I think Iranians genuinely feel empathy for the injustice done to Palestinians and oppose Zionist theft of Arab land (with whom they share the Muslim religion). The hyperbolic rhetoric against Israel is more of a (badly) calculated response. As for North Korea, Israel and the conflict are mostly just something to exploit for their own propaganda purposes.

The tendency to lump Iran and North Korea in the same category is misguided. The threats posed are inflated for the former and somewhat neglected and downplayed for the latter, especially under this administration. Iran is actually less repressive than other countries that the U.S. supports; e.g., Saudi Arabia and Uzbekistan. Turkey is a member of NATO, but the way it has treated its Kurdish population (not to forget Armenian) is despicable, and while it's government has made great democratic strides, intolerance is still rife.

I see little difference between the prejudices and intolerance in Israel and that of most Muslim states. Those must be equally condemned wherever they occur. However, owing to the demographics prior, during, and after Israel's dubious creation, and the consistent pattern evident throughout its brief current history, there are valid reasons for singling out Israel as a priority. Another consideration in conjunction with that is that Israel would not exist without the active help and support of Great Britain and the U.S. in the past and present. Israel is as much a product of those two nations as it is of Zionists. Therefore, given the circumstances, what are the lessons and message being taught and sent to Muslim nations by the West? Are they consistent with the same ideals we hold for ourselves? If not, isn't it incumbent upon Western societies to effect change in Israel? Whatever combination of guilt and sympathy is felt does not excuse shirking that responsibility.

I take your point. Just because the state is rogue, does not neccesarily mean there are no good people there.

I wonder how Iran feels about that?
Or North Korea.

Sorry, Thom, I misread your post. I like Norman Finkelstein, but there are others equally acceptable. By the way, I wouldn't necessarily discount a suitable candidate just because they were from Israel. They could be Israeli and Jewish and still committed to a moral solution to the conflict based upon International Law.

But I didn't suggest an Israeli. That would be the worst possible thing for the UN. A secretary general from a country that has simply ignored the existence of any resolutions regarding itself has no standing in the world body, would literally be the end of it.
Other countries have Jews in them too.

Thom, it seems like a novel idea, except I don't know of any current Israeli's with sufficient credentials who would make good candidates, i.e. approach this conflict impartially and objectively enough. Plus, with the current political climate in Israel, wouldn't any such Israeli be discredited and ignored by Israel? I understand your aim or hope is that by influencing American policy we can change Israeli policy. Still, I don't see all that much difference between the various Israeli factions right now. They seem to be getting homogenized, somewhat like our Democrats and Republicans here. Sadly, none of them--there or here--seem truly interested in finding a just solution. You get the occasional platitudes about how awful this or that is, but very little or nothing in the way of taking any real action. Then, too, it appears Israel intends to benefit from the status quo that allows it to subjugate the Palestinian people, control their land and resources, and build more settlements, which is why it has always been reluctant to make any significant concessions that could lead to peace. Looking at Camp David and Tabu, I don't see any real effort there by the Israeli side, just more intransigence. I hate to say it, but even the most conscientious Israeli UN Secretary General is not going to make much difference without changing attitudes in our own government. That will require changing attitudes among our citizens, which won't be solved by any UN Secretary General. Even then, I think that Israeli citizens attitudes will still need to change. Withdrawing U.S. support from Israel and other measures will certainly help, but perhaps the most important thing is getting the truth out so there can be honest and frank dialogue. Of course, that is made rather more difficult the way Israel controls media access, and then censors and filters what does comes out. Maybe greater media access with less censorship would be a good place to start. Wouldn't that help reduce some of the inhumane policies and abuses of Israel? Wouldn't giving Palestinians a better venue to air their complaints help reduce the immoral violence? You know, our U.S. government and media could demand these things right now, but why don't they, when it is in their own best interests?

RE: JS 'alien entity'

If you're American, are you then willing to concede your property to the Native Americans who had first claim and leave America? Unless you're willing to do so, that would make you a hypocrite and negate your argument. Otherwise, show us your ceded deed and your new citizenship papers.

Wasn't 'fait accompli' your own argument? Except here we have Palestinians living on this land for more centuries than the decades of current Israelis. You want to have it both ways, whichever way proves most convenient for you at the moment. And that's just being intellectually dishonest.

That whole argument is silly on a number of levels anyway. First of all, it was a Roman proclamation which caused the Jewish Diaspora. Secondly, Israel as a nation ceased to exist long before Muslims arrived. If you had studied your history, you would know that Muslim takeover of former Roman lands was merciful to Jewish peoples, and Muslim rule was comparatively much more favorable to them.

Third, who was there before the Jews in Biblical times? Wasn't there a number of tribes, including the Canaanites, who were related to the Phoenicians, the people that gave mankind the written word and the alphabet? Palestinians claim ancestry from those same tribes who were there long before any Jewish tribes brutally invaded their lands, pillaging and plundering (according to those same Biblical accounts). I find it more than a bit ironic how history repeats itself. (Actually, the historical anthropological record does tell us that Jewish tribes came later, but suggests that the affair wasn't nearly as straightforward as the Biblical account indicates.) At any rate, don't you think we owe it to ourselves to expect a bit more civilized behavior in modern times?

Fourth, as I had just pointed out previously, there are Orthodox Jews who consider the reconstitution of an Israeli nation as somewhat of a blasphemy.

Fifth, a question Palestinians often like to ask; where were all the Jewish people during the Crusades? Perhaps a bit unfair, but there is some validity to this point. The fallacious slogan most quoted by Zionists was, "A land without people, for a people without land." Note the lack of any religious and proprietary connotations or reference.

Finally, your argument predicates ceaseless conflict and chaos, not stability and peace. Special laws that only apply to one group of people are unjust and kind of racist. Isn't that really the heart of this conflict; that special treatment was given to Zionist aims in Palestine, neglecting and ignoring Palestinian needs for the same rights everyone else was justly entitled to?

Once again, you seek to propagate more myth, without really addressing the arguments made. Wikipedia is a noble effort, but not the most reliable source. It is a work in progress, and articles posted there have been known to reflect an agenda. Why only one source for current Jewish populations in Arab countries? Why is it only a Jewish source? Iran isn't Arab, but why is the large Jewish population there (who want to stay) ignored, when they form the most outside of Israel in the Middle East?

But, regardless of that, what is meant by a "historical parallel"? There was a vastly greater proportion of Arabic Jewish peoples immigrating to Palestine or Israel of their own volition without provocation than there was Palestinians leaving Palestine willingly. And of that tiny portion of Palestinians who left willingly, many did so as a temporary measure, expecting to return to their homeland. Clearly, the Arab states never accepted or desired a transfer of populations. This was no quid pro quo. Nowhere in the article you reference does it indicate a surrender of any legal rights. According to your own citation, Morocco is encouraging Jewish people to return. So what is your argument? Additionally, you ignore the fact that it was Zionist and Israeli treatment of Arabs that caused the backlash, which some Arabic Jews (most of whom no longer reside in their native land) claim was exacerbated, and possibly propelled, by Zionist or Israeli terrorist and secret intelligence group's deliberate instigation of violence in those countries in order to gain and maintain a Jewish majority in Israel, as well as provide justification for Israel's own goals and acts in Palestine. Moreover, there is no question that Zionists actively sought to recruit Arab Jewish immigration to Israel to increase their numbers there. Often, sizable incentives were offered, just as they still are today (look at the government subsidies given to illegal Jewish settlers on Palestinian land). If you read the complete history, instead of just selective portions, you would know just how desperate Zionists were for new Jewish immigrants to tip the demographic balance in their favor, and how ruthlessly they simultaneously sought to drive out the native Arabic majority.

Most historians currently acknowledge that Palestinians did not leave of their own accord, but were forced out by massacres and terrorist tactics. Benny Morris (Israeli) and a number of other eminent historians and scholars have confirmed long-standing claims from Israeli government declassified records over 15 years ago. This isn't news, but accepted fact, as you would have known had you done proper research. What the Israelis did was ethnic cleansing, and it was done deliberately to steal property and create a Jewish majority. Israeli's killed, raped, pillaged, and looted on a very large scale. Take a look at the horrible Israeli laws enacted to prevent Palestinians from reclaiming their land and possessions. How are those laws and current Israeli laws regarding Palestinians much different in essence than similar Nazi laws against Jews before WWII? Jewish ownership of Palestinian land was only 7% prior to 1948, and despite the massive illegal immigration of European Jews after WWII, still composed only half the population. How does that equate with minority Jewish peoples in other Arabic countries? Besides, you are attempting to group all Arabs together, whatever their national, religious, or cultural heritage. That is just plain wrong. As for bias, Benny Morris is now advocating that they should have ethnically cleansed Israel of all Arabs. A position, I might add, that is widely condemned and shared by very few outside of Israel (a minority view even in Israel).

The Zionists and Israel has continuously ignored the rights of the indigenous people that have long lived in Palestine. That practice is still evident today. Did you know that out of the original ten percent of Palestinians that were Jewish, ninety percent of them were opposed to creating a Zionist state in Palestine? That before Zionism in Palestine, Arab tolerance of Jewish peoples was well known, exceeding that found in most European nations and even America?

Your verbatim quotations from Wikipedia notwithstanding, it doesn't change the fact that one peoples persecution gives them absolutely no right to persecute another blameless people. Observing what was done to Palestinians, it can be seen the wrong lessons were learned by Israel and the Zionists that preceded it. Since I detest the persecution of Jewish people, and object on the same grounds to what is being done by Jewish people to the Palestinians, perhaps you could explain: how does that make me biased? Biased towards truth, morality and justice? If you were a bit more open-minded, you might be able to discern that I have concerns for the moral character and well-being of Jewish people in Israel and elsewhere, not only their gross injustice against Palestinians. Does your accusation make all the honest and moral Jewish people who share the same opinions as I do biased? There are a significant number of Orthodox Jews who reject a Zionist state for religious reasons, but what about Jewish people who would rejoice in a Zionist nation, but reject the intolerance and injustice that Israel was founded upon and represents? As is surely readily apparent, past and current Israeli disregard for the rule of law and the rights of others is anathema to the security of Jewish peoples everywhere, not just in Israel. There were Jewish scholars who predicted long ago that the Zionist and Israeli mistreatment and disregard for the rights of the indigenous Palestinians would result in this ongoing conflict. It wasn't necessary for a magical crystal ball then or now to perceive these things.

While I am able to understand the desperation and bitterness caused by Israeli subjugation and oppression that drives Palestinian acts of immoral violence against Israel, I don't condone it; not only is it wrong, it only cheapens and harms a righteous cause. At the same time, there must be some acknowledgement that depriving a proud people of their heritage and placing them in the dire circumstances they now find themselves, such violence is perhaps inevitable. Nevertheless, viewing this conflict in totality, it becomes obvious that Palestinians have suffered far more terrorism at the hands of Israelis than vice-versa. It can be seen that Zionism and Israel has been, and continues to be, the primary aggressor and provocateur in Palestine. How can this be changed? How can peace be brought to this conflict? Isn't it incumbent upon Israel to accept the legal and moral obligation of the Palestinian right of return to their homes and properties? To acknowledge and compensate them for additional losses from Jewish pillaging and plundering, and the massacres of innocents that included women (some pregnant), children and babies? To quit illegal settlements on Palestinian land? To stop illegally withholding Palestinian rights to their own water, mineral, land, and air? To finally define its borders by accepting the UN borders? To forego expansionism and forsake illegal annexations? This would mean Israeli acceptance that the usurpation of the native peoples rights that illegally, immorally, and unjustly created a Jewish majority must be reversed. The current Israeli status quo of one set of laws and rights for Jewish people and another inferior set for non-Jewish is racist and must be abolished. Israelis and Palestinians alike must acknowledge and accept the need for a truly secular government, hopefully democratic, with tolerance and respect for all. It is very difficult to believe that any other solution, especially when they are certain to be inherently disadvantageous to Palestinians, and therefore unjust, will be as successful. Such a solution would require equally great sacrifices from both sides, but in necessitating common goals and interests for peace and prosperity, it would facilitate success.

This is not a subject that can easily be debated with short responses. If I could add one other thing here, though. If I ever had a bias, it was definitely pro-Israel. This was no doubt due to the way this matter is treated in our media and by our government, as well as in the classroom and at home. I have studied this conflict extensively for many years, and have gradually come to realize over those years just how much the conventional wisdom in the U.S. and Israel is immoral and unjust. This might surprise you, but, on the whole, there is more enlightenment in Israel about the history of this conflict than there is the U.S., despite an educational curriculum there that is heavily biased. You might also be surprised to learn the subject is treated more truthfully with less indoctrination in Palestinian schools then it is in Israeli ones. That is, when Palestinian schools and students aren't being targeted by the terrorist acts of Israeli settlers or shut down by arbitrary Israeli 'security' measures. What many people fail to realize or acknowledge is that much of the violence stems directly from illegal Israeli settlers and an extremely repressive illegal occupation. Furthermore, there is a long history, going back to the British Mandate, where peaceful Palestinian protests have been brutally and harshly dealt with. Not only is that immoral and undemocratic, such policies just foment violence, and Israel is surely fully cognizant of that.

I sincerely urge you or anyone else to use your own independent thought to make your own determinations. You don't have to take my word on any of this. Do the research, use a wide variety of sources. There are some excellent places to start: online you can go to independent Middle East think tanks, UN documents, DemocracyNow, IfAmericansKnew, PalestineRemembered, Israeli, Palestinian, European and Arab news outlets. There are also a number of excellent books on this subject that can be obtained from the library and book stores. You won't get a good understanding, however, looking at only one side. I guarantee that in comparing both sides and impartial third parties one can quickly establish without much difficulty where the truth lies and what is malicious propaganda.

I only wish this conflict were the defining one of our age. As it has been stated by a previous comment, though, the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is just one of hundreds plaguing the globe today.

I would love to see a Secretary General who can address all of those, ensuring that conflicts such as this one are constantly on the forefront of the world's conscience.

Personally speaking, I think both sides have made some serious misjudgments (it happens in every conflict). I've seen firsthand how Israeli soldiers treat Palestinian civilians and to call it barbaric and incredibly overbearing would be putting it lightly. While visiting a colleague's church/school 4 years ago, I saw the wreckage caused when an Israeli tank arbitrarily flattened the school's wrough-iron gate and the soldiers marched in and covered the side of the structure with bullet holes. There was no reason, no orders from an Israeli officer, just a group of out-of-control men out for fun who decided to scare the wits out of a pastor, a few teachers, and 70+ children.

I learned very quickly why so many Palestinian suicide bombers do what they do, but at the same time, it can never be condoned. If Palestine wants the world to back its cause, clamping down on those sort of attacks is an absolute must. Then, they'll have the moral highground and can point to all of the rampant ongoing abuses of the Israeli military.

Whether the world will act on it is another question, and it's extremely sad that it even needs to be asked. Perhaps a stronger UNSG who is focused on resolving issues like that during their tenure is the answer...if there is such a person vying for candidacy, they have my backing no matter what their country of origin.

>>>Israel as an alien entity unwillingly thrust upon them

This language shows your bias. Jews are not an alien entity ; their claims predate the Christian and Muslim ones. In the historical sequence, the Muslim Arabs are actually the imperialist occupiers, and the Jews the scattered refugees.

....Israeli ethnic cleansing ...

It was a mutual exchange of populations, as has happened during other partitions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_exodus_from_Arab_lands

Many, but by no means all, writers on the topic regard the Jewish exodus from Arab lands as a historical parallel to the Palestinian exodus during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War and the Six-Day War. Jews in Arab lands have been reduced by more than 99% since 1948 while the Arab population of Israel has grown larger than its 1948 base

>>>Israel as an alien entity unwillingly thrust upon them

This language shows your bias. Jews are not an alien entity ; their claims predate the Christian and Muslim ones. In the historical sequence, the Muslim Arabs are actually the imperialist occupiers, and the Jews the scattered refugees.

....Israeli ethnic cleansing ...

It was a mutual exchange of populations, as has happened during other partitions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_exodus_from_Arab_lands

Many, but by no means all, writers on the topic regard the Jewish exodus from Arab lands as a historical parallel to the Palestinian exodus during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War and the Six-Day War. Jews in Arab lands have been reduced by more than 99% since 1948 while the Arab population of Israel has grown larger than its 1948 base

Mr. Kuttab,
I'm afraid that I disagree with your reasoning. If another Arab is put in charge of the UN (Butrous Butrous-Ghali), then the charges of "Anti-Semitism, while outrageous, could gain credence in the only country that matters (unfortunatetly) the US. Most of the people in my country already believe that all Arabs are against the Jews, (shows what they know, doesn't it?) and this would be just another example (for them) of Arab malice towards Israel. I though that Americanski's idea over on the main comment board was interesting. Why not nominate a Jew, then perhaps, if the UN were to criticize Israel (rightly as usual) the US and Israel would not be able to discredit it.

>>>Fait accompli to what?

Fait accompli to a massive population exchange both ways.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel

Estimates of the final refugee count range from 600,000 to 900,000 with the official United Nations count at 711,000. .... approximately 850,000 Sephardi and Mizrahi Jews fled or were expelled from surrounding Arab countries and Iran. ...

The Jewish refugees of that time settled down to a productive life ; the Arab refugees live in hatred and squalor, with irredentist dreams of "Palestine from river to sea"

About the disproportionate attention paid by the UN to Israel :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_and_the_United_Nations

* There is only one entire UN Division devoted to a single group of people: the United Nations Division for Palestinian Rights [16] (created in 1977).
* The only UN day dedicated to a specific people is November 29, the annual UN Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People.
* There is only one refugee agency dedicated to a single refugee situation: UNRWA (in operation since 1950).
* One of the General Assembly six committees, "the Fourth Committee, routinely devotes 30% of its time to the condemnation of Israel."
* "The General Assembly emergency sessions... began in 1956, and since then six of the ten emergency sessions ever held, have been about Israel. The 10th such session began in 1997 and has been reconvened 13 times. A million dead in Rwanda or two million dead in Sudan might have warranted one General Assembly emergency session."
* "...the UN's primary human-rights body is the UN Human Rights Commission. 30% of the resolutions condemning specific states ever adopted over 40 years are directed at Israel." [17]

...Israel as an alien entity ... Israeli ethnic cleansing ...

This terminology shows your bias. Jews have a prior claim to the land in question, predating both the Christian and the Muslim claims, so they are not an alien entity. In the historical sequence, actually, the Arab Muslims are the occupying imperialists. Again, there was no ethnic cleansing as much as a transfer of populations, as alredy referenced above.

....If someone wrongly took your heritage

There is no such thing as a Palestinian heritage separate and different from generic Arab history and heritage.

http://www.imninalu.net/myths-pals.htm

(the source may be suspect but it showed up early under google. my previous readings have led me to similar conclusions)

Of course, any group or geographical area can decide that they have a separate identity, and hence to have an independence struggle. One is not required to sympathize with them all, that is indeed the surest way to chaos. For example, you probably think the Basques should just lump it and stop fighting. Why not Palestinians ?

Even the U.S. has long recognized that resolving this conflict is a priority. Your view represents a distinct (biased) minority. Fait accompli to what? Does that mean Israel (or any other country) could keep annexing more territory and illegally creating new settlements? The logical extension is that might is always right. Your way lies madness, perpetual war, and chaos, not rule of law, stability, and peace. The U.N. does not recognize Israeli annexation of East Jerusalem. In fact, no country does. Nor does it recognize Chinese annexation of Tibet. Consult Article 2(4) of UN Charter.

Once one looks beyond all the propaganda, it becomes painfully apparent that it is Israel who has prolonged this conflict. Why, to this day, have they never declared or defined their borders?

You make two other false assertions. The Mid East conflict has not and does not prevent the UN (or the U.S.) from addressing new problems in Sudan or anywhere else. Neither can Arabic states be faulted for supporting justice for Palestinians, or for regarding Israel as an alien entity unwillingly thrust upon them. Moreover, your argument ignores that it was Israeli ethnic cleansing that caused Palestinian refugees. Ethnic cleansing was one of the charges Nazis were convicted of at Nuremburg. In essence, Arabs were forced to pay for European persecution of Jewish people and war crimes--crimes for which they were blameless. For you, that wasn't enough; they must be forced to pay again for Israeli persecution of Palestinians. In effect, you are once more blaming the true victims.

As I said before, this is an Israeli problem. Instead of trying to cast blame on Palestinians or others, it would be far more productive to get the truth out into the open and start getting Israel to take responsibility for its own immoral and illegal actions. If someone wrongly took your heritage, no one could convince you that you were not in the right, yet that is precisely what you are disingenuously expecting of others here.

It speaks volumes that you have not sought to contradict much of what was said, choosing instead to parrot more baseless, biased myths. You have much to learn about this conflict, and it is out of kindness and hope that I beseech you to do so.

>>>because of its length and scope, it is a priority.

No, it's the other way around. The length and scope are because of politicizing and prolonging the issue. There are any number of disputed territories and occupied lands : Tibet, Cyprus, etc. After a certain point, it becomes a fait accompli. The Arab countries are cynically using the Palestinians as pawns to wear down Israel. The "Palestinization" of the UN ensures that other problems don't get their due attention, such as the ongoing genocide in Darfur.

The previous comment referring to 'third-generation' refugees does not negate in any way the right-of-return mandated under International Law and the Geneva Conventions. It does, however, underscore how long the world has allowed this terrible unjustice to stand. Furthermore, setting aside Zionists, while Great Britain may have been the instigator of this conflict, it can clearly be seen that it is the U.S. that is most responsible for perpetuating the injustice. Although I sincerely lament past persecution of Jewish peoples, their persecution did not and does not justify the persecution of another people. What Zionists have wrought is just another form of apartheid and gross ethnic racism. Compounding their injustices, the true victims in all of this, Palestinians, are continuosly portrayed by them as the victimizers.

The previous comment referring to 'third-generation' refugees does not negate in any way the right-of-return mandated under International Law and the Geneva Conventions. It does, however, underscore how long the world has allowed this terrible unjustice to stand. Furthermore, setting aside Zionists, while Great Britain may have been the instigator of this conflict, it can clearly be seen that it is the U.S. that is most responsible for perpetuating the injustice. Although I sincerely lament past persecution of Jewish peoples, their persecution did not and does not justify the persecution of another people. What Zionists have wrought is just another form of apartheid and gross ethnic racism. Compounding their injustices, the true victims in all of this, Palestinians, are continuosly portrayed by them as the victimizers.

The problem is not Palestinian, it's Israeli. Jordan is not their homeland, Israel and the occupied territories are. Israel's ethnic cleansing in 1948 and 1967 of most of it's Palestinian population to create a Jewish majority is immoral and unconscionable. As is their continued occupation and settlements on Palestinian land. It was Israel who walked away from the Camp David peace process in Tabu, not Palestine. It is Israel who has refused to return to negotiations. It is Israel standing in long-time defiance of a number of important UN Resolutions, all of which the U.S. is signatory to. The peace agreement proposed was so one-sided against Palestinians as to be untenable for any Palestinian politician. Don't take my word for it: look at both sides with an open mind. My only bias is for truth and justice; I hold no malice towards any group. While this conflict is just one of many critical issues facing the UN, because of its length and scope, it is a priority.

Yes, elect a Jordanian as UN secy general. Maybe then he'll solve the "Palestine" problem, with its third generation of refugees, by giving them a homeland ... in Jordan

India or China, who is more important? It should not be influenced by the UN taking any sort of position. On the other hand the Arab world has been at least the center of attraction in recent years, as far as wars are concerned. But an unknown prince from Jordan? Who was the third candidate?

Chavez or Castro at the UN?

Yeah, that'll be productive, ramp up the speechifying and vililfying, that's obviously what the UN needs more of.

The UN needs someone who will enhance its ability to get things done in areas that matter, that seems to me to be a choice between the Jordanian and Indian fellows.

The "Palestinian conflict" is not the most important problem in the world. All the world's problems do not stem from this conflict. Of couse, peace is a worthy goal, but I don't think it would do much to affect the rest of the world.

From the three commentators, Daoud Kuttab has offered the most substantial reasons as to whom to choose to replace Kofi Annan. The U.S. would be very afraid of his choice of the Jordanian candidate.

It would really take someone like Chavez or Fidel Castro to direct the UN to bring change to the world.

The U.N. has evolved into a place where members of the security council take problems that they are
unable or unwilling to address or solve.
There, they are talked and discussed
forever. The council, each having
a veto, knows that it really doesn't
matter very much what course of action is decided upon. The main thing is that the fact that the U.N.
is considering something takes the
pressure off of the members of the
security council.
Therefore, I would submit that the
best thing for all the non security council members to do is
withdraw from the U.N. and set up
their own international organization. Only then will some
the worlds seemingly intractable
issues be dealt with.