfare of others, not so much because of their belief in humanity, but because it is in the mutual and long-term interest of all concerned. An appreciation of this new reality is indicated by the emergence of regional or continental economic organizations such as the European Economic Community, the Association of South East Asian Nations, and so forth. I hope more such trans-national organizations will be formed, particularly in regions where economic development and regional stability seem in short supply.

Under present conditions, there is definitely a growing need for human understanding and a sense of universal responsibility. In order to achieve such ideas, we must generate a good and kind heart, for without this, we can achieve neither universal happiness nor lasting world peace. We cannot create peace on paper. While advocating universal responsibility and universal brotherhood and sisterhood, the facts are that humanity is organized in separate entities in the form of national societies. Thus, in a realistic sense, I feel it is these societies that must act as the building-blocks for world peace. Attempts have been made in the past to create societies more just and equal. Institutions have been established with noble charters to combat anti-social forces. Unfortunately, such ideas have been cheated by selfishness. More than ever before, we witness today how ethics and noble principles are obscured by the shadow of self-interest, particularly in the political sphere. There is a school of thought that warns us to refrain from politics altogether, as politics has become synonymous with amorality. Politics devoid of ethics does not further human welfare, and life without morality reduces humans to the level of beasts. However, politics is not axiomatically 'dirty'. Rather, the instruments of our political culture have distorted the high ideals and noble concepts meant to further human welfare. Naturally, spiritual people express their concern about religious leaders 'messing' with politics, since they fear the contamination of religion by dirty politics.

I question the popular assumption that religion and ethics have no place in politics and that religious persons should seclude themselves as hermits. Such a view of religion is too one-sided; it lacks a proper perspective on the individual's relation to society and the role of religion in our lives. Ethics is as crucial to a politician as it is to a religious practitioner. Dangerous consequences will follow when politicians and rulers forget moral principles. Whether we believe in God or karma, ethics is the foundation of every religion.

Such human qualities as morality, compassion, decency, wisdom, and so forth have been the foundations of all civilizations. These qualities must be cultivated and sustained through systematic moral education in a conducive social environment so that a more humane world may emerge. The qualities required to create such a world must be inculcated right from the beginning, from childhood. We cannot wait for the next generation to make this change; the present generation must attempt a renewal of basic human values. If there is any hope, it is in the future generations, but not unless we institute major change on a worldwide scale in our present educational system. We need a revolution in our commitment to and practice of universal humanitarian values.

It is not enough to make noisy calls to halt moral degeneration; we must do something about it. Since present-day governments do not shoulder such 'religious' responsibilities, humanitarian and religious leaders must strengthen the existing civic, social, cultural, educational, and religious organizations to revive human and spiritual values. Where necessary, we must create new organizations to achieve these goals. Only in so doing can we hope to create a more stable basis for world peace.

Living in society, we should share the sufferings of our fellow citizens and practise compassion and tolerance not only towards our loved ones but also towards our enemies. This is the test of our moral strength. We must set an example by our own practice, for we cannot hope to convince others of the value of religion by mere words. We must live up to the same high standards of integrity and sacrifice that we ask of others. The ultimate purpose of all religions is to serve and benefit humanity. This is why it is so important that religion always be used to effect the happiness and peace of all beings and not merely to convert others.

Still, in religion there are no national boundaries. A religion can and should be used by any people or person who finds it beneficial. What is important for each seeker is to choose a religion that is most suitable to himself or herself. But, the embracing of a particular religion does not mean the rejection of another religion or one's own community. In fact, it is important that those who embrace a religion should not cut themselves off from their own society; they should continue to live within their own community and in harmony with its members. By escaping from your own community, you cannot benefit others, whereas benefiting others is actually the basic aim of religion.

In this regard there are two things important to keep in mind: self-examination and self-correction. We should constantly check our attitude toward others, examining ourselves carefully, and we should correct ourselves immediately when we find we are in the wrong.

Finally, a few words about material progress. I have heard a great deal of complaint against material progress from Westerners, and yet, paradoxically, it has been the very pride of the Western world. I see nothing wrong with material progress per se, provided people are always given precedence. It is my firm belief that in order to solve human problems in all their dimensions, we must combine and harmonize economic development with spiritual growth.

However, we must know its limitations. Although materialistic knowledge in the form of science and technology has contributed enormously to human welfare, it is not capable of creating lasting happiness. In America, for example, where technological development is perhaps more advanced than in any other country, there is still a great deal of mental suffering. This is because materialistic knowledge can only provide a type of happiness that is dependent upon physical conditions. It cannot provide happiness that springs from inner development independent of external factors.

For renewal of human values and attainment of lasting happiness, we need to look to the common humanitarian heritage of all nations the world over. May this essay serve as an urgent reminder lest we forget the human values that unite us all as a single family on this planet.

I have written the above lines
To tell my constant feeling.
Whenever I meet even a 'foreigner',
I have always the same feeling:
'I am meeting another member of the human family.,
This attitude has deepened

My affection and respect for all beings.

May this natural wish be
My small contribution to world peace.
I pray for a more friendly,
More caring, and more understanding
Human family on this planet.
To all who dislike suffering,
Who cherish lasting happiness -
This is my heartfelt appeal.

Sunday

Speech by a Nobel Peace Prize Winner..


Your Majesties, Your Royal Highness, Nobel Peace Prize Laureates, Your Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen,

The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided that the Nobel Peace Prize for 2005 is to be shared, in two equal parts, between the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and its Director General, Mohamed ElBaradei, for their efforts to prevent nuclear energy from being used for military purposes and to ensure that nuclear energy for peaceful purposes is used in the safest possible way.

At a time when the threat of nuclear arms is again increasing, the Norwegian Nobel Committee wishes to underline that this threat must be met through the broadest possible international cooperation. This principle finds its clearest expression today in the work of the IAEA and its Director General. In the nuclear non-proliferation regime, it is the IAEA which controls that nuclear energy is not misused for military purposes, and the Director General has stood out as a bold advocate of new measures to strengthen that regime. At a time when disarmament efforts appear deadlocked, when there is a danger that nuclear arms will spread both to states and to terrorist groups, and when nuclear power again appears to be playing an increasingly significant role, this work is of incalculable importance.

The vision underlying the IAEA stems from President Dwight D. Eisenhower. In December 1953, he gave his famous "Atoms for Peace" speech at the United Nations. The vision was surprisingly concrete: the nuclear powers should "make joint contributions from their stockpiles of normal uranium and fissionable materials to an International Atomic Energy Agency". The most important task for the IAEA would be "to devise methods whereby this fissionable material would be allocated to serve the peaceful pursuits of mankind". The IAEA was in other words to receive potentially military nuclear material from the nuclear powers, and then distribute it for peaceful use to the countries that were most in need of it. The IAEA was formally established on 29 July 1957, for the purpose of preventing military use and stimulating peaceful use of nuclear energy.

Implicitly in the IAEA statutes, but all the more explicitly in the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) of 1970, which was to mean so much to the IAEA, the five original nuclear powers are under an obligation "to reduce nuclear weapons globally, with the ultimate goals of eliminating those weapons". This important point has been repeated on a number of subsequent occasions. Despite several arms limitation agreements, the traditional nuclear powers can by no means be said to have come much closer to this goal. Although the number of nuclear weapons deployed has been reduced, tens of thousands of them remain – about as many as when the NPT entered into force – as well as a continuing interest in the development of new weapon types. This is one main reason why further non-proliferation efforts have stalled. The nuclear powers must take their obligations under the NPT seriously. It is hypocritical to go on developing one's own nuclear weapons while doing everything in one's power to prevent others from acquiring such weapons. As ElBaradei himself has put it, it is like "some who have … continued to dangle a cigarette from their mouth and tell everybody else not to smoke".

The number of nuclear powers in the world has risen. In addition to the USA, Russia, Great Britain, France and China, Israel, India and Pakistan have nuclear arms. Perhaps North Korea, too. This is not to say that there have been no positive developments. South Africa discontinued its program, thus becoming the first country to have developed nuclear weapons only to abandon them. All credit to South Africa! Belorussia, Ukraine and Kazakhstan renounced the nuclear weapons which the Soviet Union had left behind in their territories. Libya has reversed its policy. Argentina, Brazil, Taiwan, South Korea and Turkey have given up ambitious programs. Nevertheless, proliferation continues. It has to be stopped.

The IAEA has met with both successes and reverses in its struggle to prevent the spread of nuclear arms. Iraq illustrates both. Initially, the IAEA failed to uncover the extensive program which Saddam Hussein had developed in the 1980s. That necessitated new routines. On the other hand, in cooperation with the United Nations Special Commission on Iraq (UNSCOM) and the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC), the IAEA then managed in the 1990s to destroy such weapons of mass destruction as did exist. In the period prior to the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the IAEA and UNMOVIC were under heavy pressure, despite which the inspectors carried out their task in Iraq in an independent, thorough and correct manner. As the world could see after the war in Iraq, the weapons that were not found proved not to have existed.

In North Korea, the IAEA discovered that the North Koreans had lied about their nuclear program. Since then, however, it has not been given any opportunity to carry out the inspections in North Korea which are certainly necessary. With respect to Iran, too, the IAEA has had both ups and downs. Iran managed to keep its nuclear program concealed for 18 years. For the past two years, however, the IAEA has undertaken important work there with some degree of success. The tense situation in the country can only be resolved provided the IAEA is allowed to carry out the necessary inspections and its steps and resolutions are respected.

Keeping pace with the many challenges with which it has been confronted in the last few years, the IAEA has managed to tighten up the control it exercises, also by carrying out special inspections at short notice. It has done a good job in a number of difficult contexts. At a time when international organizations have been heavily criticised, the IAEA has not only maintained but even in many respects strengthened its position. Its security control enables the organization to exercise functions that were previously the preserve of national authorities. In so far as it has encroached on national sovereignty, this control has broken new ground. Complete sovereignty in the nuclear field means complete insecurity for the rest of the world.

The central figure in this strengthening of the IAEA has been Director General ElBaradei. He has himself put forward numerous proposals aimed at this objective. He is an active participant in debates on the future of the non-proliferation regime. While building on the important work of his predecessors, and of Hans Blix in particular, he has managed to strengthen still further the positions both of the Director General and of the IAEA. His recent re-election for a third term will open up new opportunities in the years ahead both for him and for the IAEA. Today's award is thus very much a tribute to Mohamet ElBaradei in person, but is also intended to recognise the 2,300 staff from 90 countries who currently work for the IAEA, as well as the many who worked there before. Many are here today. We salute you and thank you for your work.

For the IAEA it has been and still is very important to help the poor countries of the world to participate in the use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. Refraining from military uses should make it possible to help such countries with civilian uses. Such peaceful use has been controversial in many countries, however, and there has consequently been no increase in recent years. Nuclear energy currently accounts for about 16 per cent of global electricity production, but nearly all of this is in highly developed countries. Growth today is taking place principally in Russia, China, India and Brazil. The main reasons for the growth are energy shortages, high oil prices, the need to reduce CO2 emissions, and enhanced operational safety.

Although opinions differ on the civilian use of nuclear energy, we should all be able to agree on the importance of ensuring that the use that does take place is made as safe as possible. If we do see further growth in this sector, control arrangements will become all the more essential. This forms a major part of the work of the IAEA. Incidentally, many of us may not pause to reflect on the prominent position of nuclear energy in the health services, especially in the treatment of cancer, as well as in connection with agriculture, the environment, and industry.

The award to the IAEA and to ElBaradei is firmly founded in the history of the Peace Prize, and in Alfred Nobel's will, in which he mentions the "abolition or reduction of standing armies" as one of the three criteria for the award. Nobel would surely have agreed that in our day the struggle against nuclear arms must be even more urgent than opposition to "standing armies".

This year's prize to the IAEA and ElBaradei links together the two principal major lines of thought that have governed selections for the award throughout its history. Again and again, the Norwegian Nobel Committee has stressed the need for a better organized world. This explains the many prizes to representatives of the Inter-Parliamentary Union before World War I, to representatives of the League of Nations in the inter-war years, and to individuals and organizations attached to the United Nations after World War II. In 2001, year of the centenary of the Nobel Prizes, it was therefore only natural to give the award to the United Nations and to its Secretary General Kofi Annan. This year it is 60 years since the foundation of the United Nations. The IAEA is very much a part of the UN system and consequently belongs under this most distinct of all headings in the history of the Peace Prize.

A second and almost equally prominent theme has been work for disarmament and arms control. Many Laureates have advocated disarmament and peace in general. Even in the nuclear field a number of prizes have been awarded: to Linus Pauling in 1962 for his work for a nuclear test ban agreement; to Andrei Sakharov in 1975 for campaigning for nuclear disarmament and democracy; to Alva Myrdal and Garcia Robles in 1982 for seeking non-proliferation; to International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War in 1985, working across the east-west divide; and to the Pugwash Conferences and Joseph Rotblat in 1995 for the important work they did for nuclear disarmament, especially at the expert level.

It has been claimed that every tenth year the Norwegian Nobel Committee awards the prize to someone seeking the abolition of nuclear weapons. With the awards of 1975, 1985 and 1995 in mind, it is difficult for the Committee to deny the charge. But such awards have, as you have heard, been made more frequently than once a decade. And it was not the case in 2005 that the Committee had zeroed in on this field in advance. It would be truer to say that when the Committee, after a long discussion of this year's 199 candidates, finally selected the IAEA and ElBaradei, we came to the realisation that once again the prize was going to someone who favours reducing the importance of nuclear arms in international politics.

The atom bombs fell on Hiroshima and Nagasaki 60 years ago. Since then, the world has been united in the wish that nothing like that must ever happen again. Such weapons are so dreadful that they are meaningless in war. Naturally enough, memories of the atom bombs have been strongest of all in Japan, where people who survived the two atom bombs can still be found. The survivors have a special name, Hibakusha, and their own organization, Nihon Hidankyo. We salute them today. It is accordingly highly appropriate, even though it is a coincidence, that it is the Japanese ambassador to the IAEA, Yukiya Amano, who is at present the chairman of the organization's Board of Governors, and who will therefore receive the one half of the award on behalf of the IAEA.

Let us recall the story of the little girl, Sadako Sasaki, who as an infant was exposed to radiation from the Hiroshima bomb. Suffering as a twelve-year-old from deadly leukaemia, she heard the Japanese legend which tells us that if you fold one thousand cranes you can wish for anything you like. And Sadako began folding a thousand cranes, wishing to get well. According to popular legend, she died when she had folded 644 birds; her classmates folded the remaining 356. Sadako was buried with a wreath of 1,000 cranes. Her classmates and friends had a granite statue of her erected in the Peace Park in Hiroshima. The statue shows Sadako as a young girl with her arms out, and with a crane in her hand. Thousands of folded cranes are left by the statue every year.

Most of us dream of a future without nuclear weapons. We would finally be rid of the threat to mankind's very existence which the weapons represent. Those who do not dream of such a future tend to say that nuclear arms can not be uninvented, and maintain that if and when a war does break out, there will be pressure to develop nuclear arms again. The answer to this was given by Joseph Rotblat, the 1995 Laureate, for whom a memorial ceremony was held in London yesterday: Our long-term vision must be to put an end to war as such. We must banish war in the same way as the world has largely succeeded in banishing slavery, the commonest of social institutions.

Several Nobel Peace Prizes have been awarded to the many who oppose nuclear weapons. The successes have nevertheless been few and the setbacks many. Even the IAEA has had disappointments. But we can not give up. The basic challenge still confronts us. In the words of the Russell-Einstein manifesto of 1955: "Here then is the problem which we present to you, stark and dreadful, and inescapable: shall we put an end to the human race or shall we renounce war". That is the question. Shall we put an end to the human race or shall we renounce war?

STATEMENT ON THE 50TH ANNIVERSARY OF
EISENHOWER’S “ATOMS FOR PEACE” SPEECH


This year marks the 50th anniversary of the “Atoms for Peace” speech delivered by President Dwight D. Eisenhower at the United Nations, in which he called on the United States and the Soviet Union “to make joint contributions from their stockpiles of normal uranium and fissionable materials to an international Atomic Energy Agency” that would then “devise methods whereby this fissionable material would be allocated to serve the peaceful pursuits of mankind.” The speech was, in fact, a shrewd piece of Cold War propaganda, intended to shame the Soviets into donating much of their weapon-usable fissile material to a “bank” under international control. However, although it ultimately failed to achieve this goal, the United States later sold this speech to the international community as a visionary tribute to the promise of civilian applications of nuclear energy.

But, the actual legacy of Atoms for Peace was far darker than the optimistic projections of its early cheerleaders. For example, under the auspices of the program, the United States and other nuclear weapon states supplied hundreds of research reactors fueled by highly enriched uranium (HEU) to dozens of countries, including Iraq, Iran, Korea, Vietnam, Indonesia, and Yugoslavia. Because HEU can be used to make nuclear weapons of a relatively simple design, it is highly attractive to terrorists. The United States belatedly recognized this dangerous situation and eventually began to take steps to address it by developing alternative fuels made from low-enriched uranium (LEU), which cannot be used directly to make nuclear weapons. Today, however, HEU remains at dozens of poorly secured research reactors worldwide, where it is vulnerable to theft.

Nuclear energy programs have stagnated over the last quarter-century in the United States and many other developed nations. However, nuclear power proponents in government, academia, and think tanks have been energized by the Bush administration and the current congressional leadership, who have shown a 1950s-type enthusiasm for huge government subsidies to jumpstart new nuclear power development despite little interest by private industry. Now, officials at nuclear weapon laboratories, in a continuing search for new funding and relevance, are using the anniversary of the speech as a platform to promote a second Atoms for Peace era that they hope will herald a major worldwide expansion of nuclear energy.

Most nuclear power reactors worldwide use fuel made from low-enriched uranium. The spent fuel can either be disposed of directly (known as a “once-through” fuel cycle) or reprocessed to extract the plutonium in the spent fuel. This plutonium can be used to fuel reactors but, like HEU, can also be used to make nuclear weapons. In a “closed” fuel cycle, the spent fuel is reprocessed and the extracted plutonium is used to make fresh reactor fuel. Thus, the closed fuel cycle requires the production, transportation, and storage of weapon-usable materials. In recognition of the dangers associated with reprocessing, the United States declared a moratorium on reprocessing commercial spent nuclear fuel in the 1970s. As a result, the United States is not saddled with the security and cost burden of storing large stockpiles of civil plutonium, unlike countries that do reprocess spent fuel such as France, Japan, and the United Kingdom.

The most dangerous aspect of the new U.S. nuclear energy program is its renunciation of a quarter-century-old nuclear nonproliferation policy, which was adopted in part to correct the excesses of the Atoms for Peace era. Today, with the assent of Congress (to the tune of $92 million in fiscal year (FY) 2004), the Department of Energy is undertaking a huge international program to develop a new generation of plutonium-fueled fast-breeder reactors and reprocessing plants. Some scientists at the national laboratories are also hoping to develop small plutonium-fueled reactors for export to the developing world. Indonesia, in particular, has expressed interest in powering remote parts of its archipelago with such reactors.

In October, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Director-General, Mohammed ElBaradei, proposed that all civilian facilities for producing enriched uranium and plutonium be placed under international control. Nations seeking access to those materials would presumably have to demonstrate a legitimate need for them.

While ElBaradei’s proposal has some merit, it doesn’t go nearly far enough. Eisenhower’s proposal of a fissile material “bank” assumed that the material would be stored in “special safe conditions” so as to be “essentially immune to surprise seizure.” Any weapon-usable material produced in these international facilities should be required to meet the same standard during its transport to recipient sites, as well as during storage and use. However, meeting this challenging and costly standard over the entire life-cycle of weapon-usable materials is far beyond the capacity of private industry, especially in view of the sophistication and resources of the terrorist organizations operating today.

The reaction of U.S. Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham to ElBaradei’s proposal was reportedly noncommittal. This should be no surprise—such a regime would constrain the Department of Energy’s own plans to develop new “Generation IV” breeder reactor systems and make them available for international deployment by the year 2030. Some proposed systems would have their own reprocessing plants attached, so would not generally be permitted under ElBaradei’s proposal.

Both ElBaradei and Abraham argue that development of a new generation of nuclear energy systems, designed to be proliferation- and terrorist-resistant, can solve the security problems associated with the large-scale shipment and use of weapon-usable materials around the world. But it is unreasonable to believe that a technological fix will be found to what is largely a political problem. This fact is reflected in the view of State Department officials who would oppose the export of any nuclear technology to countries like Iran, no matter how “proliferation-resistant” its designers claim it to be.

It’s time to acknowledge that weapon-usable material in commerce cannot be made “essentially immune to surprise seizure.” The only way to increase assurance that weapon-usable material will be kept out of terrorist hands is to ban its production and use altogether. The Bush administration should pull the plug on its grandiose reprocessing plans, and work instead to encourage its allies to follow suit. Although the “once-through” nuclear fuel cycle that is now the norm in the United States is not invulnerable, it remains the most proliferation-resistant nuclear energy system that has been devised.

PEACE QUOTES

Peace is the marriage of the people and the planet, with all attendant vows.

Anonymous


Peace comes from being able to contribute the best that we have, and all that we are, toward creating a world that supports everyone. But it is also securing the space for others to contribute the best that they have and all that they are.

Hafsat Abiola


In some ways, the challenges are even more daunting than they were at the peak of the cold war. Not only do we continue to face grave nuclear threats, but those threats are being compounded by new weapons developments, new violence within States and new challenges to the rule of law.

Kofi Annan


There is no trust more sacred than the one the world holds with children. There is no duty more important than ensuring that their rights are respected, that their welfare is protected, that their lives are free from fear and want and that they grow up in peace.

Kofi Annan


The first peace, which is the most important, is that which comes within the souls of people when they realize their relationship, their oneness with the universe and all its powers, and when they realize that at the center of the universe dwells the Great Spirit, and that this center is really everywhere, it is within each of us.

Black Elk (1863-1950)


There is no time left for anything but to make peacework a dimension of our every waking activity.

Elise Boulding


Democracy is an objective. Democratization is a process. Democratization serves the cause of peace because it offers the possibility of justice and of progressive change without force.

Boutros Boutros-Ghali


Better than a thousand hollow words is one word that brings peace.

Buddha (560-483 B.C.)


Peace, to have meaning for many who have only known suffering in both peace and war, must be translated into bread or rice, shelter, health and education, as well as freedom and human dignity.

Ralph Johnson Bunche (1904-1971)


Do you know what astonished me most in the world? The inability of force to create anything. In the long run the sword is always beaten by the spirit. Soldiers usually win battles and generals get the credit for them. You must not fight too often with one enemy, or you will teach him all your art of war. If they want peace, nations should avoid the pin-pricks that precede cannon shots.

Napoleon Bonaparte (1769-1821)


Peace is the only battle worth waging.

Albert Camus (1913-1960)


We know how to organize warfare, but do we know how to act when confronted with peace?

Jacques-Yves Cousteau (1910-1997)


Human Beings, indeed all sentient beings, have the right to pursue happiness and live in peace and freedom.

The XIVth Dalai Lama


Peace, in the sense of the absence of war, is of little value to someone who is dying of hunger or cold. It will not remove the pain of torture inflicted on a prisoner of conscience. It does not comfort those who have lost their loved ones in floods caused by senseless deforestation in a neighboring country. Peace can only last where human rights are respected, where people are fed, and where individuals and nations are free.

The XIVth Dalai Lama


If you want to make peace, you don't talk to your friends. You talk to your enemies.

Moshe Dayan (1915-1981)


Peace cannot be kept by force. It can only be achieved by understanding.

Albert Einstein (1979-1955)


There can be no peace without law.

Dwight D. Eisenhower (1890-1969)


I like to believe that people in the long run are going to do more to promote peace than our governments. Indeed, I think that people want peace so much that one of these days governments had better get out of the way and let them have it.

Dwight D. Eisenhower (1890-1969)


Peace cannot be achieved through violence, it can only be attained through understanding.

Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803-1882)


The most disadvantageous peace is better than the most just war.

Desiderius Erasmus (1469-1536)


There was never a good war or a bad peace.

Ben Franklin (1706-1790)


It is possible to live in peace.

Mahatma Gandhi (1869-1948)


It is easier to lead men to combat, stirring up their passion, than to restrain them and direct them toward the patient labors of peace.

Andre Gide (1869-1951)


We look forward to the time when the Power of Love will replace the Love of Power. Then will our world know the blessings of peace.

William Gladstone (1809-1898)


Peace is every step.

Thich Nhat Hahn


If we are peaceful, if we are happy, we can smile and blossom like a flower, and everyone in our family, our entire society, will benefit from our peace.

Thich Nhat Hanh


Peace-making is a healing process and it begins with me, but it does not end there.

Gene Knudsen Hoffman


The goal toward which all history tends is peace, not peace through the medium of war, not peace through a process of universal intimidation, not peace through a program of mutual impoverishment, not peace by any means that leaves the world too weak or too frightened to go on fighting, but peace pure and simple based on that will to peace which has animated the overwhelming majority of mankind through countless ages. This will to peace does not arise out of a cowardly desire to preserve one's life and property, but out of conviction that the fullest development of the highest powers of men can be achieved only in a world of peace.

Robert Maynard Hutchins (1899-1977)


Nothing is more precious than peace. Peace is the most basic starting point for the advancement of humankind.

Daisaku Ikeda


They shall beat their swords into ploughshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.

Isaiah, II:4


Peace is the respect for the rights of others. (El respeto al derecho ajeno es la paz ).

Benito Juarez (1806-1872)


A truly free society must not include a "peace" which oppresses us. We must learn on our own terms what peace and freedom mean together. There can be no peace if there is social injustice and suppression of human rights, because external and internal peace are inseparable. Peace.is not just the absence of mass destruction, but a positive internal and external condition in which people are free so that they can grow to their full potential.

Petra Karin Kelly (1947-1992)


But peace does not rest in the charters and covenants alone. It lies in the hearts and minds of all people. So let us not rest all our hopes on parchment and on paper, let us strive to build peace, a desire for peace, a willingness to work for peace in the hearts and minds of all of our people. I believe that we can. I believe the problems of human destiny are not beyond the reach of human beings.

John F. Kennedy (1917-1963)


You can't separate peace from freedom because no one can be at peace unless he has his freedom.

Malcolm X (1925-1965)


We will not build a peaceful world by following a negative path. It is not enough to say we must not wage war. It is necessary to love peace and sacrifice for it. We must concentrate not merely on the negative expulsion of war but on the positive affirmation of peace. We must see that peace represents a sweeter music, a cosmic melody, that is far superior to the discords of war. Somehow, we must transform the dynamics of the world power struggle from the negative nuclear arms race, which no one can win, to a positive contest to harness humanity's creative genius for the purpose of making peace and prosperity a reality for all the nations of the world. In short, we must shift the arms race into a peace race. If we have a will - and determination - to mount such a peace offensive, we will unlock hitherto tightly sealed doors of hope and transform our imminent cosmic elegy into a psalm of creative fulfillment.

Martin Luther King, Jr. (1929-1968)


If there is to be peace in the world,
There must be peace in the nations.

If there is to be peace in the nations,
There must be peace in the cities.

If there is to be peace in the cities,
There must be peace between neighbors.

If there is to be peace between neighbors,
There must be peace in the home.

If there is to be peace in the home,
There must be peace in the heart.

Lao Tzu (570-490 B.C.)


All we are saying is give peace a chance.

John Lennon (1940-1980)


If everyone demanded peace instead of another television set, then there'd be peace.

John Lennon (1940-1980)


As things are now going the peace we make, what peace we seem to be making, will be a peace of oil, a peace of gold, a peace of shipping, a peace in brief.without moral purpose or human interest.

Archibald MacLeish (1907-1982)


Blessed are the peacemakers for they shall be called the children of God.

Matthew, V:9


It is a good moment to repeat that a war is never won. Never mind that history books tell us the opposite. The psychological and material costs of war are so high that any triumph is a pyrrhic victory. Only peace can be won and winning peace means not only avoiding armed conflict but finding ways of eradicating the causes of individual and collective violence: injustice and oppression, ignorance and poverty, intolerance and discrimination. We must construct a new set of values and attitudes to replace the culture of war which, for centuries, has been influencing the course of civilization. Winning peace means the triumph of our pledge to establish, on a democratic basis, a new social framework of tolerance and generosity from which no one will feel excluded.

Federico Mayor


Peace may sound simple - one beautiful word - but it requires everything we have, every quality, every strength, every dream, every high ideal.

Yehudi Menuhin (1916-1999)


Establishing lasting peace is the work of education; all politics can do is keep us out of war.

Maria Montessori (1870-1952)


Climb the mountains and get their good tidings. Nature's peace will flow into you as sunshine flows into trees. The winds will blow their own freshness into you, and the storms their energy, while cares will drop off like autumn leaves.

John Muir (1838-1914)


Dream always of a peaceful, warless, disarmed world.

Robert Muller


There is no way to peace; peace is the way.

A.J. Muste (1885-1967)


Poetry is an act of peace. Peace goes into the making of a poet as flour goes into the making of bread.

Pablo Neruda (1904-1973)


The more we sweat in peace the less we bleed in war.

Vijaya Lakshmi Pandit (1900-1990)


This is the way of peace: overcome evil with good, and falsehood with truth, and hatred with love.

Peace Pilgrim


Five enemies of peace inhabit us - avarice, ambition, envy, anger, and pride; if these were to be banished, we should infallibly enjoy perpetual peace.

Francesco Petrarch (1304-1374)


To reach peace, teach peace.

Pope John Paul II


If you want peace, work for justice.

Pope Paul VI (1897-1978)


The true and solid peace of nations consists not in equality of arms, but in mutual trust alone.

Pope John XXIII (1881-1963)


Peace will be victorious.

Yitzhak Rabin (1922-1995)


Peace, development and environmental protection are interdependent and indivisible.

Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, 1993


Peace is not the product of terror or fear.
Peace is not the silence of cemeteries.
Peace is not the silent revolt of violent repression.
Peace is the generous, tranquil contribution
of all to the good of all.
Peace is dynamism. Peace is generosity.
It is right and it is duty.

Bishop Oscar Romero (1917-1980)


It isn't enough to talk about peace. One must believe in it. And it isn't enough to believe in it. One must work at it.

Eleanor Roosevelt (1884-1962)


The structure of world peace cannot be the work of one man or one party or one nation. It must be a peace which rests on the cooperative effort of the whole world.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt (1882-1945)


Here then, is the problem we present to you, stark and dreadful and inescapable: Shall we put an end to the human race; or shall mankind renounce war?

The Russell-Einstein Manifesto, 1955


In the hearts of people today there is a deep longing for peace. When the true spirit of peace is thoroughly dominant, it becomes an inner experience with unlimited possibilities. Only when this really happens - when the spirit of peace awakens and takes possession of men's hearts, can humanity be saved from perishing.

Albert Schweitzer (1875-1965)


Peace is not an absence of war, it is a virtue, a state of mind, a disposition for benevolence, confidence, justice.

Baruch Spinoza (1632-1677)


Peace is the one condition of survival in this nuclear age.

Adlai Stevenson (1900-1965)


I was once asked why I don't participate in anti-war demonstrations. I said that I will never do that, but as soon as you have a pro-peace rally, I'll be there.

Mother Theresa (1910-1997)


All works of love are works of peace.

Mother Theresa (1910-1997)


If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other.

Mother Theresa (1910-1997)


Since wars begin in the minds of men, it is in the minds of men that the defenses of peace must be constructed.

UNESCO Constitution


We, Veteran's for Peace, view peace as a positively active and creative process which requires courage, commitment, endurance, vigilance, and integrity. Peace is a struggle toward unity, and it is characterized by an absence of violence in all its forms, including discrimination based on gender, age, race, religion, social and economic status, ethnicity, and sexual orientation. Those who labor for peace are called peacemakers because they tirelessly pursue nonviolent solutions, work for economic and social justice, celebrate diversity, and strive to build relationships between adversaries through education, conflict mediation, and humanitarian relief. We recognize that peace is both a means and end simultaneously, and that it is never finally or fully achieved. This is because change and growth require some degree of tension or conflict. Historically, such conflict has provided the impetus for military solutions. Thus we, Veteran's for Peace, strongly believe that the greatest obstacle to peace is militarism with its reliance on violence and war. We further believe that peacekeeping action should only be accomplished by a legitimate international body.

Committee to Define Peace, Veterans for Peace


Time itself becomes subordinate to war. If only we could celebrate peace as our various ancestors celebrated war; if only we could glorify peace as those before us, thirsting for adventure, glorified war; if only our sages and scholars together could resolve to infuse peace with the same energy and inspiration that others have put into war.

Why is war such an easy option? Why does peace remain such an elusive goal? We know statesmen skilled at waging war, but where are those dedicated enough to humanity to find a way to avoid war>

Every nation has its prestigious military academies - or so few of them - that reach not only the virtues of peace but also the art of attaining it? I mean attaining and protecting it by means other than weapons, the tools of war. Why are we surprised whenever war recedes and yields to peace?

Elie Wiesel


Peace is the roots of life, we must nourish it.

PJ



Monday

All about Peace

"In the hearts of people today there is a deep longing for peace. When the true spirit of peace is thoroughly dominant, it becomes an inner experience with unlimited possibilities. Only when this really happens, when the spirit of peace awakens and takes possession of men's hearts, can humanity be saved from perishing."

The greatest weapon of mass destruction is the attitude of militarism within the human mind. The missiles and bombs from this arsenal are more lethal than anything we could find in trailers and bunkers and silos. However many weapons might be found, however many might be destroyed, ten more will appear for every one that disappears. We will not be safe until the attitude of militarism is dismantled; we will not be safe until the attitude of true peace is created as the rule of law for persons and nations alike.

The human race has come to this precise point in its brief history: change, or perish. There is no middle ground. Weapons of mass destruction are proliferating like toxic clouds within the minds of so many people whose power threatens civilization throughout the world. Change, or perish. Let us change. We already know about militarism; we already know about this barbarism. We do not yet know about peace. So let us learn, and then change.

There is no more urgent question than this: How can I make peace real? How are we to meet violence with nonviolence, to meet war with peace, to meet fear with love, to meet hatred with compassion? How are we to dismantle the attitude of militarism and install the attitude of peace, within our own minds and within the very structure of society? It is, first and foremost, a choice, a decision, a commitment, a stand. In this moment in which the world is trembling and reeling with angry passions and violent convictions, we must call for peace, stand for peace, and act for peace. We must accept only peace. But first, we must become peace itself, not an idea or image of peace, not the rhetoric of peace, but actual peace, the peace in which violence cannot arise, the peace in which the attitude of militarism cannot survive.

We must seek that peace, know that peace, and become that peace. How do we do this? We can do this through understanding, and through reflection, and through empathy. We must understand that we already are peace. It is called the soul, and it is given to all in equal measure as a flame of the Creator's fire, full of love and joy--this is the soul, and this is peace. Regardless of what our mind may say, regardless of what today's headlines may say, regardless of what society may say, peace is the essential nature of all human beings. This is the savage irony of our times and of the human condition: within each of us is the loving and peaceful flame of the Creator, and yet we continue to accept violence and war as though they were as natural as sunlight. They are not. They are an aberration, a disease; and the medicine is experiencing the reality of the soul. We cannot kill our way to peace. We cannot bomb our way to safety. We must understand that within the soul of all human beings is peace.

How do we find our way to the soul? How do we live from the soul? We have to reflect deeply on the nature of the mind, we have to reflect deeply on the nature of thoughts and beliefs. Even if this seems unrealistic, we must do this. We must come to know that Silence which waits for us just beneath the ragged surface of the mind. We must sit together in Silence. We must join with others in Silence. We must let Silence illuminate and transform the hateful delusions of demagoguery. This is how we enter the soul. We must learn to be Silent, and from within this Silence we wash ourselves clean of anger, fear, and hatred. And we must question our beliefs about self and other, we must inquire into the origin and nature of anger and retribution, of fear and hostility. We must, in a word, become wise, in the way towering trees are wise, and glaciers, and tides. We must become wise, like deserts and mountains: Silent, profound, majestic.

Entering this Silence is discovering our soul, and from within the infinite beauty of our soul, we know peace, we become peace. We must do this now, today, and tomorrow, and every day for the rest of our lives: for our own sake, and for the sake of our families, our communities, our world.

But do not be fooled: Silence is not passive. Silence is not weak. Silence is not mute. The Silence of which I speak is the mind and heart of the universal soul: it is active, strong, and loud. And it is peaceful. And it is unconquerable. When we become truly peaceful within, we will create peace without.

This is the work that we must all take up, now and for the rest of our days. There is no greater work than this. There is no greater wealth than this. There is no greater philosophy than this. There is no greater security than this. There is no greater justice than this. There is no greater contribution than this. There is no greater truth than this.

You do not have to take my word for it. You know this for yourself. You know it now, resting in your soul, resting in the depths of your being. Here, we find each other. Here, we find our lost love and compassion. Here, in this depth, we find that truth which is beyond differences, beyond dogmas, beyond justifications. It is the universal soul, and its face shines with beauty, with tenderness, with love, with compassion, with forgiveness. But most of all, it shines the same in all, and we must learn to feel this as a living truth.

Our world risks losing this soul, if we do not find it within ourselves and if we do not then stand and move and speak and act in the world with the full weight and measure and power of this soul found again within our own depth of being where the Creator placed it.

Do not be fooled by the shrill voices that call upon your fears and urge you to war, to violence, to brutality. Do not do this. Turn away from this noise and enter the Silence of your soul. Entering this place, then find new mouths and new words, new hands and new actions, new hearts and new compassion. Let the children waiting in celestial realms be suddenly happy at the prospect of coming to Earth.

Let us now resolve to enter the depths of Silence every day, let us resolve to purify our mind and heart in these still waters, let us resolve to wash away all anger and hatred and fear in these still waters, that we may find the peace, the love, the joy that is within us and that we share these soul-treasures freely with one another in friendship and mutual respect.

Let us affirm that we are peace, and knowing that we are peace, let us also affirm that we will stand for peace, speak for peace, and create peace in each hour of each day.

Though there is a great army of those who prefer violence, we must create an even greater army of people who choose peace. Once we find our way into the spiritual heart, into the silence of the soul, into the very mind of God and then into Oneness with all of life -- we have no choice but to live in peace.

But we can be strong and active in our love. We can be mighty in our peaceful ways. We can work long and hard to eradicate the true cause of violence, which is poverty of spirit. We must work to enrich our own understanding, to unfurl the flag of peace within our own heart. We must find strength and solace in our own inner light and peace, and then we must spread this light and peace throughout the world in real and telling ways, even dramatic ways.

Sunday

Is Peace the absence of
.
Violence & War?

"Peace is not an absence of war, it is a virtue, a state of mind, a disposition for benevolence, confidence, justice."
- Baruch Spinoza


It is now widely seen that peace should be more than the mere absence of war: it should be a positive force that counters violence as a means of resolving the problems of human society. Justice should not only aim at controlling the negative traits in human nature, it should work to promote a sense of fairness, compassion and universal brotherhood.
- Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, Nobel Peace prize winner in a message to the International Conference on "Universal Rights and Human Values: A Blueprint for Peace, Justice and Freedom" Edmonton, Canada, 26-28 November, 1998


Peace is no longer considered to be simply the absence of war. That is far too limited a definition. In fact, "the absence of structural violence" is now viewed as a much more positive definition of peace. To understand why, we need to understand what is meant by the term "structural violence". The Norwegian Nobel Peace Prize nominee Dr. Johan Galtung extended the meaning of the term "violence" to include all things that stand in the way of the full flowering of human potential. He called oppressive forces that are deeply rooted in social conditions "structural violence". Of course, wars that cut off young lives at the root are the most wanton form of structural violence, but there are many other hindrances to the flowering of human potential, including hunger, poverty, the destruction of the environment, social injustices, discrimination, and backwardness in educational and medical policies. Thus, peace studies must seek practical means of creating a society without such structural violence, while the goal of peace education should be contributing to the establishment of such a society. To guarantee maximum fulfillment of human potential, it is essential to ensure maximum protection of human rights, for a peaceful society is surely one that offers its members a wealth of human rights. Peace education, then, is directly tied to human rights education aimed at eliminating all forms of prejudice including that against the traditional outcast class in Japan. It is also connected to education about protection of the environment.
- EPILOGUE.html




Is peace possible between Israel and the Arab world?

"We can only arrive at peace with the Arabs through an evolution on their part that includes democracy. But wherever I turn my eyes to look, I don't see a shadow of democracy. I see only dictatorial regimes."
- Golda Meir, in an interview with Oriana Fallaci in Jerusalem in November 1972


For the vast majority of Arabs, Israel is "taboo" -- the acceptance and legitimization of which simply inconceivable irrespective of diplomatic treaties. The current "peace process" is no different.
- from ISLAMIC ANTI-SEMITISM AS A POLITICAL INSTRUMENT, by Yossef Bodansky, in The Maccabean Online, January, 1998


"It is only natural for Jews and Muslims to clash in the wake of the clarification that Islam aspires for higher values that contradict what the Jews call for."
- Abd-Allah al-Thal, a former Jordanian General during the War of Independence, in The Danger of International Judaism to Islam and Christianity, cited by Y. Harkabi in Emdat haAravim beSikhsukh Yisrael-Arav [The Arabs' Position in the Arab-Israeli Conflict], Tel Aviv, Dvir, 1968


The answer is YES -- But only after mind-boggling changes in the Arab world. True peace can only be made after the Arab world undergoes democratization. Simply put, democracies rarely go to war with one another. All our major wars of the last two hundred years have been between dictators or between democracies defending themselves from dictators. When a ruler is elected by the people, he has a natural restraint preventing him from sending their sons and daughters into combat in an aggressive war. No such restraint exists anywhere in the Arab world.
The second major change required of the Arab/Moslem world is to create secular states not subservient to the rule of Islam. The problem for Israel with the rise of Islamic fundamentalism is the very hostile attitude that Islam has toward Jews and any non-Islamic person. Islam is all encompassing and guides behavior, law, religion and attitudes and relations with non-Moslems. Islam perceives the world as two separate parts:

1.The first is Dar el-Islam or the World of Islam
2. All the rest is Dar el-Harb or the world of the sword or the world of war -- that is those non-Muslim nations that have yet to be conquered.

The concept of JIHAD or Holy War has been understood by most of us but there is another concept in the Koran with which few of us are familiar. But it is essential to understand this concept when relating to Moslems. That is the law of HUDAIBIYA which dates back to Muhammad and states clearly that "Muslims are permitted to lie and break agreements with non-Muslims." This applies to business, personal life and politics. Would a peace treaty be worth much if the other party is Moslem?

Islam divides the world between Believers and Infidels. Jews and Christians are relegated to the status of Dhimmis or second class citizens. The Koran clearly calls on Moslems to degrade and humiliate both groups.

The Arab/Moslem world will have to develop a tradition of respect for women, minorities, and human rights in general before they will be ready for peace with Israel. It seems a bit odd that our State Department is pushing democracy and human rights from one end of the globe to the other -- WITH THE REMARKABLE EXCEPTION OF THE MIDDLE EAST. Why are the Arabs insulated from pressure to democratize their societies?

It is obvious that no peace agreement would be worth anything with people believing in the above Islamic tenets, failing to practice democracy or show respect for minorities and human rights.

- Bernard J. Shapiro, Editor of the Freeman List


Since every culture has its own traditions, Prophethood, as a part of the Middle Eastern culture, has a validity for its own people. But thrusting it on other nations as Islam does for establishing Arab hegemony, is aggressive and undesirable. On the contrary, the Mosaic Prophethood is harmless because the Jews do not seek conversion through propaganda, persecution and promises.
Still worse is the Islamic attitude that preaches destruction of the Jews as part of faith and means of salvation. It has caused such an inhuman animosity between the Muslim and Jewish groups that it is likely to threaten survival of the human race.

- from ISLAM: The Arab Imperialism, by Anwar Shaikh




Won't peace come when Israel gives the the Arabs more land and another state?

If you believe what you read in most news sources, Palestinians want a homeland and Muslims want control over sites they consider holy. Simple, right?
Well, as an Arab-American journalist who has spent some time in the Middle East dodging more than my share of rocks and mortar shells, I've got to tell you that these are just phony excuses for the rioting, trouble-making and land-grabbing.

...Palestinians are Arabs, indistinguishable from Jordanians (another recent invention), Syrians, Lebanese, Iraqis, etc. Keep in mind that the Arabs control 99.9 percent of the Middle East lands. Israel represents one-tenth of 1 percent of the landmass.

But that's too much for the Arabs. They want it all. And that is ultimately what the fighting in Israel is about today. Greed. Pride. Envy. Covetousness. No matter how many land concessions the Israelis make, it will never be enough.

- Joseph Farah, Arab-American journalist,
editor and CEO of WorldNetDaily


"We must remember that the main enemy of the Palestinian people, now and forever, is Israel."
- Freih Abu Middein, the PA's justice minister, quoted in Arafat and the Uses of Terror, Commentary Magazine, by Jonathan Torop


"I say once more that Israel shall remain the principal enemy of the Palestinian people, not only now but also in the future."
- Abu Middein, quoted as above but on another occasion, reading a speech in Arafat's name


"We will take ALL of Israel with Jerusalem as the capital of the State of Palestine and ONLY of this State, and anyone who doesn't like it can go drink Gaza sea water". "The Jews will leave and go back where they came from". "We will liberate the holy land of Palestine in blood and fire."
- Yassir Arafat, in video from Palestine Broadcasting Company, after the Oslo handshake. Such statements have been made repeatedly since then. [source: Emanuel A. Winston, Middle East analyst & commentator]


"No Jew has the right to relinquish the right of the Jewish People over the whole Land of Israel. No Jewish body has such authority, not even the whole Jewish People has the authority to waive the right (to the Land of Israel) for future generations for all time."
- David Ben Gurion, Israel's first Prime Minister and founder of the Labor Party, about the Jewish People's connection to the Land of Israel.


If the "Peace Process" produces a Palestinian state, the effects on enemy capabilities and intentions, and therefore on Israeli preemption options, will be significant. Here, Israel's substantial loss of strategic depth could be recognized by enemy states as a significant military liability for Jerusalem. Such recognition, in turn, could heat up enemy intentions against Israel, occasioning an accelerated search for capabilities and consequently a heightened risk of war.
Louis Rene Beres
Professor
Department of Political Science
Purdue University


Once a peace treaty is signed, is Israel guaranteed true peace?

"Once peace comes, Israeli doves, more than other Israelis, must assume a clear-cut 'hawkish' attitude concerning the duty of the future Palestinian regime to live by the letter and the spirit of its obligations".
- Amos Oz, September 3, 1993, The Jerusalem Post,


Great issues of war and peace as related to Israel are being debated by Jews in Israel and America. There are strong opinions on both sides of the Atlantic as well as both sides of the major issues. Professor Paul Eidelberg of Bar-Ilan University, reviews the historical facts:
Between 1945 and 1978 the longest time without a war going on someplace was a mere 26 days. On an average day there are 12 wars being fought somewhere on earth. The consensus of scholars has been that the norm of international relations is not peace but war. As Eidelberg reports, "Indeed, the occurrence of 1,000 wars during the last 2,500 years indicates that "peace" is little more than a preparation for war. Which means that peace treaties are WORTHLESS, to say the least."

Eidelberg then quotes from a book by Lawrence Beilenson, entitled THE TREATY TRAP, saying,

"After studying every peace treaty going back to early Roman times, Beilenson concludes that treaties are made to be broken. In fact, he shows that treaties for guaranteeing the territorial integrity of a nation are useless to the guaranteed nation, and worse than useless insofar as they engender a false sense of security. Such treaties can only benefit nations governed by rulers intending to violate them whenever expedient."
- Bernard J. Shapiro, Editor of the Freeman List


British PM Neville Chamberlain's evaluation of Hitler after 1938 Munich conference:
" a man who could be relied upon when he had given his word."

(Life of Neville Chamberlain by Keith Feiling, London, 1946)


Hitler's evaluation of the British after the conference:
"they are little worms; I saw them at Munich."

(The Struggle for Europe by Chester Wilmot, London, 1952)


UN secretary-general Kofi Annan's evaluation of Saddam Hussein after meeting him in Baghdad:
"someone I believe we can do business with."

(Newsweek March 9, 1998)


Isn't peace our ultimate goal - that which we should put all of our effort?

"What I want to say is something that virtually the whole history of the 20th century teaches us and yet something we refuse to learn. And that is , when applied to the affairs of nations, peace is an evil word. Yes I said evil. And the idea of peace as we know it is an evil idea. From the peace of Versailles to "peace in our time" at Munich...each declaration of peace or expressions of longing for peace ended in slaughter. Not necessarily immediately and not necessarily directly, but slaughter all the same..."
"For there is no such thing as making peace. Nations who are friendly do not need to do so, and nations or people who are hostiles cannot do so. To cry peace, peace when there is no peace, the prophet Jeremiah taught us long a go, is not the expression of hope, not even superstition but a reckless toying with the minds and hearts of people whose very future depends on their capacity to rise every day to the harsh morning light of the truth."

- Midge Dector




What is Arab Islamic tradition and history when it comes to treaties and peace-making?

The 'Hudibiyya' and 'Salah a-Din' Agreements
Mohammed, the 7th century founder of Islam, once signed a 10-year peace treaty with the enemy tribe of Koreish. However, after only two years into the treaty, Mohammed's military position improved whereupon he tore up this "Hudibiyya Agreement" and slaughtered the Koreishites.

Salah a-Din (Saladin) was the Muslim leader who, after a cease-fire, declared a jihad against the Crusaders and captured Jerusalem

If a PA (Palestinian Authority) cabinet minister were to compare the Oslo Peace Accords between Israel and the Palestinian people to the Hudibiyya Agreement, he would be suggesting that the treaty were only a temporary truce. Not only have cabinet ministers done just that... so has the leader of the Palestinian people! Speaking to a rally of his Fatah movement in Ramallah just last November 16, 1998, Yasser Arafat said, "When we chose the peace of the brave [the Oslo and Wye Accords], we chose it with trust in the Prophet who agreed to the treaty of Hudibiyya..." On numerous previous occasions (and certainly to be continued in the future), both Arafat and other senior PA officials have assured Arab audiences that their treaties with Israel are only "temporary truces" rather than genuine, permanent peace agreements.


Address to a rally in Ramallah broadcast on official Palestinian Television, November 15, 1998:
"We chose the peace of the brave out of faith in the prophet, in the Khudaibiya agreement."

Newspaper interview, Al-Quds, May 10, 1998:
Question: Do you feel sometimes that you made a mistake in agreeing to Oslo?
Arafat: No . . . no. Allah's messenger Mohammad accepted the al-Khudaibiya [Hudibiyya] peace treaty and Salah a-Din accepted the peace agreement with Richard the Lion-Hearted."

Interview on Egyptian Orbit TV, April 18, 1998:
Question: How do you explain that you occasionally ask the Palestinian street not to explode?
Arafat: When the prophet Muhammad made the Khudaibiya [Hudibiyya] agreement, he agreed to remove his title "messenger of Allah" from the agreement. Then, Omar bin Khatib and the others referred to this agreement as the "inferior peace agreement." Of course, I do not compare myself to the prophet, but I do say that we must learn from his steps and those of Salah a-Din. The peace agreement which we signed is an "inferior peace". The conditions [behind it] are the intifada, which lasted for seven years.

Question: For practical reasons, do you now suggest to maintain quiet despite everything?
Arafat: Yes, I suggest we maintain quiet. We respect agreements the way that the prophet Muhammad and Salah a-Din respected the agreements which they signed.

But, you may say, what about the Camp David Peace Accords?

Mubarak annulled them 10 years after they were signed, as mandated by the tenets of Islam in the Koran: 'You may sign a peace treaty with your enemy, the infidel, but only for 10 years. When he's weakened, you must take back in blood what you previously lost.' The Arab states have broken over 350 agreements between themselves in this century. Contracts and agreements are meaningless in the Middle East, a simple fact the West and Israel have been slow to learn.
- Emanuel A. Winston, Middle East analyst & commentator




If only the two peoples could meet - especially the children - wouldn't there be peace?

"They took our school once to a Jewish camp on the cost of Eshdod for a week to mingle us with other Jewish schools, that didn't work, on the contrary, every teacher who spoke to a Jew was mocked."
- Walid, a Palestinian Arab defector
quoted from "Answering Islam"


What is the Palestinian demand of "Right of Return"?

RAD, Israel -- I am sitting in front of the television in the living room, seeing Yasir Arafat receive a triumphant hero's welcome in Gaza, and all this for having said no to peace with Israel. The whole Gaza Strip is covered in flags and slogans proclaiming the "Palestinian Saladin." "Welcome home, Saladin of our era" is written on the walls.

In silence, astounded, I watch, and I can't help reminding myself that the original Saladin promised the Arab people that he would not make pacts with the infidels; he would massacre them and throw them in the ocean. I see Mr. Arafat dressed in his gray-green combat uniform. It's an Arafat clothed like Che Guevara and treated like Saladin: my heart breaks.

Already in 1967 I was one of the very few Israelis invoking the solution of two neighboring states, with Jerusalem as the capital city of both, reciprocal recognition and mutual acceptance. Since then, for many years, I was treated like a traitor by my own people. My children at school suffered all manner of insults, accused of being the children of one ready to sell off his homeland. And after all these difficult years, Prime Minister Ehud Barak went to Camp David to offer the solution I foretold over 30 years ago.

I pause to reflect. I remember how in the old days a single phone booth would have sufficed to contain the entire national assembly of Israeli peace activists. We could literally count ourselves on the tips of our fingers, a tiny minority among minorities. Today everything is different. More than half the nation is with us.

And yet the Palestinians said no. They insist on their "right of return," when we all very well know that around here "right of return" is an Arab euphemism for the liquidation of Israel.

Mr. Arafat doesn't insist on merely the right to a Palestinian state, a right I fully support. Now he demands that the Palestinian exiles should return not only to Palestine, but also to Israel, thus upsetting the demographic balance and eventually turning Israel into the 26th Arab country. After all, there are millions of Germans who will never return to their former homes in Poland, East Prussia or the Sudetenland.

The Palestinians have a right to their own free and independent Palestine. But if they also want to have Israel, they should know that they will find me ready to defend my country: an old peace activist ready to fight for the survival of Israel. I believe this to be the last opportunity: the Palestinians must choose if they want a new Saladin, or to really work for peace.

- from Amos Oz, the author of "Israel, Palestine and Peace."


Once a Palestinian State is created, the Palestinians would have no reason to hate the Jews, right?

Anti-Semitism in the Palestinian Authority
"Dennis Ross amuses himself on his visits like a Shylock, deriving pleasure from imagining how he will slice three percent from the body of the victim... [The] biased mediator [is] part of the oppressive racist Zionist apparatus [influenced by the] Likudnik Zionist lobby in the American administration."


Fatah newsletter, reprinted in official PA newspaper, Al-Hayat Al-Jadeeda September 17, 1998
"The Israelis' haste in sending in a rescue team to Africa with American approval was in order to create solidarity among the victims for Israel... What the Israelis are doing is attempting to Judaize every tragedy on the face of the earth and erase the ongoing tragedies occurring to the Palestinian people. This is a despicable act from the point of view of turning the facts on their head, exploiting emotions and directing accusations at the victim. It is giving credit to the hang- men, the murderers and the thieves who have stolen land."


Editorial in the official PA newspaper, Al-Hayat Al-Jadeeda August 15, 1998
"Everywhere, the Jews have been the subjects of hatred and disdain because they control most of the economic resources upon which the livelihoods of many people are dependent... There is no alternative but to say that the success of the Jews is not coincidental but rather the result of long years of planning and a great investment of effort in order to obtain their wretched control over the world's media... The winds began blowing in their favor when the campaign of persecution against them was begun by Hitler the Nazi... the international Jewish communications media under their control exploited this in the best possible way, and then the show started. They began to disseminate frightful pictures of mass executions and invented the shocking story of the gas ovens, where Hitler allegedly burned them... they focused on women, children and old people and have exploited this to arouse sympathy for themselves when demanding financial compensation, donations and grants from all over the world."

"The truth is that the persecution of the Jews is a deceitful myth which the Jews have labeled the Holocaust and have exploited to get sympathy.... And even if it is possible that Hitler's assault against the Jews hurt them a little, the fact is it did them a clear service whose fruits they are reaping until today..."


Article, "The Jews and the Media Monopoly," in the official PA newspaper, Al-Hayat Al-Jadeeda July 2, 1998
"Washington's decisions are not made in the White House, which is busy cleaning up its bed- rooms, but in the offices of Netanyahu, who is feverishly trying to recruit America and its allies to serve the hated agenda of the Torah."


From an article in the official PA newspaper, Al-Hayat Al-Jadeeda March 25, 1998
"[Israeli border control policy] should remind the Europeans of Nazi occupation by Nazi soldiers surrounding churches and places of worship during the Second World War. Israeli practices in many aspects are equal with, if not more brutal than, those practiced by occupying Nazi soldiers dealing with French-Dutch citizens during the Second World War."


PA Information Ministry press release December 10, 1997
"We must not lay aside the blade of the Palestinian struggle which we grasp with Arab and inter- national support, a blade with which we must struggle to shatter the two elements in the Likud's ideology: the racist-Torah part and the nationalist-fascist part."


Article in the official PA newspaper, Al-Hayat Al-Jadeeda December 6, 1997
"... 'Netanyahu's Plan' completely matches the foundations of the greater Zionist plan which is organized according to specific stages that were determined when the Protocols of the Elders of Zion were composed and when Herzl along with Wiezmann traveled around the world in order to determine the appropriate location for the implementation of this conspiracy."


Article in the official PA newspaper, Al-Hayat Al-Jadeeda November 30, 1997
"We must act on the international level in the framework of a detailed information plan which will expose the Zionist-Colonist plot and its goals, which destroy not only our people but the entire world."


PA Agriculture Minister Abdel Jawad Saleh in an interview with the official PA newspaper, Al-Hayat Al-Jadeeda November 6, 1997
"Whoever comes in contact with the banks discovers that they act in Shylock's way.... We do not want Shylock-style banks that empty our pockets, but national banks; we have had enough of the Shylock of the lands and settlements."


Article, "The Banks and Shylock" by Hafez al-Barghouti, Editor, in the official PA newspaper, Al-Hayat Al-Jadeeda November 5, 1997
"Israeli society started feeling ashamed of Netanyahu's rise to the highest position of power... when all of his qualities amount to his outdated Talmudic arrogance and his absolute belief that he is the spoiled child of Brooklyn's nymphs."


Communiqué issued by Yasir Arafat's Fatah faction of the PLO, quoted in the official PA newspaper, Al-Hayat Al-Jadeeda November 4, 1997
U.S. Ambassador-Designate to Israel Edward Walker "underwent extensive hearings in the Congress or, that is, in the 'Council of the Elders of Zion,' in order to win his post."


Article by Hafez al-Barghouti, Editor, in the official PA newspaper, Al-Hayat Al-Jadeeda October 30, 1997
..."The Jews always set a trap for the community of Muslims... The Koran repeatedly warns against the traps and plots of the 'people of the book.' They relentlessly scheme in all times and places and this is what they do today and tomorrow against the Muslim camp."


Excerpts from the weekly Friday prayer sermon at Al-Aqsa Mosque broadcast on the official PA radio station, the Voice of Palestine October 24, 1997
"It is impossible to rely on international or Arab national circles as long as Netanyahu's claws of hatred dive into our Palestinian blood in search of oxygen-rich blood cells.... our movement found in Netanyahu something it could not ignore which is the dismemberment of the agreement by the fangs of hatred and the chewing of the peace by the teeth of the Talmud.... We must recognize that this stubborn enemy, locks itself in the Talmud's cocoon...."


Excerpts from a position paper issued by Yasir Arafat's Fatah faction of the PLO, published in the official PA newspaper, Al-Hayat Al-Jadeeda October 18, 1997
"Just as Hitler's Mein Kampf was a warning sign for his future political path which brought disaster on Germany and the world, so Netanyahu's A Place Among the Nations explains all of the author's initiatives since he took power in Israel... The racist curses against the enemy and the legendary praises of himself make a noticeable point of similarity between Hitler's and Netanyahu's books.... Netanyahu tries to calm Jewish fears about the demo- graphic superiority and the natural Arab birth rates in Palestine.... HE does not refer to the means he will employ to achieve the goal of a reduction of the Arab birth rate.... In this point we are reminded of Hitler's statements about the sterilization of undesired segments of the populations."


Article by PA Legislative Council member, Nahid Muir Al-Rayis, Al-Quds October 15, 1997
"This reminds me of the Goebbels [Hitler's propaganda minister] who said 'tell lies and lies, and in the end they will believe you.' The same is true of the Jews. It is a disgrace that they are issuing an arrest war- rant against me. Apparently they have learned Goebbels' methods."


PA Police Chief Ghazi Jabali, in reaction to the arrest warrant issued against him by Israel for his involvement in terrorist attacks, quoted in Ma'ariv September 12, 1997
"The appearance of the Zionist movement prompted the emergence of terrorist, racist ideologies, such as, the Nazi ideology. There is great similarity between the two ideologies: The Zionists believe that they are 'God's Chosen People,' and that other nations were created to be used and ridiculed... the Zionist Jews claim that they hate the nations since they persecute them out of jealousy of their wisdom, their success and their being God's chosen similarly, the Nazis claim that the Aryans are the chosen and the pure and that the anti-Semitism is the punishment of the Jewish Germans who betrayed their country.... Of course the similarity between the two racist ideologies -- the Zionist and the Nazi -- is obvious and the despicable racial content of each of them is clear... This proves the shared roots of Nazi and Zionist thought. This also ex- plains the cooperation between the Jews and the Nazis during World War II, through which were revealed the forged claims of the Zionists regarding alleged acts of slaughter perpetrated against the Jews during the same period.... There is no difference between Hitler and Ben-Gurion, and if there was a difference at all, it was one of quantity and not one of substance. Anyone who investigates the crimes of the Zionists. . . discovers explicitly the complementary traits between Zionism, which is a racist terrorist movement, and the Nazi movement."


Article in the official PA newspaper, Al-Hayat Al-Jadeeda September 3, 1997
"Since its establishment, the racist Zionist entity has been implementing various forms of terrorism on a daily basis which are a repetition of the Nazi terror.... This also explains the cooperation between the Jews and the Nazis during World War II, through which were revealed the forged claims of the Zionists regarding alleged acts of slaughter perpetrated against the Jews during the same period."


Article in the official PA newspaper, Al-Hayat Al-Jadeeda September 3, 1997
"It is important to conduct the conflict according to the foundations which both are leaning on... particularly the Jews... such as the Torah, the Talmud and the Protocols [of the Elders of Zion]... All signs unequivocally prove that the conflict between the Jews and the Muslims is an eternal on-going conflict, even if it stops for short intervals...This conflict resembles the conflict between man and Satan... This is the fate of the Muslim nation, and beyond that the fate of all the nations of the world, to be tormented by this nation [the Jews]. The fate of the Palestinian people is to struggle against the Jews on behalf of the Arab peoples, the Islamic peoples and the peoples of the entire world."


Article from the official PA newspaper, Al-Hayat Al-Jadeeda, summarizing the work of a Palestinian researcher September 1, 1997
- source for the above quotes: The Anti-Defamation League


"Just as Jews can't come to the Ka'aba in Mecca, they can't come to the Cave of the Patriarchs in Hebron and the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. These are holy Islamic places."
- Palestinian Legislative Council member Ra'fat Al-Najjar (IMRA, June 12) Editor's note: the Temple Mount and the Cave of the Patriarchs are the two most sacred sites for Jews.


"Five Zionist Jews are running the policy of the United States in the Middle East: Madeleine Albright, William Cohen, Dennis Ross, [Ross' deputy Aaron] Miller and [ambassador] Martin Indyk. It is not possible that the American nation, which consists of 250 million people, cannot find anyone other than five Zionist Jews to conduct the peace process with the Palestinians."
- PA "Justice Minister" Freih Abu Middein (Yediot Ahronot, April 13, 1997)


The following are selected quotes which appear in the Israel Government Press Office (GPO) report:
"Israeli practices in many aspects are equal with, if not more brutal than, those practiced by occupying Nazi soldiers dealing with French- Dutch citizens during the Second World War."


- PA Information Ministry press release, December 10, 1997
"... 'Netanyahu's Plan' completely matches the foundations of the greater Zionist plan which is organized according to specific stages that were determined when the Protocols of the Elders of Zion were composed"


- from an article in the official PA newspaper Al-Hayat Al-Jadeeda, November 30, 1997
"Just as Hitler's Mein Kampf was a warning sign for his future political path which brought disaster on Germany and the world, so Netanyahu's A Place Among the Nations explains all of the author's initiatives since he took power in Israel The racist curses against the enemy and the legendary praises of himself make a noticeable point of similarity between Hitler's and Netanyahu's books.."


- from an article by Nahid Munir Al-Rayyis, a member of the PA's Legislative Council (Al- Quds, October 15, 1997)
"The appearance of the Zionist movement prompted the emergence of terrorist, racist ideologies, such as, the Nazi ideology. There is great similarity between the two ideologies: There is no difference between Hitler and Ben- Gurion, and if there was a difference at all, it was one of quantity and not one of substance. Anyone who investigates the crimes of the Zionists discovers explicitly the complementary traits between Zionism, which is a racist terrorist movement, and the Nazi movement."


- from an article in the official PA newspaper Al-Hayat Al-Jadeedah, September 3, 1997
"It is well-known that every year the Jews exaggerate what the Nazis did to them. They claim there were 6 million killed, but precise scientific research demonstrates that there were no more than 400,000."


- from a cultural affairs program broadcast on the official PA television station on August 25, 1997.
"The [Palestinian] Authority cannot do a thing, except protect its people and itself from an enemy which bares its Jewish fangs from the four corners of the earth...


- - from an article in the official PA newspaper Al-Hayat Al-Jadeeda, August 6, 1997
"We believe that the Israelis are not adventuresome because the Jewish brain is cowardly and does not tend toward adventure, but rather exchanges it for plotting..."


- from an article in the official PA newspaper Al-Hayat Al-Jadeeda, July 27, 1997
"Israel is distributing food containing material that causes cancer and hormones that harm male virility and other spoiled food products in the Palestinian Authority's territories in order to poison and harm the Palestinian population."


- PA Deputy Minister of Supplies Abdel Hamid al-Qudsi in a newspaper interview, Yediot Aharonot, June 25, 1997
"Oh, Allah, destroy America for it is controlled by Zionist Jews...Allah will avenge, in the name of his Prophet, the colonialist settlers who are the descendants of monkeys and pigs...forgive us, oh Muhammad, for the acts of these monkeys and pigs who wished to profane your holiness".


- from the weekly Friday prayer sermon by PA Mufti Ikrima Sabri broadcast on the official PA radio station the Voice of Palestine, July 11, 1997.
"Israeli authorities infected by injection 300 Palestinian children with the HIV virus during the years of the intifada."


- Palestinian representative Nabil Ramlawi at a session of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights in Geneva (Jerusalem Post, March 17, 1997)

"It is well-known that every year the Jews exaggerate what the Nazis did to them. They claim there were 6 million killed, but precise scientific research establishes that there were no more than 400,000."
- from a "cultural programme" broadcast on PA television


"I think we are talking about an investment. They [the Jews] have profited materially, spiritually, politically and economically from the talk about the Nazi killings. This investment is favourable to them and they view it as a profitable activity so they inflate the number of victims all the time. In another ten years, I do not know what number they will reach. Last year, for the first time, a statistic appeared according to which 1.5 million children were killed by the Nazis. This number was not previously known ... If this number was indeed correct, then someone would certainly have remembered it .... In my opinion, it is an investment, and as you know, when it comes to economics and investments, the Jews have been very experienced ever since the days of the Merchant of Venice."
- Palestinian writer Ahsan al-Agha during the same "cultural programme"

Monday


Peace sign

The signal "actually began as a symbol of Satanic benediction during the rituals.'' This sign has been used by Yasser Arafat, Richard Nixon, Winston Churchill, and Stewart Meacham, Co-Chairman of Reds' New Mobilisation Committee,PJ." Churchill said that the sign stood for victory but remember that Churchill was one of the insider "elite" and a Mason. He most likely knew the evil significance of this symbol but tried to give it a facelift.

The "v sign" has a colourful history. "V" is the Roman sign for the number five and Adam Weishaupt used it in the Illuminati to symbolise the "Law of Fives,'' but there's more. In the Cabala:

"the meaning for the Hebrew letter for V (Van) is 'Nail.' Now, 'The Nail' is one of the secret titles of Satan within the Brotherhood of Satanism. Satan is letting us know that this is one of his favourite signs. Why else does he like the PENTA-gram (Penta = five!) and the FIVE-fold salute used in Masonry and Witchcraft?''

Furthermore:

"The Leftists, radicals, and Satanists who have popularised that sign...know its ancient significance very well. In fact, that 'V' sign is now used extensively by such Communist organisations as the Young Socialist Alliance, Vets for Peace in Vietnam, and the Students for a Democratic Society."

Although not a hand sign, the peace symbol itself needs to be examined.

"Known as the 'peace sign' throughout the 1960's and into the present day, this symbol is the Teutonic rune of death. 1950's peace advocate Gerald Holtom may have been commissioned by communist sympathiser Bertrand Russell to design a symbol to unite leftist peace marchers in 1958. It is clear that either Holtom or Russell deemed the Teutonic (Neronic) cross as the appropriate symbol for their cause.

"Throughout the last 2,000 years this symbol has designated hatred of Christians. Nero, who despised Christians, crucified the Apostle Peter on a cross head downward. This hideous event resembled the Teutonic cross and became a popular pagan insignia of the day. Thereafter, this sign became known as the 'Neronic cross.'

"The symbol's origin in history proves it to be the visual mystic character for 'Aum' (the split 'Y'). This is the sacred word to the Hindu. Chanting 'Aum' is supposed to help awaken 'the serpent power of Brahma' at the base of the human spine. Occultist Albert Pike also identifies this symbol as mystical in his book on Freemasonry Morals and Dogma.

"The Germanic tribes who used it attributed strange and mystical properties to the sign. Such a 'rune' is said to have been used by 'black magicians' in pagan incantations and condemnations....To this very day the inverted broken cross--identical to the socialists' 'peace' symbol--is known in Germany as a 'todersrune,' or death rune. Not only was it ordered by Hitler's National Socialists that it must appear on German death notices, but it was part of the official inscription prescribed for the gravestones of Nazi officers of the dread SS. The symbol suited Nazi emphasis on pagan mysticism.''

With the arms of the cross raised in an upright position, it is "a Pythagorean emblem of the course of life, in the form of a rising path with fork roads to Good and Evil.'' It also signifies fertility, but with the arms pointing downward, it denotes evil and death.

"In fact, the inverted 'Man-rune'--the figure encircled in the common sign which the Communists tell us means 'peace'--has for centuries been a favourite sign of Satanists.''

Anton LaVey, the founder of the Church of Satan, used the peace symbol as the backdrop for his altar.

One former witch makes the following comment about the peace symbol:

"It is an ancient and powerful symbol of Antichrist. During the dark ages it was used in Druid Witchcraft and by Satanists of all sorts during the initiation of a new member to their order. They would draw the magic circle and give the initiate a cross. The initiate would then lift the cross and turn it upside down. He would then renounce Christianity in all three dimensions (sic) of time (past, present and future) and break the horizontal pieces downward forming the design of the 'Raven's Foot.' This ugly symbol is nothing short of blasphemy against the Holy Ghost. For one to wear or display this symbol is to announce either knowingly or unknowingly that you have rejected Christ. Remember, symbolism is a picture language, and a picture is worth a thousand words.''

Another hand signal is the Vulcan peace sign. It is supposed to mean "Live Long and Prosper," and can be seen in Star Trek.

Vulcan was a sun deity who was associated with fire, thunderbolts, and light. The festival in honour of him was called the Vulcania in which human sacrifices were offered. "According to Diel, he bears a family relationship to the Christian devil.' It is fascinating to know that he married Venus, another name for Lucifer or the devil. What is even more interesting is that Vulcan is adored in Masonry under the name of Tubal Cain. In the Masonic Quiz Book the question is asked: "Who was Tubal Cain?" The answer is: "He is the Vulcan of the pagans.''

In Masonry, Tubal Cain is the name of the password for the Master Mason (or third) degree.

Listen to what occultist and Mason, Manly Palmer Hall, has to say:

"When the Mason learns that the key to the warrior on the block is the proper application of the dynamo of living power, he has learned the mastery of his craft. The seething energies of Lucifer are in his hands and before he may step onward and upward, he must prove his ability to properly apply energy. He must follow in the footsteps of his forefather, Tubal-Cain, who with the mighty strength of the war god hammered his sword into a ploughshare.''

There is also a sexual connotation associated with Vulcan and Tubal Cain. Former Mason, Bill Schnoebelen, explains:

"For Masons who wish to conceal their membership from non-Masons, but still advertise it to their Lodge brothers, there is a special pin (or tie tack) they can wear. It looks like an upside down golf club with two balls near the top....Many people assume the person is a golfing enthusiast, but it is actually a visual Masonic pun.

"This is called the 'Two Ball Cane,' and is a pun on the secret password of a Master Mason, 'Tubalcain (sic).'...It is also an all-too-obvious pun on the 'god' of Masonry, the male reproductive organ. Nice, eh?...especially when many men wear these wretched things to church on Sunday!"


Saturday

Not just another blog begging for peace.. this is the blog that makes the difference...