In his 1974 speech to the United Nations General Assembly, Yasser Arafat said: “The difference between the revolutionary and the terrorist is why he fights…for the justice of cause determines the right to fight." In this same speech, Arafat addresses the international community and provides comments on a multitude of different topics. He traces what he believes to be the positive and increasingly popular growth of the United Nations, citing the inclusion of three new member states: Guinea-Bissau, Bangladesh and Grenada. This diversification of the members of the United Nations, according to him, is an indicator of the general trend of the world at that time towards “freedom”. In this biased logic, as one might expect, Arafat interprets this – the erosion of colonial power and the reversal tendencies of international finance, for example – as meaning that the world, through the focal point of the United Nations, is at the center of the Attention. a threshold. This threshold, of course, straddles the nadir of Old World injustice and subjugation and the zenith of universal freedom and co-prosperity. The world therefore "aspires to peace, justice, equality and freedom" and which "hopes to place relations between nations on the basis of equality, peaceful coexistence, mutual respect for each other's internal affairs, secure national sovereignty, independence and territorial unity". on the basis of justice and mutual benefit (emphasis mine).” Arafat therefore explicitly recognizes that this universalizing trend in the main international forum signals a trend; of new composition, new identity and consequently new purposes. He argues that this newfound dedication, cleverly grafted onto the original aims and purposes of the United Nations, brings with it not only a process... middle of paper... a Riolic anti-communism.' Thus, while the American patriots, whose ostensible nation did not yet exist, or was properly the nation of Great Britain, and the Resistance in the Second World War, a considerable part of which was communist and ready to drown the earth in blood for their ideals, is reified to disrupt the agenda (with sometimes happy and fortuitous outcomes), the status-quo ante (which often turns out to be the lesser of two evils, in absolute terms) must be rejected on articles of blind faith, and a noble ideology, on the unsustainable premise that change is always positive if only one expects a better future. The problem is, as can be observed today, that one can always imagine a better future – so the insurrection is covered by the fragile fig leaf of one's whims (I jokingly exclude the real substance and nature that the insurrection requires)..)