We are living in an age of WMD. We have advanced technology to the point where extremely large numbers of people can be killed using it, but we have not advanced political technologies to the point at which the use or desire to use advanced weaponry is controlled or eliminated. Ultimately, the combination of WMD, high population densities, and religion/and or race is likely to result in the deaths of many.

We look at the conflicts between Hinduism and Islam, and Judaism and Islam, and Christianity and Islam, and Budhism and Shintoism, through the very, very peculiarly tinted glasses. We avoid as much as posible examining the problems of race and religion within Africa.

Israel may wish to avoid the establishment of international law, but is it in the long term US interest to avoid this law? Currently, we invoke it when it is our client Israel's interest, against Iran, but vigorously refuse it when it is invoked by others against our client's desire. For that matter, we invoke it when it is in our interest, against Iraq in 1991 for example, but avoid it when it in any way limits our own abilities to wage war.

Man is a religious animal, and there is no use trying to deny that, but he is also one that wars. We trhink we have missed the catastophe of mutually assured destuction, but we may have seriously underestimated both the simplicity of weapons tehnologies as well as the intellignce of others.

We can try through various means of mental escape to avoid dealing with these issues, but they are real. Ultimately, as populations grow, either the use of deep ocean fish stocks and deep sea bed resources and the resources of Antartica will by regulated by intenational law, or there will be conflict over them.

More immediately, the US stands alone in its tolerance of further Israeli seizures of Palestinian land. I wish I could be optimistic about the outcome here, but I am filled with a sense of foreboding.