In his 1974 speech to the United Nations General Assembly, Yasser Arafat said: “The difference between the revolutionary and the terrorist lies in what he fights for… because the justice of the cause determines the right to fight. » In this same speech, Arafat addresses the international community and comments on a multitude of different subjects. He traces what he sees as the positive and increasingly popular growth of the United Nations, mentioning the inclusion of three new member states: Guinea-Bissau, Bangladesh and Grenada. This diversification of the composition of the UN, according to him, is an indicator of the general trend of the world at that time towards "freedom". In this tendentious logic, as one might expect, Arafat sees the erosion of colonial power and disruptive trends in international finance, for example, as meaning that the world, through the focal point of the UN, is at 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 "yearns for peace, justice, equality and freedom" and "hopes to place relations between nations on a basis of equality, peaceful coexistence, mutual respect for each other's internal affairs , guarantee of national sovereignty, independence and territorial unity”. on the basis of justice and mutual benefit (emphasis added). » Arafat then explicitly recognizes that this universalizing tendency within the first international forum signals a trend; of a new composition, a new identity and, therefore, new objectives. He argues that this new dedication, skillfully grafted onto the original aims and objectives of the UN, does not simply result in a process... middle of paper... riotous anti-communism. So while the American patriots, whose apparent nation did not yet exist, or was strictly speaking the nation of Great Britain, and the Resistance during World War II, a significant part of which was communist and ready to drown the country in blood for their cause, ideals, is reified to disrupt the agenda (with sometimes fortunate and fortuitous consequences), 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 noble ideology, on the untenable premise that change is always a good thing if only a better future awaits means. The problem is, as we can observe today, that we can always imagine a better future - thus the insurrection is covered by the fragile fig leaf of our whims (I facetiously exclude substance and nature real requirements of the insurrection)..)