When President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad throws the United Nations resolutions in the trash can, he is throwing along with them decades of efforts which were deployed to regain the Arab and Palestinian rights based on international legitimacy. Ahmadinejad's statements revealed the schizophrenia affecting the positions of the Arab and Islamic states toward the entire international community. Indeed, they exploit the UN resolutions condemning the occupation, the settlements and the changing of the character of the occupied territories at the highest levels, then do not hesitate to mock the decisions adopted by this same international institution in regard to human rights, the regulation of relations between the states and the commitment to international law. The position of the Iranian president toward resolutions, which is "similar to used tissue papers", falls in that exact context. True, the disinterest of the Iranian leaders and those supporting them in our midst toward the international institutions, opinions and decisions, is not new. For years now, they have been preaching that the world only understood the language of power in response to the Israeli positions which conveyed a vision of a world in which the beasts prevail and the weak are an easy feast for international werewolves - a vision which was perceived by Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak a day after his soldiers landed on the ship Mavi Marmara and killed nine unarmed activists with bulletshots in the heads and backs. Nonetheless, through a gathering of states, this world and its beastly countries issued a number of resolutions whose implementation is believed to be the only way to regain the stolen rights, as it was reiterated by the Arabs and Muslims and their numerous summits and countless meetings. On the other hand, while Israel is showing disdain toward the world without however exerting hostility - i.e. it is still seeking the deepening of its alliances with major states and trying to maintain the "lifelines" linking it to them - the positions of the Iranians and many Arabs are prompting questions revolving around the available alternative in case they were to decide to proceed down the road of hostility toward friends (such as Russia and China) and contempt toward the international community. The most likely response is that reliance on the free people and the lively forces around the world and unification to build the elements of military, economic and political immunity to engage in inescapable confrontations and wars is inevitable at the end of the day. In such a scenario, prevalence will definitely belong to the weak and the oppressed in this world. However, this dream soon reveals a grim nightmare founded on oppression, tyranny, poverty and the sustained inability to achieve slogans on the basis of which mobilization is being carried out. While (nuclear) North Korea stands as the best example for the aforementioned course, it would not be difficult to find the seeds of North Korea in many of our (non-nuclear) Arab and Islamic countries. As for the key question, it continues to revolve around what the Arabs and Muslims want from the world and where they want to stand in it. Do they wish to stand on the margin or in the middle? Each case has requirements and necessities, and those upset about the injustice of the United Nations and its resolutions or at least about the world's inability to implement the resolutions of its international organization, should not accuse their enemy of violating International Law and of committing piracy in international waters, as long as they have led themselves out of this system of relations and restraints. Holding on to international legitimacy does not go against the building of an autonomous power and the changing of flawed balances by all possible means, considering that the latter is a gateway toward the first. Nonetheless, the promotion of ideas which are undermined by daily political practices should first end.
