with the new democracy, the motivation and the cohesion that held the new state together.

However, since then the objective requirements have changed with the new technologies. Today's market is global, multinational corporations span the world. Communications, including the Internet, are global.⁹⁰ The twenty-first century was ushered in by a celebration that was truly worldwide. English has become the worldwide lingua franca. Tens of millions have left their homelands to look for greener pastures in the developed countries. Nuclear weapons have made old-style wars inconceivable. Humans have walked on the moon; our devices have reached Mars. Not only little states like Denmark and Israel, but even Germany and France, great powers at the beginning of the twentieth century, cannot stand alone any more.

While we Israelis were busy building our national state, the world was already moving from a national agenda to a regional one. Europe was unified, and other parts of the world tried to emulate it. (Some 54 years ago, I tried to apply the same principle to ourselves by creating the idea of a "Semitic union.") But even the idea of regional unions has already become obsolete.

Human consciousness always stumbles behind objective reality. It does so at the beginning of the twenty-first century: While reality does cry out for a world order, consciousness is still nationalistic. Some manifestations are downright ridiculous. For example, France won the international soccer championship and was floating on a wave of nationalist hysteria. But the stars of the French team were foreigners, headed by an Algerian, the likes of whom are viewed by many of the French as subhuman. That did not dampen the spirits of the masses. Neither were they troubled by the fact that French soldiers took part in an action in Kosovo that destroyed one of the pillars of the national state: the principle of "non-intervention in its domestic affairs." (Witness the Holocaust.)⁹¹

It is impossible to know how the aim of a new world order will be achieved. Perhaps the United Nations will assume the role of a supranational authority. If so, it will have to change completely. In the Security Council, the world government, the veto power of the "permanent members" must be abolished, so that Russia, for example, will not be able to block a Kosovo-like intervention. In the General Assembly, the world parliament, the representation of each member must correspond to the size of its population, so the Fiji Islands will not have the same voting power as the United States.

The UN must have at its disposal a standing army, which owes allegiance to the UN only, and that will be ready for immediate intervention in a Rwanda-like genocide. A world court must be

198