Will this increase or decrease the likelihood of terrorist actions in America, Europe and the rest of the world?

If you were a member of a family murdered in this conflict, would you be seeking revenge?

Should Tzipi Livni and Ehud Olmert, be tried for war crimes if or when this conflict comes to an end?

What will the price of oil be in 4 weeks time?

what will be the true impact on israel if the UN vote goes in favour of the palestinians (very likely at least in some format)? ..... in honesty, probably very little, just as all the sanctions heaped upon saddam hussain and iraq and ditto iran made not the slightest difference

withdrawal of aid is the only thing that will jolt israel, but history has shown that usa is unwilling to take that course ...... it isn't that simple, needless to say, as significantly and permanently weakening israel would just breed even greater unrest in the region

it goes almost without saying that the palestinians (aka hamas) and israel should long ago have entered meaningful dialogue to achieve peaceful coexistence ...... that the one is as intransigent as the other, is plain for all to see

Palestine has had peace talks and then Israel starts building settlements. It is clear that Israel does not want peace but more and more land.

At least 132 countries already recognize Palestine as a state. The figure on Thursday could well be more. That adds up to about 80% pf the population of the world.

take your blinkers off ...... it is abundantly clear that neither are remotely willing to give ground, both literally and metaphorically ...... further, one of the main planks of hamas's "constitution" is the destruction of israel, as has often been openly stated

by the way, how can palestine be recognised a state, when it has none? ...... that many are in strong favour of the palestinians (not the same as hamas!) having their own (semi)autonomous homeland is a different matter altogether

The difference after Thursday is that Palestine can then join the International Criminal Court and the International Court of Justice. War crimes and crimes against humanity carry penalties as opposed to broken resolutions of the UN. There is an obligation of arrest for member countries. That would mean 132 or more countries that members of Israel's government could not visit even after leaving their posts. It is clearly an important factor for Israel which can be seen by the amount of effort being put into stopping the bid and rewording of it.

so let's get this straight ...... you're actually only interested in certain israelis being charged through ICC rather than the promotion of peace in the region? ..... is that correct, because it's certainly the line you have been spouting for the last few days?

Hamas has said yesterday that they now support the bid and recognise Israel within 1967 borders. The 1967 borders also include Gaza. Abbas is also intending to bring Fatah and Hamas together after the vote. This is also something that Israel and the US are opposed to.

that does not answer the question above, but as so often, you go off at a tangent rather than answer a direct question

I am interested in the threat of action via the ICC as a tool to pressure Israel to behave better short or long term. It may have the effect of stopping settlement as this is illegal. It may cause Israel to talk in better faith. In the absence of these effects then I would like to see Israeli individuals punished for their actions.

There seems to be little that can be done to stop Israel's behaviour as the US is unlikely ever to pressure Israel. At least this avenue isolates Israel further and may lead to more boycots etc.

.

so you think pursuing an individual or two through ICC will increase the chances of peace? ..... strange logic ......

and your following sentence then implies that you think even trying to get the sides together is a waste of time ...... in conclusion, your interest in the UN vote is purely to increase the chances of revenge of some kind, and thus an increase in further violence in its wake.

is that a fair summation of your stance?

Greg - I'll grant that you have the physical stature of the haystack, but in the last few posts you seem to have demonstrated the cognitive ability of the needle.

Gausie
I wouldn't expect you to agree with me and you seem closer to the stature of a haystack.

Cynic
Would you normally characterise punishment for war crimes or crimes against humanity as revenge? I suspect not. I view many of Israel's actions over recent years as crimes. If the ICC or the ICOJ find Israel or leaders guilty then they deserve punishment. Gadaffi and others would have been prime candidates for ICC and Israel and its leaders are no different as regards there status or the severity of their crimes.

Hays,

Agree with your last posting.

The same would be appropriate for similar crimes committed by inhabitants of any country, including USA, UK, Israel. France, Germany, Russia etc..

The problem is getting the individuals into a suitable court of law.

In this type of case it can be tried 'in absentia'. Plenty of people have been tried and found guilty after refusing to attend the court.

Umh!!

http://www.imemc.org/article/64642?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+PalestineNews+%28Palestine+News%29&utm_content=FeedBurner ://

Despite enormous pressures practiced by the United States and Israel, and all threats impose heavy financial sanctions besides the sanctions that are already in place, the Palestinian Authority (P.A.) in the West Bank said that it will not void or alter the text of its UN application that will be voted on at the General Assembly this Thursday

Israeli daily, Haaretz, reported that, after failing to convince President Mahmoud Abbas not to file the Palestinian bid, Tel Aviv and Washington conducted various attempts to convince the Palestinians to alter the text of their bid in order to ensure that, in the future, the Palestinians will never be able to head to the International Criminal Court to sue Israel for war crimes against the Palestinian people.

The Palestinian side even went ahead and distributed, on Tuesday morning, the final draft of the application that will be filed to the UN asking the International Community to recognize Palestine as a nonmember state at the United Nations, and to grant it an “Observer State” statue.

The U.S. and Israel tried to add two sections to the Palestinian bid, hoping to be able to change it so that the Palestinians can never sue Israel for its crimes, and can never have real sovereignty in the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and occupied East Jerusalem under any future peace agreement.

But the P.A. remained determined on its stance, and told Tel Aviv and Washington that the Palestinians, as any other nation in this world, have the right to be represented among the International Community, and have the right to enjoy the legal status enjoyed by all independent nations.

An Israeli official, directly involved in the issue, claimed that the United States did not exert enough pressure on the P.A. an issue that enabled the Palestinians to remain determined to go ahead with their application.

Both the U.S. and Tel Aviv imposed harsh financial sanctions of the P.A. after it received a full member status at the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) and other UN organizations, and claimed that the Palestinian applications are “unilateral moves that obstruct the efforts to achieve a final status peace agreement in the Middle East”.

The P.A repeatedly said that heading to the United Nations is not meant at isolating Israel, or to replace the peace process, and added that Israel’s ongoing violations, including invasions, attacks, assassinations, and the illegal construction and expansion of Jewish settlements in the occupied territories, including in and around occupied East Jerusalem, in addition to the demolition and takeover of Arab homes, especially in Jerusalem, indicate the Israel is not really interested in a just and comprehensive peace deal with the Palestinians.

Was it considered or offered that Israel should have been sited and funded initially in and by Germany as that's where the original atrocities took place and not in the Middle East?

Stan

The Balfour declaration preceeded the second world war by a decade or so. Israel wasn't established as a 'compensation' for Nazi atrocities.

A cynical man might suggest that the purpose of earmarking the palestine region for a jewish state was that it gave all those jewish immigrants fleeing the russian pogroms a convenient place in which to seek refuge, far from the westernized countries who had enough problems to deal with without a huge wave of funny looking immigrants on their doorsteps. Perhaps the historical and biblical ties to israel were a convenient justification.

Thanks G,

Just had a look at The Balfour Declaration on Wiki and found this line which perhaps also goes some way to answering my question.

"In 1896, Theodor Herzl, a Jewish journalist living in Austria-Hungary, published Der Judenstaat ("The Jewish State"), in which he asserted that the only solution to the "Jewish Question" in Europe, including growing antisemitism, was through the establishment of a Jewish State. Political Zionism had just been born.[3] A year later, Herzl founded the Zionist Organization (ZO), which at its first congress, "called for the establishment of a home for the Jewish people in Palestine secured under public law".

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_Declaration