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?

So we are where we are, would it not be helpful to the Palestinians that this Country voted for the motion then ?

The US has just said that if Palestinians go to ICC then they will cut off funding. In any other situation a court would regard that as criminal blackmail. That attitude could prove to be a costly one in world relations for the US.

Abbas just arrived at podium to thunderous applause and standing ovation from General Assembly. you can watch it live if you can see Al Jazeera TV on fieeview on channel 83.

You can also watch on your PC at

WWW.aljazeera.com

Hays,

I would agree with sentiment, but does depend of contract at time of initiating the funding.

Also, if the bases of the initial funding given was an inducements, or as coercion to toe the USA policy, or satisfy the various political lobbies, it stinks anyway.


---------------

Israel has been a spoilt child that has not heard the word 'no' for 65 years In fact exactly 65 years to the day). The US is the over indulgent parent that permits the colonial ambitions of Israel. The world is slowly waking up to the appealing behaviour of Israel. The show of unity over this motion may indicate a change of attitude. Stronger boycotts of Israeli goods could be a good start.

138 vote yes and 9 vote no.

Voting "no" were Israel, the United States and Canada, joined by the Czech Republic, Panama and several Pacific island nations: Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru and Palau. The Pacific nations typically support the U.S. and Israel at the U.N.

eventually David ( in this case the palestenians ) will win against Goliath

THIS is the reason that UK abstained ..... as usual, HS is being "imaginative" .....

The UK abstained in the vote after Foreign Secretary William Hague said he could only back the move if the Palestinians gave a commitment to an immediate and unconditional return to the negotiating table with Israel.

in fairness to the palestinian side, there is no way at this juncture that they could give such a commitment, or indeed any obvious indication ..... i am sure there's a great deal of negotiating etc behind the scenes, but the rabid loonies of both israel and the palestinian camps would do their level best to torpedo anything constructive were it in the open

.

I think the world will be more peaceful if every country participate in the UN activities. we should remember we are all human and have to encourage peace.

i think all of us here, and in the public at large, tend to see this as pretty much just a two-sided conflict ..... however, a read of the background and actuality of the yemeni war of the early mid 60s reminds that things are rarely as they appear

Ahoy,

Yes, but the UN has be a level playing field and also back up by having teeth.

Also, it has to have a structure for making decisions, which the Security Council cannot veto "simply" by being members of that "committee", if the actions would seem to be against their specific interests, at that moment in time.

Again, the UN does should not be in the position of "being led by the nose" and there is something to be said for "those who pay the piper should call the tune".

However, as a body they should be able to see pass the garden gate when making decisions.

The problem is that so many said "statesmen" and international "wheelers" are really very little men and women and too much is invested in them. (There are some very "bright" ones as well.)


The UN has evolved and will continue to evolve, but too slowly for some to benefit.

HAMAS is the gaza equivalent of the BNP. It's the 1930's all over again. Anti semitism is again fashionable. Like Hitler and all before the justification is that 'the jews brought it on themselves'. Nothing changes.

Cynic
Hague also required a guarantee that Palestine would not use the ICC. I saw him give that statement just after PMQs yesterday.

not quite as simple as that! ..... just to be slightly pedantic, hamas and its allies aren't exactly anti-semitic (the arabs and their "cousins" are also of course semitic races) but more anti-israel and its existence

Here is the verbatim statement

http://m.politics.co.uk/comment-analysis/2012/11/28/william-hague-statement-in-full-on-palestine

We explained that while there is no question of the United Kingdom voting against the resolution, in order to vote for it we would need certain assurances or amendments.

The first is that the Palestinian Authority should indicate a clear commitment to return immediately to negotiations without preconditions.

This is the essential answer to the charge that by moving the resolution the Palestinians are taking a path away from negotiations.

Given the great difficulty in restarting negotiations in recent years, and the risk that some will see this resolution as a step that is inconsistent with such negotiations, this commitment is indispensable to us.

The second assurance relates to membership of other specialised UN agencies and action in the International Criminal Court.

Our country is a strong supporter across all parties of international justice and the International Criminal Court. We would ultimately like to see a Palestinian state represented throughout all the organs of the United Nations. However we judge that if the Palestinians were to build on this resolution by pursuing ICC jurisdiction over the occupied territories at this stage it could make a return to negotiations impossible. This is extremely important given that we see 2013 as a crucial year for the reasons I have described for the middle east peace process.

thanks - an interesting read ..... it's getting the sides to start meaningful negotiations would be be more than useful, but even then as in ireland, a mutually (un)acceptable conclusion will take several (many) years

What it means is that Palestine has to talk peace while Israel continues to steal the land that the discussions are about. Israel can continue to steal the land and oppress the Palestinians without being referred to the ICC.

Fat chance.

It would seem to be a case of, we will negotiate with you as long as you don't take our criminal record into consideration, or ask for the goods we have purloined off you to be returned.

HS ..... you're better than a sleeping pill at times ..... the ICC thing is almost a side issue, though should the palestinians pursue that prematurely, it will inevitably stop the chance of starting ANY meaningful negotiations or discussions towards peace

as i implied earlier this morning, there will be a massive amount of discussion and negotiation being conducted behind closed doors - as there were for ireland ..... the "face" for domestic consumption may well appear very different