Marilyn Shepherd

I am glad that you cleared up that point. But you say that Israel existed because the Christians didn't want the Jews. Now that is not entirely true. For starters a number of Christian countries have been happy to have Jews amongst them. Notably this country where Jews arrived with the first fleet and have become a part of our society, but also Scotland England Canada the USA. Anti semitism didn't exist in this country until it was imported after the war from other non anglo countries.

And if you look at the population of modern Israel roughly half of their Jewish population is of middle eastern descent where the hatred directed at them was from Muslims. The same happened to Christians in the area. The flow of Jews from Egypt, Iraq etc had nothing to do with Christians.

You and others have mistaken the Zionist movement of Hertzel for the movement of Jews into the western coastal strip of Palestine which started with Jews from the Caliphate and later on from Europe. The flow of Jews after the holocaust was from a land in which Jews had already settled.

The problem of exchange of population movements is that while the displaced Jews from Egypt and Iraq were resettled the displaced Palestinians were not, no thanks to any generosity from the oil rich Sheiks who prefer to spend their money on their Rolls Royces rather than invest it in their own people. If that had been done the Palestinians like refugees from Europe now in Australia would be prosperous and the present problem of resentment and envy of Israel would not exist.

The real problem is one of Megalomania

The first job of megalomaniac leaders is to polarise opinion both internally (inside their own borders) and externally (the world at large). Language exists merely at the level of symbolism: externally - Christian/Muslim - internally Left/Right after this, substitute any polarity for desired effect – good/bad; black/white; red/blue, in short, dual thinking. In reality, life is much more colourful and much more complex. This language is nothing more than 'battlecryspeke' - "with us or against us"!

"left" or "right" dictatorships, look, and are in truth, the same thing. Self-proclaimed "Leaders"/"War Presidents" (NB, German translation: Fuhrer) on either side, due to fear of losing control, create artificial focal points (9/11? - Arch Duke Ferdinand?) in order to hoist the standard and call to arms...

National reproduction policy usually changes at the same time - as, of course, there may be need for an endless supply of canon fodder (think battery farming - literally) or a need for reconstruction 'drones' once the desired aim is achieved and thousands of lives have been wasted, achieving the glory and ego-driven dreams of the few. Either or thinking excludes looking for solutions – common ground becomes ‘no mans land’. Our leaders “will prevail”, “will have victory” I think everyone can agree that these people, whether they claim to be Arab/Isreali, on the left or on the right, (it will, of course, always be on the opposing side of their "enemy") are megalomaniacs

bushbred: Yet to whom is the UN accountable? If it were to be representative by a country's population size, then China and India would dominate, and neither of those two (particularly China) is exactly lily white. How would Australia, with 20 million people, do?

If it were to be representative of/by nations, then the plethora of ratbag authoritarian regimes around the world could make a mockery of it. That's currently the case, and whilst I'm not defending the U.S., I think it's crazy that many of its detractors (who have appalling human rights records) get taken seriously simply because they're part of the world community.

Finally, if it's run by bureaucrats, then to whom are they accountable? I don't remember ever voting for or against Kofi Annan.

Given how unaccountable and out of touch (if not downright corrupt) our present three levels of government are, how on earth can you possibly think a fourth (that would be even more removed) would be a good thing? What we need is a devolution of power, not the strengthening of central power.

Need I remind you that the Cold War wasn't any better than the present state (which I'm not saying is good)? Many of the world's current problems (including a lot of terrorism) are the result of America and the Soviet Union propping up any nutter who was willing to support one of them. Bin Laden was a product of that power balance.

Also, regarding Kant and Napoleon, Kant actually died (12 Feb, 1804) before Napoleon became emperor (18 May, 1804), so how could Kant have come up with his ideas after (and in response to) Napoleon becoming emperor?

Look, you might be on the right track, but you haven't actually said why, or why Kant was right (compared to any other philosopher -- personally, I found Kant beyond tedious and I'm much more of a Nietzschean myself).

We the people must do more to make "our voices" heard at GROUND LEVEL, using pro-active means if we want the UN which is ONLY a REPRESENTATIVE body made up of NATIONS to act accordingly.

If we want "COLLECTIVE SECRUITY" we (all civilians) must DECIDE what that is... and WORK FOR IT!

The latest Lebenan conflict as it (by many) "justly" references the underlying problems of 1957/8 and then 1978 and there after... reflects historically in SUBJECTIVE terms "what" happens (how history repeats itself) when we a people, participating in our - bystand, apathetically accuse those out there of wild in-justice.

What is happening IS WRONG. We must STOP IT... and to do this we must go right back and recap - HOW.

Will be back, thank you Taya Fabijanic, this is a very GOOD Paper, it is productive for it's simple and clear language.

www.miacat.com

No wonder the UN has failed most times. Don't our Onliners realise that since its inception that America has had the right of the VETO which can scrub out any attempt at a new Resolution which the US of A does not want. Earlier during the Cold War the Soviet Union was allowed the same -simply what was known as a privelege of the major powers.

Now of course America has the right alone, as was recently experienced when it was hoping the problems of the Israeli attack on Lebanon could allow for a major UN force to go there, possibly including Nato.

There was a heading about the Israeli-Lebanon problem on an Internet page called Rice's Fantasy Ride. Fantasy ride alright when George W' had probably informed her to use the veto. Also he might have told her to pay the big bill that the US had owed the UN for years. But not very likely.

It is so incredulous our John Howard has not questioned Georgy Boy about this? Also Tony Blair who is always talking so much about doing the right thing. Wonder if he means the ethical thing? Fact is, I wonder lately if both Blair and Howard have lost their marbles when they let Condoleeza use a veto that should have been thrown out by the end of the Cold War.

Also we could wonder whether our Onliners could know about the veto, and the harm it can do. Indeed, if they do and haven't mentioned it, they must be all for America using it. Thank you all very much.

Bushbred,

Another appeal, please please PLEASE GET YOUR FACTS RIGHT.

There are FIVE permanemt members of the Security Council.

These are: US, UK, Russia, China and France.

Each of these members has a right of veto, not just the US and Russia.