Philippines Studies Center

75
San Juan Jr.
Book Review
Reflections on Revolution and Prospects, by Jose Maria Sison
Epifanio San Juan Jr.
University of Connecticut, United States of America
Writing for the Madrid journal La Solidaridad in 1889, a decade before the United
States occupied the Philippines as its new possession, Jose Rizal surmised in his essay
“Filipinas dentro de cien anos”: “Perhaps the great American Republic, whose interests lie
in the Pacific and who has no hand in the spoliation of Africa may some day dream of
foreign possession….” But if she did, even contrary to her tradition, the European powers
would forbid it, and if the United States tried to, “Very likely the Philippines will defend
with inexpressible valor the liberty secured at the price of so much blood and sacrifice.”
(1972, 127). Rizal’s uncanny presentiment was a warning: the natives resisted McKinley’s
“Benevolent Assimilation” and U.S. “tutelage” from 1898 on. They persevered up to the
Sakdal and Huk uprisings, and the ongoing resistance of the National Democratic Front
and its national-popular combatants.
Under the aegis of global capitalism’s “war against terrorism,” the carnage has
worsened in the longest-held U.S. neocolony in Asia since its annexation at the turn of the
last century. After 9/11, U.S. imperial subjugation of the Philippines intensified with
successive counterinsurgency schemes dating back to the Cold War. Beyond the three
million Filipinos killed by U.S. troops in the Filipino-American War (1899-1913, dubbed the
“first Vietnam”), thousands died in the bloody years of the Marcos dictatorship (1972-1986),
supported by Washington and the Pentagon (Ahmad 1971; Zinn 1984).
We are witness to current U.S. interventions via the Visiting Forces Agreement,
EDCA, Operation Pacific Eagle-Philippines, and other bilateral transactions to preserve its
neocolonial domination. This includes the supply of weaponry, logistics, and supervision
over the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP). This was recently demonstrated by the
U.S. participation in the devastation of Marawi City in 2017. Without U.S. stranglehold of
key ideological-state apparatuses implementing IMF/World Bank/WTO regulations, the
local oligarchy of landlords, compradors, and bureaucrat-capitalists from 1899 to 1972—as
Jose Maria Sison has expounded in Philippine Society and Revolution (PSR)— would not
survive.
Sison is universally recognized as a pertinacious radical leader of the Filipino
contingent challenging U.S. imperialism. His signal accomplishment, in my view, is his
cogent re-telling of the narrative of the Filipino national-liberation odyssey in PSR, updated
in 1986. Of exceeding importance is Julieta De Lima’s perspicuous thematic inquiry of this
narrative in “Jose Maria Sison on the Mode of Production” (Sison and De Lima 1988). Earlier
Aguipo Global South Journal vol. 4, 2025, 75-81
ISSN 2984-8342
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17283249
© Epifanio San Juan Jr.
76
San Juan Jr.
attempts have been made by Apolinario Mabini, Claro Recto, Teodoro Agoncilo, and
Renato Constantino, among others. But only with PSR did the Filipino masses finally
acquire a counter-hegemonic voice, freeing the energies of its long-repressed incarnate
Geist, and enabling the rekindling of revolutionary agency. Of course, world events, in
particular the 1955 Bandung Conference, the Cuban Revolution, the 1965-68 Cultural
Revolution in China, the Civil Rights struggle in the U.S. coinciding with worldwide
resistance against U.S. aggression in Vietnam, and the resurgence of the nationalist
movement in the 1970 “First Quarter Storm,” etc.—all these and more provided fertile
ground for its germination.
In 1968, Sison broke away from the old Soviet-inspired Communist Party initially
led by Crisanto Evangelista and Pedro Abad Santos. Its caretakers (the Lava brothers, etc.)
easily succumbed to the Marcos regime. Humans make history, but not under
circumstances of their choosing. Sison undertook the necessary critical inventory and
launched a rectification campaign that led to the re-establishment of the Communist Party
of the Philippines (CPP) by Sison and his comrades in 1968. It was preceded by his
formation of Kabataang Makabayan in November 1964. The concept of united front in the
national-democratic, anti-imperialist campaign acquired saliency, accompanied by a
regeneration of commitment to the ideals of emancipatory praxis. The new CPP was
inspired by Mao’s vision of conducting people’s war in a non-European setting. What was
at stake was not a set of dogmas or personality-cult but a model of guidelines or methods
for testing hypotheses and applying Marxist-Leninist principles on the historical
specificities of the Philippine socio-economic formation (see “Programme for a People’s
Democratic Revolution in the Philippines”) (Saulo 1990, 196-209; San Juan 2015).
Curiously enough, the U.S. State Dept 1950 report on the Huk insurgency concurs
with Sison’s re-emphasis on the central role of the peasantry in elucidating the
feudal/landlord problem (1987). Just as Mao renewed Marxist dialectics in his 1927
investigation of the Hunan peasant movement, Sison’s re-appraisal of the diverse political
forces involved in the unremitting class struggle from Spanish times to the present
revitalized historical-materialist thinking applied to Philippine reality. He tested Lenin’s
methodology of concrete analysis of historically dynamic situations, focused on “the weak
links,” which led to Lenin’s insight into the decisive role of national-liberation struggles in
catalyzing the Western proletariat’s internationalist mission (1968). He examined the
historical particularities of crucial conjunctures in the saga of our uneven development.
What proved to be decisive was the reevaluation of the strategy and tactics of the class
struggle with the founding of the New People’s Army on March 29, 1969, and the
application of Mao Zedong’s theory of protracted war, pursuing various interlocking stages
of the revolutionary process (Ch’en 1965; Rossanda 1970).
The next historic milestone in Sison’s contribution to the Marxist archive is the 1974
discourse on Specific Characteristics of People’s War in the Philippines. Sison was arrested
Aguipo Global South Journal vol. 4, 2025, 75-81
ISSN 2984-8342
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17283249
© Epifanio San Juan Jr.
77
San Juan Jr.
by the Marcos regime in 1977 and endured torture and other indignities until its overthrow
in February 1986. He has described this ordeal and its aftermath in his poems, letters,
interviews, and other essays collected in Continuing the Struggle for National and Social
Liberation (2015). After the U.S. debacle in Vietnam and at the height of the Cultural
Revolution in China, the gains of the CPP and New People’s Army made possible the
reaffirmation of the Filipino struggle as part of the radical democratic-socialist
transformations around the world initiated by the 1917 Russian Revolution.
Historians have argued that instead of homogenizing the planet, capitalism
generates zones of differences, asymmetrical or disaggregated networks of actions and
motivations that defy synthesis. Unity and conflict of opposites prevail. While the 1930
Depression stimulated union organizing among migrant workers of Bulosan’s generation,
the Japanese Occupation taught the peasants the various modes of guerrilla warfare and
collective mobilization. The Cold War from the 1950s to the collapse of the Soviet Union in
1989 ushered in the need for an uninterrupted, all-encompassing Cultural Revolution.
What is original in Sison’s 1974 discourse is the re-articulation of the country’s historical
peculiarities in line with the national-democratic program: the mountainous archipelagic
terrain, the dialectic of rural and urban zones, and, in particular, the contours of strategic
defensive-stalemate-offensive stages in the uninterrupted transition from a feudal-
bourgeois to a new-democratic formation. Following this trajectory, the National
Democratic Front of the Philippines, founded in 1973, issued the 10-Point (later 12-Point)
program, which informs the ultimate agenda of the peace talks.
In 1988, Dr. Rainer Werning conducted a wide-ranging series of interviews with
Sison in The Philippine Revolution: The Leader’s View. Sison’s travels around the world,
interacting with various progressive organizations, afforded him opportunities to connect
the Philippine project with other third-world and European solidarity movements. Before
that, in 1980, we were able to arrange the publication of Sison’s other writings in the volume
Victory to Our People’s War released in Quebec, Canada.
With the next historic intervention in 1992, “Reaffirm our Basic Principles and
Rectify Errors,” Sison demonstrated once again his grasp of a dialectical analysis of the
interaction of strategy and tactics, fallibilistic hypotheses and contingencies, enabling a
grasp of the multi-layered contradictions in the vicissitudes of the national-democratic
endeavor. By refusing the empiricist or eclectic position of his critics, Sison has applied the
concept of the unity of opposites as the fundamental law of dialectical materialism, a
concept which Mao first addressed in the classic 1937 discourse, “On Contradiction”
(elaborated further in the 1957 talk, “On the Correct Handling of Contradictions Among
the People” (1977, 384-419; see Knight 1997, 104). Failure to recognize the unity and
antagonism of opposites has led to various left and right opportunisms (pacifism,
revisionist compromises, etc.), including collusion with reactionary security agencies and
CIA counterinsurgency schemes (Distor 1977). The bankruptcy of such deviations has been
Aguipo Global South Journal vol. 4, 2025, 75-81
ISSN 2984-8342
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17283249
© Epifanio San Juan Jr.
78
San Juan Jr.
evidenced in the spectacle of former leftists functioning as apologists of U.S. neoliberal
policies, with assorted NGOs set up to serve the corrupt oligarchy (landlords, compradors)
managing the neocolonial State bureaucracy.
Sison’s vocation as a Filipino advocate for national sovereignty and human rights in
the diaspora has opened a new field of internationalist contestation. Over ten million
Overseas Filipino Workers (OFWs) are scattered today around the world, forcing
candidates for office to campaign in Hong Kong, Singapore, in the Middle East, etc. Their
remittances are significant in relieving the Philippine foreign debt as well as intensifying
commodity-fetishism, alienation, and consumerist decadence. Meanwhile, Filipino
activists are politicizing these communities in the U.S., Europe, and in the Netherlands,
where Sison has been a political refugee since 1988. Apart from his imprisonment by the
Marcos regime, his detention by the Dutch government on August 28, 2007, until
September 13, 2007, for unsubstantiated charges has made Sison a symbol of all the
thousands victimized by the U.S. imperial “war on terror.” Since 2001, he has guided the
International League of People’s Struggles, the biggest international united front of
people’s organizations along the anti-imperialist and democratic line.
One of the most instructive sections of these interviews is Sison’s insightful critique
of the neocolonial administrations since the fall of Marcos up to the current fascist Duterte
regime. His discussion of the impact of global changes on the Philippine system, in
particular the capitalist restoration in the former Soviet Union and in China, as well as the
decline of U.S. global hegemony, gives us the framework for speculations on the prospects
of the Philippine revolution amidst a worldwide socialist resurgence. Again, the focus is on
the exploited and oppressed, the community of victims, workers and peasants whose
narratives remain to be written. With the assassination of NDFP consultant Felix Malayao
and the arrest of other progressive activists at the behest of U.S. imperialist agencies, Sison
believes a peace agreement is unlikely—unless the revolutionary mass movement
unleashes its counter-hegemonic force against Duterte’s murderous regime, with its
horrendous record of extra-judicial killings and betrayal of the nation’s patrimony and
sovereignty.
Equally fascinating in this volume are Sison’s reflections on diverse topics as a
Filipino patriot, chief political consultant of the NDFP, and as an intransigent Marxist
public intellectual. Sison invokes his descent from the first Filipino socialist agitator,
Isabelo de Los Reyes, who organized the first labor unions and also co-founded the
nationalistic Iglesia Filipino Independiente. Sison pays homage to the Enlightenment
tradition of de los Reyes, Rizal, Mabini, and others, which the Chinese patriot Sun Yat-sen
had the sagacity to admire. Sison sums up his legacy “in the form of theoretical and political
writings needed for the reestablishment and development of the CCP as a revolutionary
party of the proletariat and for the creation and growth of all other necessary revolutionary
forces, including the NPA, the NDFP, the mass organizations and the people’s democratic
Aguipo Global South Journal vol. 4, 2025, 75-81
ISSN 2984-8342
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17283249
© Epifanio San Juan Jr.
79
San Juan Jr.
government from the village level upward.” Indeed, this legacy today continues to be a
powerful challenge to predatory capitalism worldwide, a “disintegrated capitalism”
wreaking havoc on the environment and mutilating the lives of millions, unable to resolve
the contradictions inherent in the system and therefore destined to either destroy the
planet or be thoroughly replaced by a socialist/communist alternative (Harvey 2014).
Overall, this volume contains the most important record of Sison’s life based on his
prodigious memory and ability to contextualize the most significant events shaping his
thoughts and actions. It contributes substantial information on his education, political
inquiries, and the scope and depth of his artistic creativity. It also documents his timely
interventions into the most pivotal moments of our history. It gives a nuanced
orchestration to his dialogue with his European interviewer. I am sure it will furnish
material for future biographies and commentaries on the symbiosis of human will and
objective circumstances. However, to anticipate the chances that the reader may miss the
historic resonance of these interviews, I would like to add a personal note. We (if I may
speak for our group of militants in the East Coast circa 1965-80) read Marx, Lenin, Mao,
Luxemburg, Fanon, Lukacs, Che Guevarra, and others before we encountered PSR. We were
then trying to mobilize the “brainwashed” Filipino community in the U.S. against Marcos’
barbaric rule, his violation of human rights, his opening the country to foreign corporate
plunder, etc. It was difficult until PSR provided a clue to arousing the historical
consciousness of young Pinoys/Pinays. And so we began to retell the story of Lapu-Lapu,
Gabriela Silang, Gomburza, Bonifacio, Sakay, Salud Algabre, Teresa Magbanua, Maria
Lorena Barros, and countless heroic protagonists of our history.
“Only connect,” as the saying goes. We thus succeeded in organizing rallies and
learning/teaching seminars, lobbying legislators to cut off military aid to Marcos,
supporting multiethnic farmworkers exploited by the same corporations pillaging their
homeland, and other activities. We also used Carlos Bulosan’s works together with the
testimonies of Filipino unionists who spearheaded dangerous strikes in the fields of Hawaii
and California. For us, PSR then afforded us an excellent pedagogical instrument which
sparked the conscientization (Paulo Freire’s term) of almost two generations of activists in
the U.S. and elsewhere. PSR is now a legendary document that, contextualized in its milieu
and with reference to Sison’s whole career, can be more justly appreciated as a contribution
to the advance of counter-hegemonic, national-popular movements around the world.
The Filipino people today, with its long durable tradition of anti-colonial and anti-
feudal resistance, finds itself at a crossroad. The moribund system in its convulsive death-
pangs eviscerates both victims and victimizers. The global crisis is worsening every day.
Profit accumulation by finance capital signifies prolonging and aggravating
underdevelopment—the poverty and misery of millions—particularly in the non-
industrialized, neocolonized regions such as the Philippines. The Permanent People’s
Tribunal held in the Hague in 2007, which I attended, pronounced the U.S.-Arroyo regime
Aguipo Global South Journal vol. 4, 2025, 75-81
ISSN 2984-8342
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17283249
© Epifanio San Juan Jr.
80
San Juan Jr.
guilty of massive crimes, among them untold cases of extra-judicial killings, torture,
enforced disappearances, barbaric brutalities with impunity—communities destroyed or
dispersed, millions of lives wasted (for Marcos’ crimes, see McCoy 2011). The verdict
declared that the systematic violations of the rights of the Filipino people, their sovereignty
and integrity, by the Bush and Arroyo governments are crimes against humanity. The
Tribunal also condemned those powers that “under the pretext of the so-called ‘war on
terrorism’ and in the mantle of ‘market- and profit-driven globalization’, deprive the
marginalized of a life in justice, dignity, and peace” (San Juan 2007, 252-53).
History, unfortunately, seems to repeat itself. On 19 September 2018, this same
Tribunal, after days of sifting the evidence and hearing oral testimonies, arrived at a verdict
sounding much the same as the 2007 one; this time the defendants on trial were Philippine
President Rodrigo Roa Duterte and U.S. President Donald Trump. They were found guilty
of “gross and systematic violations of human rights—civil, political, economic, social and
cultural rights—in particular, “the rights of the people to national self-determination and
development, the people’s right to liberation” (Cohn 2019). Whether these outrages will
continue for the next decades or so, barring ecological cataclysms, is the urgent question
to which Sison’s interviews here can provide the answers if not the heuristic orientation
necessary in clarifying what needs to be done. As we celebrate the golden anniversary of
the founding of the New People’s Army, and the 80th birthday of its founder, we forge our
passage through the “labor of the negative,” expressing here the travails and hopes of the
proletarianized masses in the long march not to a proverbial utopia but to a sense of
fulfillment in having affirmed our people’s dignity, integrity, and inexhaustible creativity.
References
Ahmad, Eqbal. 1971. “The Theory and Fallacies of Counter-Insurgency.” The Nation, August
2, 19–26.
Ch’en, Jerome. 1965. Mao and the Chinese Revolution. New York: Oxford University Press.
Cohn, Marjorie. 2019. “Tribunal Declares Trump and Duterte Guilty of Crimes against
Humanity.” Truthout, March 14. http://truthout.org.
Communist Party of the Philippines. 1990. “Programme for a People’s Democratic
Revolution in the Philippines.” In Communism in the Philippines: An Introduction,
by Alfredo Saulo, 221–44. Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University Press.
Distor, Emerita Dionisio. 1977. “Maoism and the Development of the Communist Party of
the Philippines.” In Critical Perspectives on Mao Zedong’s Thought, edited by Arif
Dirlik, Paul Healy, and Nick Knight, 137–58. New Jersey: Humanities Press.
Aguipo Global South Journal vol. 4, 2025, 75-81
ISSN 2984-8342
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17283249
© Epifanio San Juan Jr.
81
San Juan Jr.
Harvey, David. 2014. Seventeen Contradictions and the End of Capitalism. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Knight, Nick. 1977. “The Laws of Dialectical Materialism in Mao Zedong’s Thought: The
Question of ‘Orthodoxy.’” In Critical Perspectives on Mao Zedong’s Thought, edited
by Arif Dirlik, Paul Healy, and Nick Knight, 181–204. New Jersey: Humanities Press.
Lanin, Vladimir. 1968. National Liberation, Socialism and Imperialism: Selected Writings.
New York: International Publishers.
Mao Zedong. 1977. “On the Correct Handling of Contradictions Among the People.”
In Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung, vol. 5, 384–421. Peking: Foreign Languages Press.
McCoy, Alfred. 2011. “Dark Legacy: Human Rights under the Marcos Regime.” In Memory,
Truth Telling and the Pursuit of Justice: A Conference on the Legacies of the Marcos
Dictatorship, 129–44. Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University, Office of Research
and Publications.
Rizal, Jose. 1979. “The Philippines a Century Hence.” Translated by Charles Derbyshire.
In Jose Rizal, 96–129. Manila: National Historical Institute.
Rossanda, Rossana. 1971. “Mao’s Marxism.” Socialist Register, 53–80.
San Juan, E. 2007. U.S. Imperialism and Revolution in the Philippines. New York: Palgrave
Macmillan.
———. 2015. Between Empire and Insurgency. Quezon City: University of the Philippines
Press.
Sison, Jose Maria [Amado Guerrero, pseud.]. 1971. Philippine Society and Revolution. Manila:
Pulang Tala.
———. [Amado Guerrero, pseud.]. 1974. Specific Characteristics of People’s War in the
Philippines. Oakland, CA: International Association of Filipino Patriots.
———. 2015. Continuing the Struggle for National Liberation. Manila: International
Network for Philippines Studies and Aklat ng Bayan.
Sison, Jose Maria, and Juliet De Lima. 1998. Philippine Economy and Politics. Manila: Aklat
ng Bayan Publishing House.
U.S. Department of State. 1987. “The Hukbalahaps.” In The Philippines Reader, edited by
Daniel B. Schirmer and Stephen Shalom, 70–77. Boston: South End Press.
Zinn, Howard. 1984. The Twentieth Century. New York: Harper.
Aguipo Global South Journal vol. 4, 2025, 75-81
ISSN 2984-8342
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17283249
© Epifanio San Juan Jr.

Reflections on Revolution and Prospects, by Jose Maria Sison Published October 28, 2025 | Version v1 Other Open Reflections on Revolution and Prospects, by Jose Maria Sison Authors/Creators San Juan, Epifanio Jr.1 1. University of Connecticut Files AGSJ2025B01_San Juan Jr..pdf Files (185.1 kB) Name Size Download all AGSJ2025B01_San Juan Jr..pdf md5:ab2a192ac8...

BAGAMAT MAY DITUR, KAHIT SAAN —E. San Juan, Jr.

Kung sa kalyeng nilikuan mo
Nasilip ang aninong sumisikad, bumubulong,
Sumumpang di na makukulong
Sa lupang tinubuang nasikil, nalukob—
Irog, iya’y ako.

Kung natagpuan ang busabos sa daan,
Nilapitan ka’t handog ay sandata,
Hinahamon ka sa dapit-hapong nagliliyab,
Sumali ka na sa himagsikang nalunsad,
Baka kaibigan ko iyan, Giliw.

Kung tumingala ka sa gabing maligalig,
Sa langit nilambungan ng iyak at gibik,
Dinggin mo ang awit ng paglaya’t pag-ibig
Alay sa iyo bago ka maidlip—
Iya’y ating kasama, Sinta.

Kung ikaw’y magising sa gitna ng digma,
Saksi sa maraming sugata’t nabuwal—
Nasindak ka sa mga katawang duguan,
Masdan sa silangan ang silahis ng tagumpay—
Tagubilin sa atin iyan, Mahal.

Kung magdasal ka’t lumuhog sa madla
Upang iligtas pusong nasalanta,
Tunghayan ang mandirigmang gumagapang
Sa hagdan, sagisag ng lahing bumalikwas.
Iyan ang kaluluwa ko, Mutya.

Kung nais mong subukin ibang pagsuyo
Bagamat nagsikap imulat ang isip mo,
Di malayo ang tipanan ng sinumpang pangako—
Sige, tumawid ka sa pinagkrusan ng panibugho—
Nasa ibayo ako, makipagsapalaran tayo….

TUMATAWID SA SANGANDAAN NG KAPALARAN
Ni E. San Juan, Jr.

Tila siya busabos, mukhsng palaboy sa masalimuot na lungsod….
Nakabangga ko si Ruben, dating kaiskweleng hindi nakatapos…
Sa pagtawid sa Quezon Boulevard sa Plaza Miranda isang hapon….

Mula sa hukay ng gunita, inusig ang dakilang mithi ng paglaya
Ngunit siya’y anak-dalita, natulak maghanap-buhay—
Di nagkanulo subalit napanganyaya— Nakipagsapalaran siya….

Lumipas ang ilang taon, napigtal sa hibla ng buhay ang mga panaginip
Ng mga binatang musmos—“Kailan pupula ang silangan?”
Palaboy na walang tuto, api saan man magtungo?

Kubkob ng mapait na pagkabigo—mabuti ang isang binibigay
Kaysa dalawang pagpapabukas pa? Tumagos ang panglaw ng umaga
Sa bawat himaymay ng kaluluwa…Mapusyaw ang bombilya sa lansangan…

Kamakailan, nabalitaan kong manundok na si Ruben,
sumali sa. Bagong Hukbong Bayan—
Sanng tangway o libis ng lambak muli tayo magkikita kaya?

Magbalitaan muli tayo sa gilid ng Simbahan, kung saan
mahalimuyak ang mga korona ng bulaklak handog
sa mga pulubing awimpalad na sumakabilang-buhay.

available from BRILL, Holland; EBay, amazon.com, etc.

https://mronline.org/2026/07/13/between-two-empires-on-the-filipino-hero-apolinario-mabini/

Between Two Empires: On the Filipino Hero Apolinario Mabini - MR Online Apolinario Mabini is the most neglected or ignored figure in the pantheon of heroes of the revolution against Spain and the United States.

CRITICAL INTERPRETATION OF ALL THE NOVELS OF BAUTISTA, IN FILIPINO, available from EBay, amazon..com, U.S.T. Publishing House Website

available from BRILL, Holland & Berlin

in Bradford, Pennsylvania, circa 1961-62

FORTHCOMING book from University of Santo Tomas Publishing House, order now at their website

Hiroshima Lives On – in Gaza
BILJANA VANKOVSKAFacebookTwitterRedditBlueskyEmail

Photograph Source: WAFA (Q2915969) – CC BY-SA 3.0
This year marks another solemn anniversary of the atomic bombings—80 years since the U.S. dropped nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Over 120 national representatives gathered in Hiroshima this year to solemnly declare their pro-peace positions. Among them will be delegates from Israel and, for the first time, Palestine. The irony could not be starker: in just the past 20 months, Israel has dropped six times more explosives on Gaza than the U.S. dropped on Japan in 1945.
But unlike the preserved black-and-white images of Hiroshima, the scenes from Gaza are not historical—they are part of our daily reality. And if we dare to compare, the number of victims is not so different: those in 1945 mostly died instantly (along with those who endured agony before their last breath); those in Gaza die slowly—by bombs, bullets, starvation, or while trying to get some food.
The official American justification for the atomic bombings has never held up to serious scrutiny. We are told the bombs were necessary to force Japan’s surrender and end World War II. But even then—and certainly now—it is clear that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were test sites, chosen to showcase U.S. supremacy to the world. Richard Falk puts itrightly: “This use of atomic bombs against defenceless, densely populated cities remains the greatest single act of state terror in human history, and had it been committed by the losers in World War II surely the perpetrators would have been held criminally accountable and the weaponry forever prohibited.” The message was unmistakable: we are the masters of life and death. Other powers soon joined the nuclear club. The nuclear arms spiral never stopped.
If Hiroshima and Nagasaki were sacrificed in the name of ending one world war, what, then, are the people of Gaza—and now the West Bank—being destroyed for? The beginning of the next? Actually, some people believe we are already in a global war nightmare, but we are in denial.
A schoolboy in Hiroshima—great-grandson of a survivor—guides foreign visitors through the city’s tragic history. On camera, he sayssomething deeply moving: The most dangerous thing is to forget what happened long ago. What he doesn’t say—but what many of us adults whisper—is this: the danger is here. The memories of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are fading and they have become ceremonial symbols in front of which today’s war criminals—from Washington to Tel Aviv—shed crocodile tears.
Have we forgotten the horrors of nuclear weapons? Recent events suggest yes. Two global figures—Donald Trump and Dmitry Medvedev—flex their nuclear machismo on social media, leading to submarine deployments and heightened tensions near Russia.
But even more alarming are two events that could take us from theatrics to tragedy: Ukraine’s “Spiderweb” operation, targeting Russian nuclear facilities, and U.S. and Israeli attacks on Iran’s civilian nuclear infrastructure. The first was a provocation—dangerous, reckless, and left unanswered only thanks to restraint in Moscow. The second confirms a disturbing logic: if a country wants to avoid being bombed, it must possess a nuclear deterrent. This is precisely the reasoning embraced by North Korea—and increasingly, Iran. Some experts already describe Iran as an undeclared nuclear state. Its strategic priority now seems clear: build a bomb. But indeed the U.S. attack on Iran has made the most compelling case for nuclear proliferation.
Just months before Hiroshima’s global commemoration, the Doomsday Clock ticks closer to midnight. And yet—what is the point of commemorations, speeches, and rituals when genocide unfolds in real time?
The horror of 2025 is not nuclear, but no less apocalyptic. Without dropping a single atomic bomb, a people can be tortured, starved, erased—with full impunity. In Gaza, the killing is not indiscriminate; it is deliberate, systemic, and unapologetic. In such a world, Palestine does not need just sympathy. It demands outrage, including immediate trade/economic embargo, sanctions and intervention.
Let’s remember a precedent the West proudly cites: In 1999, NATO, led by the U.S., launched a military intervention against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia—ostensibly to protect civilians in Kosovo. The action violated the UN Charter, yet was later reframed as a moral necessity. Chomsky coined the concept of new military humanism. Under that logic, NATO helped draft a new constitution and lay the groundwork for Kosovo’s statehood.
From this emerged the UN-supported doctrine of Responsibility to Protect (R2P)—a vision of global order where sovereignty could be overridden to stop atrocities. It was the West’s post-Westphalian blueprint for humanitarian intervention.
So where is R2P now? As a professor, I could list countless books and papers lauding this doctrine. Yet today, not a single Western power dares to invoke it for Gaza.
Quite the opposite: you can kill civilians, destroy cities, and pursue a “final solution” with conventional weapons—and the world looks away. Governments remain silent, although I suspect most ordinary people (outside of Israel) do not support this slaughter.
Between Hiroshima’s ceremonies and the upcoming UN General Assembly, there is renewed talk of recognizing Palestine as an independent state. For a moment, it seems conscience stirs in the West, unable to stomach the daily horrors resembling Auschwitz or Hiroshima. But even this appears to be political theatre. By September, the bombing will likely continue—with no sanctions, no accountability, no end.
And let’s not forget: over 170 countries already recognize Palestine. So what? If they cannot enforce sanctions or intervene diplomatically—or even humanely—what good is recognition?
In truth, the global order cares more about trade, tech, and territorial alliances than it does about people being systematically erased. Even among Arab states, Palestinians are treated as a burden—an inconvenience to regional deals and diplomatic normalization.
The dead of Hiroshima and Nagasaki—and the few survivors who still bear witness—can never rest while Gaza looks like it has suffered six Hiroshimas, and nearly a million people face starvation beyond return. What is a Palestinian state worth if there are no Palestinians left?
And what does it say about the Israeli state and military—armed, protected, and celebrated in the West—that it can bomb, starve, and invade neighboring countries without consequence?
As the anniversaries of August 6 and 9 pass, the global chorus will echo once more: “Never again.”
But the truth is sobering: The world has learned nothing from the most horrifying crime against humanity in modern history.
Hiroshima horrors still live in the cries from Gaza.
This article was produced by Globetrotter.