Marco, of the G193 (the present number of nations in the world), how many are genuinely democratic and currently embrace democratic values?

Sadly, we are light years from achieving a democratic world government - but it's certainly an ideal worth striving for. I believe that one day, not in my life time, its time will come. Until then, perhaps membership of the UN or its replacement body should be made up of only democratic countries. Democracy should have its privileges.

Looking into the not too distant future, we may see networking and related secure computer polling reach into the homes of most people around the globe.

Is it just a fantasy to imagine a world government that seeks grass roots democratic participation from everyone who cares? Technically its already possible to e-poll the world's inhabitants directly on the big issues that affect us all.

From mostly Arab to mostly Jewish, 1948 to 2009, history of a land grab, sponsored by perfidious Albion and Dubya-land ...

http://files.splinder.com/fc1dd247c944ea92040e8ef41705551b.jpeg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/47/West_Bank_%26_Gaza_Map_2007_%28Settlements%29.gif

"The latest attack takes the Palestinian death toll in the Gaza Strip to 660 Palestinians, including 215 children and 98 women, since Israel launched its military offensive on December 27, according to Gaza emergency services chief Moawiya Hassanein. He said another 2,950 people have been wounded."

http://www.theage.com.au/world/israeli-strike-kills-40-in-un-school-20090107-7bcd.html?page=-1

Hi sjk....

the point I was trying to make is that when the rubber meets the road... at the UN or anywhere else.. 'vested interest' take the primary focus.

It might be economic, cultural, military or whatever. Each nation will be weighing up 'How might this effect us?' and in particular.. the 'connections' to the representatives in government..ie their supporters will be keeping a very close eye on what goes on there..and will be giving some 'gentle guidance' about whether something is good or not at the U.N.

It boils down to political survival...

-votes
-campaign contributions

The U.N. is incapable of functioning as intended because there historically irreconcilable divergences of opinion which.. if one were to trace them back...would take us to tribal times.

How in the world would the U.N. reconcile these:

-Israel is a nation for 2000 yrs.. from Abraham to AD 70.
-Jews are exiled by force in AD 70.
-Arab/Muslim invaders in 637 take the land by force.
-Jewish return in 1948 and take BACK their land by force.

Now..if you can find a qualitative difference in each of those events....I'd be most interested. For me... the last one is the most morally acceptable, in spite of it meaning that the descendants of those who stole the land (Arab/Muslims) are being dispossesed of that stolen land.

Now.. to be persuasive..you would have to refer to a higher standard which all (ALL) mankind and religions subscribe to. Given that with Islam we have it's prophet saying "The world and all that is in it belongs to Allah AND His messenger"... and Khalid Mashaal (HAMAS) saying:

"Tomorrow, our nation will sit on the throne of the world. This is not a figment of the imagination, but a fact. Tomorrow we will lead the world, Allah willing. Apologize today, before remorse will do you no good."

Now..in all seriousness.. do you see Mashaal there at the U.N. humbly eating UN pie of tolerance and human rights ? :) I don't