Foxy, as one who has studied the importance of power balance in maintaining a democratic world, one does worry how the nuclear arming of tiny Israel has truly upset what has been a necessary balance for peace in the Middle East, even as Henry Kissinger long ago pointed out to President Nixon.

It is also tragic that our leaders have lost faith in a United Nations - refusing to believe in the reasoning of Immanuel Kant who disgusted with the empirical change of Napoleon, wrote about a troubled world needing not just one strong power for perpetual peace, but a number of powers forming a democratic union.

Thus of course from Kantian Reasoning came the League of Nations, ruined by too much interference from Britain, and the UN of course, messed up also by big power intrusion.

The lesson of course with trying to manage a too powerful little Israel plus being backed by Pax Americana is no way to manage a modern World.

Democratic multi-power is the only answer, as was so strongly talked about during the Korean War, even having the UN with its own emblem on the multi-power supplied defence equipment.

Do believe such should have come about to protect israel rather than turning her into an atomic militistic stat

Dear bushbred,

I agree with your post with one exception. Our leaders have considerable faith in the United Nations. That is why they block it. They realise that it would limit their ambitions if it was given the power to do so. I am for a stronger United Nations that would lend security to all nations and also block power grabs.

Back of militarism may be fear of attack. Israel at its foundation was attacked by five Arab nations and had the memory of the Holocaust. Even though they are a tremendously strong power currently many of its people still think of themselves as powerless victims. As Faulkner said, "The past isn't even past."

Dear Relda
As much as I admire and respect your posts that usually contain moderation and balance, it pains me to refute two points that cant be substantiated and must be questioned.
Talking about Moses and the Children of Israel, the Israeli archaelogists/anthropologists I mentioned are quite clear that in none of the places mentioned in the Old Testament where they extensively dug and excavated THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE FOUND that those places ever existed!! So that rules those stories out as far as regarding them as "HISTORY" is concerned. The OT must be regarded as a collection of mythological short stories that were meant to inspire rather than become the basis for history which is what they WERE NOT.

Sorry.Really.

socratease

Dear socratease,
As initially expressed in my previous post, ‘the Whole Bible is fill’d with Imagination and Visions’. I would therefore entirely agree with Finkelstein and Silberman and maintain that "the historical saga contained in the Bible . . . was not a miraculous revelation, but a brilliant product of human imagination". These authors also argue the Bible's integrity and, in fact, its historicity, do not depend on dutiful historical "proof" of any of its particular events or personalities – as I've also indicated (i.e. ‘Whether Moses lived or not is not the point of the story.’).

Finkelstein and Silberman also say that the power of the biblical saga stems from its being a compelling and coherent narrative expression of the timeless themes of a people's liberation, continuing resistance to oppression, and quest for social equality. They say it eloquently expresses the deeply rooted sense of shared origins, experiences, and destiny that every human community needs in order to survive. As my previous post should infer, I would agree with this also. So I’m unable to see which part or ‘points’ that I've made you take exception to.

Dear Relda

As usual you have cleared up a whole lot of misconceptions I may have laboured under.Thanks for being so frank,candid and honest as you always have been.

I am equally confused re. the recent Right Wingers victories in the Israeli elections.Lets wait and see.The next move must come from Hamas.

There is some truth in what Nathaniyu said...that peace will come to the area if hamas put down their weapons;if Israel put away its weapons that would spell the end of Israel.

I,ll say it once more for the last time - the de jure owners of Palestine are the Palestinians,Arabs and Jews; the de facto rulers will be the Arab Palestinians. There should be only one state.PALESTINE, where everyone can live and grow to their full potential under one law. How far back do we have to go to prove de jure ownership of land. As far back as to dispossess white Australians to hand back the land to the indigenous Australians. And the same applies to the American Indians. Wont happen.

Hamas should acept the verdict of history and get a life of their own for its people andaccept the beast deal on the table.

socratease