The Time has come for Israel to Withdraw

I agree wholeheartedly kevinb66. I think it is high time that all of the countries which are dedicated to confronting terrorism, officially united to form a new league of nations. Our continued participation in a body whose membership remains openly complicit with terrorists goes against everything the United States stands for. The United Nations' intended purpose of being the world's peacekeeper seems to have gone by the wayside.

yar: I appreciate your concern, but do you think our influence would be diminished any if we sent such a clear message to terrorists and the countries supporting them? If we pulled out of the United Nations, let whomever remains continue down whatever road they wish. Without its original founding member, the United States (and all of those countries which would follow), the United Nations would be spinning its wheels. Taking such a drastic step may very well be the wake up call that countries comfortable with the current state of things need at this point.

Unfortunately, we have become all about the almighty dollar, and I don't see such a noble move being made anytime soon because of it.

The impact of the US leaving the UN will probably be most noticable in its budget, but even the mighty US can't rule the world alone, specially without help. Leaving to form an alternative organization sounds better, but how do you decide who gets in? I do wonder, however, what will happen if the UN has to relocate. Possibly to Geneva.

As for Israel leaving the UN - some people seem to get high on their own ego and/or other toxic substances. Who do they think we are?

Unfortunately, the league formerly known as the United Nations has been hijacked.

Before just looking at the numbers blindly, first take a look at the substance of the Security Council resolutions regarding Israel.

Like Haim Herzog, that tore up the Zionism = Racism decision from the podium in 1975. But such acts are not enough. Interests and public opinions are stronger. This requires hard, determined and long efforts.

Recently, the International Red Cross finally accepted the membership of Israel's Magen David Adom, with the provision that outside Israel, they do not use the (red) Star of David. This finally happened after years of pressure from the American Red Cross, including withdrawing its support from the budget of the IRC (to the tune of $5 million or so a year) since 2000. Money talks.

Maybe the delegates could give votes to the comments from other countries (a bit like Newsvine), and the countries that receive the most votes have the most votes when voting for issues. Does this make sense?

the_leander: The problem with giving each country an equal vote is that some countries are larger than others. I agree that the current veto system isn't good, but neither is a system in which Luxembourg has the same power as China. A two-tiered system like the US (population-based) House and (state-based) Senate might work, as might replacing the veto power with a requirement that resolutions be passed by 2/3 or 3/4 or some other large fraction.

Membership requirements are an excellent idea. I propose the following list:

Oh, sorry about the formatting there. My preview of it was screwed up.

@kananole: Human rights is a tricky issue. If the Human Rights bar is set low enough for a country such as China to be accepted (they wouldn't accept not being accepted), not many nations would be excluded. Those excluded nations would become global pariahs with no incentive or method to better themselves. (A self-digging hole, if you will)

I am also not sure most nations would want to commit 2% of their military to the UN, only for it to be used in a civil war or fighting against a rebellion against an authoritarian government (in other words, fighting for an authoritarian gov't.)

Yeah, those are the tricky parts. You'd have to use a bare miminum for human rights. I'd say maybe require due process and non-genocidal policies: do not hold prisoners for more than 30 days without charge, and do not punish individuals or groups without first arresting and charging them. You could even prohibit certain particularly nasty execution techniques. Sure, it doesn't prohibit having political prisoners, but it does require documentation that you have them. As for the "global pariahs" problem, that's why you need to offer incentives for being a UN member.

You might also have to add the qualification that the UN armed forces "borrowing" can only be used to defend against non-member states, not internal elements like a civil war or rebellion. To use UN forces against those, you'd have to bring it up for vote. You could justify this from basic principles by saying that a rebellion is indication that the government might not really be the proper representation for the people of that country.