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?

i did, which is why i wrote posts 6434 and then 6437
using your line - i shan't say logic - uk would vote against, while it is 99% certain that it won't
it follows that your line is faulty at best

The UK said today it will be abstain.

Interestingly, once the Palestinians gain full membership then they too will be held accountable within the ICC .....

Some fascinating twists to come.

Very true. The government in the West Bank does not do anything that the ICC would be interested in. That might not be true of Gaza but I doubt that Hamas would be too bothered. Only Israel has any worries about the ICC. It is Israel that will be illegally occupying another state and stealing its land. Once Israel is a state as far as the ICC and the ICOJ are concerned, Israel's actions towards the population of the West Bank are mostly illegal.

i shan't be happy that uk abstains if that is indeed the case .... would much rather have seen them support the motion, though i understand the preconditon

It looks like only 5 against of 193 now.

Israel, The United States, Canada, Micronesia and the Marshall Islands ( both governed by the US).

An embarrassing group to belong to.

Cynic? How old are you ? About 5 going by some of your posts.

H/S, So what are our Government abstaining about exactly?

Abstaining on the vote to upgrade Palestine from observer state to observer non-member state. There are a number of benefits for Palestinians.

It is because earlier this year Palestine applied for full membership and the US used its veto in the security council to stop them. This vote only needs a simple majority.

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.