Posted on by Nathan Riley

Is The World Heading Towards Catastrophe?

The nightmare of Trump joining Putin in damning Ukrainian President Zelensky signals the end of NATO and the unraveling of a world order, bringing a proliferation of atomic weapons as nations seek protection. Wars will break out all over the world. Concerns like these animate international affairs.

Israel with U.S. support will attack Iran while invading Palestine to remove its population. Russia will come to the aid of Iran, its ally. Taiwan watching the epidemic of violence will seek China’s protection. U.S. troops will converge on this trouble spot deserting South Korea. Japan will be on its own and rearm. Violence will break out with China at its Philippine border, bringing Australia into this international maelstrom.

In West Asia, forcing Palestinians out of their homeland will inflame tensions between Israel, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia. Turkey will protect its interest in Syria. Europe will unite and form an armed service to protect itself from Russian expansion.

In an optimistic view, there is no necessity for these trouble spots to bring armed conflict.

On Friday Feb 21, in Saudi Arabia a $20 billion Egyptian plan to redevelop Gaza under the supervision of the U.S. will be discussed by a working group preparing for an Arab summit in March. “The Arab proposal, mostly based on an Egyptian plan, involves forming a national Palestinian committee to govern Gaza without Hamas involvement and international participation in reconstruction without displacing Palestinians abroad.” The Arabs believe their 20-billion-dollar contribution will entice Trump while Israel will get a sweetener. Its firms will receive contracts. The Arabs want to prevent the expulsion of Palestinians, a human rights nightmare trumpeted by Netanyahu and Trump. Last week’s genocidal removal of the Palestinians could end with a reasonable solution and the rebirth of Gaza. Israel lowered tensions by publicly considering allowing Palestinians to emigrate voluntarily.

South Korea is getting a new President who may want the U.S. armed forces to leave. Japan may be thrilled and seek the end of U.S. supervision. What looked like a catastrophe might seem like a new beginning for Japan and South Korea. Japan and China share a mutual security interest; they depend on freedom of the seas. Food, fuel and other necessities must be delivered by ship. A pullback of U.S. forces would encourage the two nations to enter into cooperation agreements.

A calamity is not inevitable.

Everybody recognizes that forcing Zelensky out will have international repercussions. It’s possible to oust Zelensky without accepting the controversial view that Ukraine provoked the crisis. During Trump’s first term, Zelensky cooperated with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in making the argument that Trump was pro-Russian. The first impeachment of Trump revolved around the Ukraine and Zelensky sided with the Democrats. This political history demands a Trump reprisal against Zelensky.

But the bottom line remains, Putin is winning the war and is under no obligation to make concessions.

As is normal, the future is laced with possibilities, and we may hope that human wit will avoid disaster.

Posted on by Nathan Riley

Trump’s negotiating style

On Friday, Trump’s high tariffs on Canada and Mexico were in effect. On Monday they were gone.

On Tuesday Trump said the Palestinians must leave Gaza, the most extreme demand of Netanyahu’s ultra nationalist coalition. The United States should take over Gaza, he added. Within hours, European and Arab States including Saudi Arabia and Egypt said no way.

Trump had to have been pleased. The most extreme Israeli proposal had been trounced and died without Trump leaving any fingerprints. Indeed, he roped in the most extreme supporters of Israel. The ones most likely to contribute to the Republican Party and most willing to call Democratic doves antisemites were happy. They were convinced that their President Donald Trump was a true friend of Israel, uncontaminated by wishy washy moderates.

The Arab’s rejection presumably was music to Trump’s ear: no American troops would go to West Asia. But Trump was the crazy man who wanted to use American power in Palestine. Democrats’ reaction is still taking shape. They and their friendly media accused Trump of being a mad man, exactly the image he wanted to project.

The other step Trump took offered Iran unspecified goodies if Tehran gave up atomic weapons. A proposal that presumably sits well with the Saudi Arabians. Trump reached this step without looking like a moderate. Netanyahu was neutralized. He was a major endorser of Trump and has damaged, if not destroyed, his relationship with Democrats. Trump’s headline grabbing proposal to turn Gaza into the “Riviera of the Middle East” is actually the opening gambit for the intricate negotiations that could lead to stability.

Bloomberg reported, “US President Donald Trump said Wednesday he’s willing to immediately start working on a new nuclear deal with Iran that allows the country to ‘peacefully grow and prosper,’ seemingly softening his stance on the Islamic Republic.”

In a matter of hours, Netanyahu’s visit had generated a proposal to reduce tension with Iran. An outcome from the first face-to-face meeting between the President and the Israeli leader that nobody predicted. Trump had gotten the better of Netanyahu. Democrats were left sputtering. They don’t support the removal of the Palestinians and consider Trump’s Riviera proposal outlandish. Accusations that usually have the effect of increasing Republican confidence in Trump and making it unlikely in the near future that Democrats will play a constructive role.

There is no mystery to Trump’s method: open with an idea that will be rejected and then move on. Putting Israel in a box might create a stunning success—a cease fire that lasts.

The Democrats project competence as opposed to Trump’s chaos, but they lack Trump’s showmanship. The voters are evenly divided but Democrats should not be fooled with the comforting belief that Trump is crazy and incompetent. It’s safe to say that eventually Democrats will make more specific, even damning, criticisms of Trump’s Middle East policies.  

Posted on by Nathan Riley

The News is about Peace

Since this piece was first published, immediately after the ceasefire, several criticisms became obvious. John Measheimer stressed there can be no peace with Israel where the Jews dominate the Palestinians just as the whites dominated blacks in apartheid South Africa. Unless Trump’s special ambassador Steve Witkoff can breathe new life into the Abraham Accords, allowing Arab gulf states to finance Arab peacekeepers, Israel will be the sole country judging if Hamas is complying with the terms of the peace treaty. In this circumstance, it is widely expected that Israel will renew its attack on Hamas. With the release of the hostages, Hamas will have lost its trump card pressuring Israel to act peacefully. Whatever else is true, this ceasefire is at best only a beginning.   

Friday, January 17, 2025

Days before Trump officially becomes President peace has become the news story. If all the provisions of the agreement become effective war between Israel and Palestine might be over.

Antiwar analyst John Mearsheimer concluded that the proposed treaty preserves the close relationship between Hamas and the Palestinians.

Palestinians will be able to return to their homes and Israelis will leave Gaza. Hostages will be released, and some Palestinian prisoners will get out of jail.

Israel might be compelled to live with a Palestinian nation says Mearsheimer, a professor of International Relations at the University of Chicago, who believes the goal of a Greater Israel might be over if this treaty begins a real peace process.

Although negotiated by President Biden’s appointees many Democrats are conceding that Trump’s forceful backing was critical. Trump promised to end the Ukrainian war on day one, but actually he may started peace in the Middle East on day one. A task everyone thought would be much harder. It is a stunning challenge to the Democratic Party.

Presumably a lasting peace will require peacekeepers. Trump is not going to send U.S. troops. One possibility is using Egyptian soldiers financed by Saudi Arabia and other Gulf States. In return Israel will establish normal relations with other Muslim nations.

Iran would be on the sidelines. As a Shia nation it doesn’t fit easily with the Sunni Muslims who border Israel. In other words, optimists believe this is a big deal that might give Trump a place in history.

Nothing is certain but in a matter of days peace has become possible and this has worked a revolution in the political dialogue.

Consider the impact on the religious fundamentalist Trump appointed Ambassador to Israel. Mike Huckabee will have the happy task of soothing relations between Israel, the U.S. and Palestine. He won’t be a cheerleader for Israeli aggression that was the widespread anxiety in December. Rather he will speak a common language with Israelis who justify their actions by citing the Bible’s Old Testament.

This is a shocking possibility. The Republican hope that Jews will switch parties. It might happen because the new President is more diplomatic than the Democrats.

Democrats have spent years condemning Trump as lawless and stupid. What happens if it was the Democrats who refused to listen and evaluate?

Posted on by Nathan Riley

A Ceasefire Would Benefit Israel and Iran

Throw a party, that is what Freedom Democrats should be doing. They should be getting stronger and finding new supporters.

Get everybody together, the election is over, the Democracy is safe. Donald Trump’s days of overthrowing the government and falsifying election results seem finished now that he has won. He wants to be boss and leave his mark on history.

Wars in Palestine and Ukraine agitate Freedom Democrats. War is the opposite of freedom. In war the powerful tell the weak what to do, and the soldiers kill to prove they mean it. President Kennedy said that peace does not require some fantasy of harmony. “It requires only” that nations and groups “live together in mutual tolerance, submitting their disputes to a just and peaceful settlement.”

Freedom Democrats favor peace. Got a complaint take It to a lawyer or a diplomat. Don’t shoot and be a brute.

In Ukraine and Palestine, bullets and bombs are flying;  families are crying. Young men with lives to live are robbed of their future; tens of thousands are dead or their bodies mangled.

Israel is bringing out a blood lust among its own people and leaders in the United States. Trump’s love of Israel is part of a larger movement in the U.S. accepting all-out war. To be a supporter of Israel requires tolerance of brutal warfare.

Trump’s choice for Defense Department Chief, Pete Hegseth, argues there is only one way to fight, that is fight to win. In this view, wars are not a popularity contest where local groups can be persuaded to support our side. The objective is forcing an invaded nation to submit to our policies or face fatal consequences.

When we left Afghanistan, the people we thought were on our side fled and in a matter of days the Talian took control. We thought that supporting women’s rights, schooling, and other services would win popular support. But the Afghanis realized that without U.S. soldiers the Taliban were going to rule and Muslim Sharia law would prevail.

Hegseth’s view is that soldiers must be warriors and should have the full backing of the U.S. government and fight until they win. Afghanistan is 2.5 times larger than France. Pacifying, or perhaps the word is “subjugating,” such a large country would cost billions. The number of soldiers required probably would prevent the U.S. from fighting anywhere else in the world.

Thus, Hegseth’s ideas lead to two potential conclusions: Afghanistan is not that important and shouldn’t be the United States’s number one priority. In this case the argument leads to nonintervention. Or, alternatively, the size of the U.S. military must be drastically increased, and the U.S. budget must pay for all-out war.

People in the United States are not joining the military in large numbers. The U.S. avoids confronting this issue. It adjusts its targets down to coincide with new enlistments; only with this sleight of hand can the D.O.D. claim its targets were reached. Why all-out war in a far-away nation like Afghanistan would increase enlistments is beyond my comprehension.

Hegseth’s nomination is controversial. He is not crazy and Republicans may well unite to back him, and it might be possible to split the Democratic minority in the United States senate, giving Hegseth additional support.

The downside to his view is that American public opinion should accept an extraordinary level of violence. The movement towards an American security state and away from democracy would proceed by making the country accustomed to all-out war. This is a dangerous prospect.

This article is being written before the Israeli cabinet has agreed to a ceasefire in Lebanon. Stopping the killing is a victory for Israel; it means that the Palestinians are abandoned. Iraq accepts Israel’s domination of this people and the increase in Israel’s size to include Gaza and the West Bank.

Presumably, Israel should curb its hostility towards Iran. Iran in turn will likely accept Israel’s right to drill for oil and gas in the Mediterranean off the Lebanon coast. In other words, Iran and Israel will benefit from the ceasefire and the Palestinians get nothing.

Hamas will have left the Palestinians crushed. No other Middle East nation is willing to risk Israel’s wrath by going to war in support of the Palestinian cause. Undoubtedly, this is a lesson that the United States and Israel hope will be accepted by the Palestinians. Rather than think of Hamas as heroes they will be convinced that Hamas’s adventurism has harmed their lives. Surely, this is a lesson that Israel and the United States support.

If there was world government, then Palestine could take its complaints to the United Nations and try to end the apartheid separation between Muslim and Israeli. Unhappily, the ceasefire will demonstrate to Israel and the Middle East that policies deemed genocide by the International Criminal Court prevail.

The Palestinians will be left to suffer without any meaningful international support. World government could produce an opposite result without death and destruction.

Posted on by Nathan Riley

How Can We End the Atrocities in Gaza?

Wars aren’t civilized. Limbs are lost. People bury their loved ones. Hate becomes a virtue that will save a country. Torture and violence become normalized. An unethical transformation turns the bad into good. In the Israeli war with Palestine rape is defended and torture practiced.

The horrors of the Holocaust and the ties that exist between Jews and other groups in this country guarantee that the United States will be a passionate friend of Israel. So it is no surprise that the bombing of children, the destruction of hospitals, and the deaths of 40,000 Palestinians make Americans uncomfortable but unwilling to damn the Israelis.

Yet the sad truth is that the horrors of the October 7th massacre of Jews has become an excuse for allowing Israel to commit crimes that are larger than the misdeeds of Hamas. This is not surprising; Israel has a free hand to revenge these deaths. If we allowed women to punish rapists, families to revenge the murder of loved ones, or property owners to punish thieves our criminal justice system would be equally harsh.

Those Americans protesting the horrors imposed on the Palestinians are labeled rioters and Antisemites for objecting to the atrocities in Gaza. As the most powerful nation in the world, the United States should be diffusing the war. Instead it has chosen sides. This nation should be building bridges to peace. We are allowing Israel, the victim of the October 7th massacre, to become the judge and jury in its own cause.

The Palestinians, we are told, want to destroy Israel. Whether this is true or an exaggeration, history clearly shows that Israel is more likely to destroy Palestine and push it into the sea. Palestinians are not the destroyers of Israel but the victims of Israel’s superior strength.

For this reason, the United States should have avoided choosing sides and sought a humanitarian resolution that would provide ways to peacably resolve differences.

It is likely that before peacable solutions become routine the nations of the world must impose fixed boundaries that will stop the constant expansion of Israel into territory that once was occupied by Palestinians.

The present system allowing Israel to control the punishment for Palestinian resistance almost guarantees that any resolution will expand Israel and diminish Palestine. In other words, giving Israel the authority to punish its opposition will assure that any settlement is temporary until the next outbreak of violence.

It is unwise for the United States to declare Israel the good guys and Palestine the aggressor. The two parties must have an independent judge with the authority to impose a settlement that leaves both parties unsatisfied but holds out the promise of stopping the recurring violence.

At a minimum, Israel must stop policing the border between Palestine and Israel. A neutral third party must have this responsibility. Israeli troops must stay on their side of the border and stop face-to-face patrolling of the Palestinians.

The current scenario for imposing governance by neutral parties calls for funding from Saudi Arabia. In return they would expect to increase their military power, perhaps acquiring atomic bombs.  A controversial proposal guaranteed to create international unease and which may be rejected by the region and the world.

It would be unsurprising but horrifying if the world powers do not reach an agreement that separates Israel and Palestine. The current system permits Israel and its superior military force to be deeply involved in Palestinian affairs. It’s a system where Palestinian objections will flare up; conceding that Israel is the dominant power allows it to constantly expand and turns Palestine into a colony without a stable government.

Under the present system of independent nations, it is hard to envision nations that will assume the responsibility for imposing restrictions that curb Israeli expansion and police violent Palestinian protests. Immanuel Kant, the German philosopher, famously called for the “universal rule of law” enforced by all the nations of the world. Through world government, we can create world peace. This system is desperately needed in Gaza.

Posted on by Nathan Riley

Will the Democratic Love-Fest Continue?

The worriers were wrong. The Democrats replaced Joe Biden without a fight, without disruption. Sixth grade civics won out: the President is sick, the Vice-President takes over.

Party unity was jolted, fed by enthusiasm. Kamala Harris for President was greeted by Democrats with an immense sigh of relief: she looked healthy and able to do the job. Almost immediately, stories leaked about what the Wall Street Journal called her ten-hour telephone “marathon” after Biden pulled out of the race. Over one hundred calls, so the story went, and it carried a double message. She was organized, had the phone numbers, and could reach hundreds of Democratic decision-makers. She asked for support, and as everybody has heard, they gave it to her. Her energy also made it clear that she could reach out and help party members with their problems. Her White House would be accessible.

The fast turnover made it clear that supporters of an open convention, where candidates would have an opportunity to be heard, were offering bad advice. The doctor would have been prescribing chaos. Instead, Joe Biden endorsed Kamala and, more to the point, turned over his campaign staff and hundred-million-dollar bank account to her. Hickety-split the turnover fell into place.

Kamala is talking the language of continuity. For the left, there is hope that their friends at the National Labor Relations Board and Federal Trade Commission will continue their policies for another four years.

Foreign policy will divide Democrats: Ukraine and Gaza. The United States has not chosen peace, but in these places it has chosen sides. In the Ukraine, it is the pro-Western government; in Gaza, it is Israel. The results are catastrophic. Gaza is being demolished, and Ukraine’s infrastructure is crumbling. It seems certain that U.S. foreign policy will receive sharp scrutiny. How Democrats cope with these decisions will be a major problem for the next President. Trump or Harris will confront this grave predicament.

The left appears committed to peaceful solutions. It can make friends or in an extreme case look unreliable. Turning American foreign policy in a new direction is no easy matter. It should provide many opportunities for gaining friends and entering into mutually beneficial arrangements. Plainly it will be a dominant issue in January 2025.

Posted on by Nathan Riley

Through the Looking Glass

June is China Month in Washington D.C.

The G7—once the most prestigious group of nations in the globe, now reduced to an alliance of the U.S. and its allies—met in Italy and issued a communique at the end of its meeting. China didn’t attend, but it was mentioned 28 times.

In a front page New York Times story, clearly at the behest of U.S. diplomatic sources, China is described as a “malign force.” Among its numerous sins, said U.S. officials, is helping Russia build weapons to fight Ukraine and a possible threat to withhold the exotic minerals used in batteries and microchips. The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists has written two articles about reducing tension between Washington and Beijing.

The U.S. and China navies come dangerously close to each other in the South China Sea. Gone are the days when Apple proudly announced new sales figures from China for its products. Now the U.S. issues stern warnings trying to limit China’s alliance with Russia.

If we had a looking glass that could peer into the future, war between these superpowers is conceivable. China is protecting its borders. Its soldiers and weapons are close at hand. The U.S. is at the other side of the world and depending on its collection of bases in the Pacific for supplies to fight a war. Nonetheless the U.S. confidently assures us it can master the Chinese, who already forced U.S. troops back seventy years ago in Korea.

It is all too conceivable that war could flare up between the world’s two superpowers. This is high risk politics, and the U.S. acts like it is prepared to confront this worst-of-all possible outcomes.

The push for world government is one possible way to prevent these two atomic powers from coming to blows. If we turned the United Nations into the World Government we would have a better chance of resolving these tensions without the death and destruction of war.

Even in the unlikely event that Ukraine beats the Russians their nation is a shadow of its former self. Cities, farmlands, and power plants would have to be rebuilt. The millions of people who fled will need strong reassurances to return and are more likely to prefer the peace and prosperity in their new homes. Restoring Ukraine will take decades.

In Gaza, the destruction is even graver, and there is the strong possibility that Israel has no intention of letting the Palestinians return to their homes. Death, destruction, and possible starvation are the realities that govern Palestine. Furious at the October 7th massacre by Hamas, Israel believes that its weapons can destroy Palestinian militancy. There is widespread skepticism that this final solution will be achieved by the Israeli Defense Forces.

We should remember that the problem isn’t a Hamas massacre or an Israeli blockade of humanitarian aid. The problem isn’t separating the good guys from the bad guys by the evil deeds they commit; the problem is war. Using weapons to settle disputes will always bring war crimes. Only if we find an alternate way to resolve disputes can we stop these horrific crimes.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt, coming out of the World War II victory, clearly hoped the United Nations would prevent wars from starting. He did not envision subordinating nations to an international peacekeeping force. As we approach the first quarter of the twenty-first century, the need for a world-governing body like the United Nations to control national governments persists. What was a step too far for Roosevelt can happen if Americans unite into a political party supporting this drastic solution.

World government, I believe, is one reason to support Freedom Democrats and to ally ourselves with the fight for the rights of sex workers, drug users, and people who party. We can create new possibilities and move the United States, and hopefully the world, in a peaceful and prosperous direction.  

Posted on by Nathan Riley

Create a World Government in the 21st Century

Turning the United Nations into a world government is a daunting task.

It’s as big a job as the one held by representatives of the 13 original states shortly after the end of the American Revolution. Chaired by George Washington, they wrote the U.S. Constitution and laid the groundwork for the Bill of Rights.

Already, the United States was dividing into free and slave states, and the primary concern of the founders of the Constitution was to create united states with a central government that could tax and wage war. The confederation that governed the 13 states during the Revolution did not have these powers, leading to constant pleas by George Washington for money, guns, and food.

The United Nations currently depends on contributions by individual states. If the United Nations was the world government, it would control the flow of funds. It would no longer depend on the voluntary contributions of the members. It would have the power to create its own budget. Obviously, existing nations would harbor great doubts about giving the United Nations this kind of power. It’s up to the public to say ending wars is more important than preserving existing national states. The United States won’t disappear. Russia and China won’t disappear. The power of these governments would be hemmed in by international law enforced by the United Nations.

The United States is the biggest contributor to the United Nations, and it should come as no surprise that it expects to influence the U.N.’s decisions.

The budget of the United Nations, if it was the world government, would be huge. For example, it would need soldiers to enforce international agreements and money to pay for emergencies all over the globe.

For example, with a world government the border between Palestine and Israel would be policed by U.N., not by Israel. These forces could be volunteers from the U.S., China, India, and other nations who stop being soldiers for a nation and swear to take their orders from the United Nations. If as expected a large number of U.N. soldiers would come from the United States, this would protect United States security.

The details must be worked out by experts from all over the world. Creating a world government would be the work of thousands from all the countries in the world.

There are elements in the current world structure that resemble world government. The International Criminal Court accepts complaints from one country about the behavior of another. Its activities are in the news. South Africa has complained that Israel and Hamas have violated international law in Gaza. Judges for the court in May of 2024 were weighing the evidence.

This is a good thing, but it is not world government. Were the United Nations to be the world government, Israel couldn’t attack Palestine, and Hamas would be hunted down as criminals.

World government means outlawing war. Nations would be required to take their complaints to the world government for adjudication. Before bullets are fired, the problems between nations would be resolved by decisions of the world government. In this light, the International Criminal Court is a disappointment. It asserts its jurisdiction after the fighting started.

To be successful, world government must assert its authority before blood is shed. In other words, don’t call out the troops, call the lawyers. It’s a system that is remarkably successful in the United States. World government must have the authority to stop groups from going to war.

This will be a massive undertaking. In this age of computers and the internet, the technology clearly exists for keeping track of the thousands of international disputes that exist all over the world. What doesn’t exist is an institution whose primary task is to resolve these disputes.

Such a government must also provide food and medical care after disasters.

Experts undoubtedly have many ideas about ways to create such an institution. It is certainly beyond my skill, but what I can do is ask my fellow citizens to get involved in asking the experts to speak up. Let’s make the 21st century, the century of world government.

Posted on by Nathan Riley

World Government Could Prevent War in the Middle East

During my college years I concluded that in Vietnam the United States was the bad guy. I still believe that.

The October 7th massacres in Israel ironically happened in areas well known as centers of support for those Israelis working to improve relations between Israel and Palestine.

Current standards in international affairs give Israel, the victim, free rein to punish its attackers.

The wisdom of this arrangement is doubtful. If my sister is attacked the law stops me from punishing the attacker. A neutral party, the police, investigates, and their findings are reviewed by lawyers and judges. The victim may be heard but is sidelined.

That didn’t happen in Gaza, Israel, the victim, imposed the punishment. The Israeli Defense Forces were told to meet violence with violence and punish Hamas, designated an Iranian proxy.

Almost simultaneously, it came to light that Israel had sent millions to Hamas. A finding contradicting the notion that Hamas is an Iranian proxy.

There is no world government to investigate this complicated relationship. Israel controlled the facts and determined the punishment without any neutral investigators intervening. Well-organized groups in the United States prevailed on the President and Congress to assist Israel’s war against Hamas, as if Hamas were a sovereign nation, and Israel’s conclusion that war against this group was the best course of action.

A world government would have prevented Israel from striking back and from deciding the facts and imposing the punishment.

“Draconian” does not do justice to Israel’s conclusion. As a secular Jew I keep silencing the voices in my head saying Israel is proposing a final solution, or, as the Israeli Defense Minister promised, “to remove the evil threats against us.” They are using violence to destroy Hamas. This war aim makes peace doubtful; Hamas is in a fight to the death.

In turn, Israel, like the United States in Vietnam, becomes the bad guy. Israel is way more powerful than the Palestinians, just as the U.S. was over Vietnam. Using bullets, however, brings unpredictable results—the U.S. was forced out of Vietnam.

A simple empirical test will help clarify the reason Israel has decided to punish all Palestinians for the acts of Hamas. When the fighting stops, will the Palestinians return to their homes or will Israelis live in what used to be Gaza?

Posted on by Nathan Riley

World Government Could Prevent Palestinian Crisis

No matter what happens. Freedom Democrats will grapple with the U.S./Israel invasion of Palestine.

As I write this, police across the nation are arresting protestors angered by the displacement of the Palestinians in Gaza. As you read this, it is clear I am no friend of the Israeli counterattack following the mysterious October 7th massacre by Hamas. I am no expert on the Middle East, and the U.N., which possesses such skills, is being ignored. My gut feeling is that when Israel has moved the Palestinian population Israel will move and rebuild the destroyed neighborhoods in Gaza. With this big difference, Israelis will replace the Palestinians.

My conclusion sees this conflict as a real estate deal. The Palestinians are being replaced, just as settlers replaced the American Indians.

This affects Freedom Democrats because although it is still early in this conflict, it appears that the Democratic coalition could split. The Vietnam War tore apart the Democratic Party and ended the Roosevelt coalition that started during the Great Depression in 1932. The split over Vietnam followed a split between Segregation Democrats and the progressive forces demanding that racial distinctions end and that the U.S. integrate everybody regardless of skin color. In the long aftermath following the Warren Court striking down school segregation and the passage of Civil Rights legislation, the Democrats lost the South. It became Republican, and the Democratic party gained support in the Black and Hispanic communities. Democratic hawks and peaceniks learned how to work together.

Right now, it appears that the Democrats will split over Palestine just before the election in November. Freedom Democrats, like all voters, will have to decide whether to stay loyal to President Joseph Biden, with Donald Trump as the alternative. Their other choices are staying home or hoping that Cornel West will get on the ballot. None of this is good news for Democrats.

The point is that Freedom Democrats would have serious decisions to make and be able to enter into conversations with thoughtful people. It would be a way to expand contacts and win converts.

My perspective is radical. The 250th anniversary of the American Revolution is two years away, and founders like Alexander Hamilton, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and the dozens of other people who created the first European style government without a hereditary ruler are still celebrated. The American colonists who created first the Confederacy and then drafted the Constitution of 1787 devised a system of term limits. Members of the House of Representatives would need majority approval every two years, Senators every six years, and the President every four years. In Europe, many of these positions were inherited, but the U.S. rejected this approach. The leaders of the new nation would be selected by majority rule.

Over the decades, the system has changed dramatically, but the founders of the United States are still prominent figures.

I believe it is time we find new heroes that will make the United Nations a global government. This is a daunting task. If the U.N. is the world sovereign, then the United States government becomes subordinate to this world government. A prospect guaranteed to generate hostility in the United States.

The advantage of making the U.N. sovereign is that member nations would have to hire lawyers to settle their disputes. If Vladimir Putin feels threatened by the changes in Ukraine, he can start a legal action. The United States and Ukraine would, under international law, be compelled to respond.

This is only possible if the U.N. has the troops to enforce its orders. Russia, the United States, and Ukraine lose their ability to ignore U.N. decisions. Member nations, including the U.S., must agree that their troops will be commanded by the U.N.

This is a huge step. But it holds out the promise that missiles and bullets will stop being a way to settle international disputes.

A major and immediate task of the U.N. is to protect people from being removed from their homes. Whether it’s drought, tribal hostilities, or the hope of living better in a rich country, people should not be forced to leave their homes.

The U.N. must have the funds and expertise to create stability in nations all over the world.

The people who do this will become as famous as George Washington and Benjamin Franklin. The reward for the creators of this new world will be that their fame lasts generation after generation.

If the U.N. were running the show, the Israelis would not be able to invade Palestine, and Hamas would be hunted by U.N. police. Their object wouldn’t be to kill Hamas or eliminate it as the Israelis wish. They would have a more reasonable goal: arrest and trial.

In short, giving the U.N. sovereign power would allow lawyers and diplomats, rather than soldiers and drones, to solve problems.