CKNW Editorial
for October 25, 2001

Most of us would like to stick with comforting thoughts rather than face reality. It would be nice if prayers for peace actually brought peace. But, as yet they haven't.

There are realities that must be faced. I've spoken a bit recently about the United Nations for whom so much was promised and expected back in 1945 in San Francisco when it was formed. It was going to be much more effective than was the League of Nations because of the Security Council, really an outgrowth of what was k known during the war as the Big Five namely the United States, The Soviet Union, China, Britain and France. With this group in the administrative driver's seat aggressor nations could be effectively dealt with.

That wish was stillborn. France wasn't in anyone's wildest imagination a great power. It had been bailed out of two Worlds Wars by overseas powers and was about to lose its empire. Britain was stony-assed broke, half starving and a mere shadow of its former self. In 1949 the communists took over China so effectively that country was out of the United Nations corridors of power. The Soviet Union and the United States were almost immediately at war, even though it was called a Cold War, with all the states in Eastern Europe behind what Churchill called the Iron Curtain. From the outset the United Nations was a toothless tiger. The Korean war, fought ostensibly by the United Nations starting in 1950, was fought by the United States with some Allies like Britain, Turkey and Canada. The only reason the United Nations was formally involved was because Russia was absent from the Security Council so couldn't exercise its veto. Those are the realities of the United Nations.

The next step, of course, is to observe that any body that cannot enforce its laws and its resolutions is no more than an exercise in civics. This is why, when certain callers say that Israel should submit to this UN resolution or that I appear cynical and say that unless Israel wants to it won't. Just as the United States may pay its dues or it may not. This doesn't mean I approve of this situation. Not at all. I simply observe that the United Nations is nothing more than a very large talk shop that does some useful social work.

There is another reality. There are a billion Muslims in the world and the feature of their religion is the devotedness of so many of its adherents. This is not to say that all or even most Muslims will support the fundamentalist wing - not at all. Most are trying to do what you and I do ... work to support our families and ourselves in our old age and just get on about life. But there is one factor that draws all Muslims together with one degree of enthusiasm or another - Israel.

I suppose if, in 1948, there could have been a peaceful settlement Palestine would not now be the hotspot it is. But there was no peaceful settlement and the history of the past 55 years has been one terrible act piled upon another. There is plenty of blood to spare for all hands in the region. And here is where we must face some realities.

Israel isn't going to go away. The United States is not going to abandon her and that's simply that. Evcn if the US were to do so, Israel has nuclear capability which, like any country in terminal distress, she would use as a last resort.

There is another reality. The world of Islam will never be happy until the last Jew is gone from what they consider Muslim territory. To the fundamentalist wing, there can be no settlement that leaves any Jews standing. If one were to embark on a program of forcing a settlement in the Middle East because it would calm the bin Ladens of the world they would be badly mistaken.

What then is the point of even trying to work out a settlement? No more than this. While it would not be accepted by terrorists it would, very grudgingly to be sure, calm down the rest of the Muslim world who would live with it. And that is a very important fact.

The trouble is, a settlement may not be possible in timely fashion. Israel is in one of its hawkish moods and it would seem that the replacement for Sharon the Hawk would be Netanyahu, the not quite so hawkish hawk. On the other side, there is a sick and aging leader in Yasser Arafat. He does not have the authority Israeli Prime Ministers like to make out. He holds together his government with bailing wire and binder twine. As does any Israeli leader, Arafat must hold together a coalition but in Arafat's case he can't afford an opposition. Could he do more to tone down terrorism?

Perhaps. Could he stop the suicide bombers? Highly unlikely. Do either party really want a settlement? Probably not unless it can be on their terms.

It's been said that the United States can't afford to step in too strongly because that would simply encourage the terrorists. I think that's faulty reasoning. The terrorists don't need any further incentive. Insofar as the terrorists are concerned a settlement in the Middle East is a bad thing no matter what it looks like.

No, the reason that the United States, and their stalking horse Tony Blair, are working the parties over right now is for Mr and Mrs Average Muslim. The United States knows that the Muslim world won't like any settlement but that they will keep their activities to grumbling if a settlement is reached. The Muslim truly believes that the enemy of one's enemy is your friend. The less you make Israel an enemy, the less the terrorist seems to be the average Muslim's friend

This problem won't go away in the lifetime of anyone listening - all we can hope is that it abates somewhat. And that is all that would be accomplished by a Middle east settlement ... but in this terrifying world, that would be a huge plus.