UN votes to recognise Palestine

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Grey Templar**

Interesting development. http://news.yahoo.com/un-vote-recognizes-state-palestine-us-objects-222714646.html

UNITED NATIONS (AP) — The United Nations voted overwhelmingly Thursday to recognize a Palestinian state, a long-sought victory for the Palestinians but an embarrassing diplomatic defeat for the United States.

The resolution upgrading the Palestinians' status to a nonmember observer state at the United Nations was approved by a more than two-thirds majority of the 193-member world body — a vote of 138-9, with 41 abstentions.

A Palestinian flag was quickly unfurled on the floor of the General Assembly, behind the Palestinian delegation. In the West Bank city of Ramallah, hundreds crowded into the main square waved Palestinian flags and chanted "God is great." Others who had crowded around outdoor screens and television sets to watch the vote hugged, honked and set off fireworks before dancing in the streets.

Real independence, however, remains an elusive dream until the Palestinians negotiate a peace deal with the Israelis, who warned that the General Assembly action will only delay a lasting solution. Israel still controls the West Bank, east Jerusalem and access to Gaza, and it accused the Palestinians of bypassing negotiations with the campaign to upgrade their U.N. status.

The United States immediately criticized the historic vote. "Today's unfortunate and counterproductive resolution places further obstacles in the path peace," U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice said. And U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton called the vote "unfortunate" and "counterproductive."

The United States and Israel voted against recognition, joined by Canada, the Czech Republic, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau and Panama.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called the speech by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas to the General Assembly shortly before the vote "defamatory and venomous," saying it was "full of mendacious propaganda" against Israel. He called the vote meaningless.

Abbas had told the General Assembly that it was "being asked today to issue the birth certificate of Palestine." Abbas said the vote is the last chance to save the two-state solution.

After the vote, Netanyahu said the UN move violated past agreements between Israel and the Palestinians and that Israel would act accordingly, without elaborating what steps it might take.

Just before the vote, Israel's U.N. ambassador, Ron Prosor, warned the General Assembly that "the Palestinians are turning their backs on peace" and that the U.N. can't break the 4,000-year-old bond between the people of Israel and the land of Israel.

The vote had been certain to succeed, with most of the member states sympathetic to the Palestinians. Several key countries, including France, this week announced they would support the move to elevate the Palestinians from the status of U.N. observer to nonmember observer state.

Thursday's vote came on the same day, Nov. 29, that the U.N. General Assembly in 1947 voted to recognize a state in Palestine, with the jubilant revelers then Jews. The Palestinians rejected that partition plan, and decades of tension and violence have followed.

The vote grants Abbas an overwhelming international endorsement for his key position: establishment of a Palestinian state in the West Bank, Gaza Strip and east Jerusalem, the territories captured by Israel in the 1967 Mideast war. With Netanyahu opposed to a pullback to the 1967 lines, this should strengthen Abbas' hand if peace talks resume.

The overwhelming vote also could help Abbas restore some of his standing, which has been eroded by years of standstill in peace efforts. His rival, Hamas, deeply entrenched in Gaza, has seen its popularity rise after an Israeli offensive on targets linked to the Islamic militant group there earlier this month.

Israel has stepped back from initial threats of harsh retaliation for the Palestinians seeking U.N. recognition, but government officials warned that Israel would respond to any Palestinian attempts to use the upgraded status to confront Israel in international bodies.

The Palestinians now can gain access to U.N. agencies and international bodies, most significantly the International Criminal Court, which could become a springboard for going after Israel for alleged war crimes or its ongoing settlement building on war-won land.

However, in the run-up to the U.N. vote, Abbas signaled that he wants recognition to give him leverage in future talks with Israel, and not as a tool for confronting or delegitimizing Israel, as Israeli leaders have alleged.

So now any further rocket attacks will not be the act of terrorists, but acts of war from one nation upon another.

Israel should recognize them, and at the next attack take over for good.

**InquisitorVaron**

The main thing is they can now use a legal system to get their point across rather than rocket attacks.

**Grey Templar**

The question is, will they?

I doubt it.

**Goliath**

Grey Templar wrote:
The question is, will they?

I doubt it.

Maybe Israel will stop with its ridiculously out of proportion reprisals now? Because they'll be considered an act of war? Maybe the Israeli settlements will stop as well? Because they'll count as Israel attempting to invade Palestine, rather than just "O Israel, you go ahead and take that land that doesn't belong to you, it's okay because Palestine isn't a country".
Maybe Israel won't threaten to kill the leaders of the government of what is now recognised as a state, rather than a "political organisation"?

I can write hypothetical questions as well, and a lot of what Israel has done counts as an act of war as much as, if not more, than what you wrote in the OP.

**Palindrome**

Grey Templar wrote:

Israel should recognize them, and at the next attack take over for good.

Do you honestly think that would work? In practical terms it will just lead to a prolonged and very bloody insurrection and in political terms Israel will become a pariah state.

This is very good news, maybe the end is finally in sight.

**Grey Templar**

The biggest issue for Israel is the silly international outrage they take for defending themselves. Now you really do that as it would be Palestine making war on Israel, one nation state being an agressor and the other making war in retribution.

**Peregrine**

Grey Templar wrote:
The biggest issue for Israel is the silly international outrage they take for defending themselves.

Yeah, that silly international outrage. How dare anyone be bothered when Israel exercises its god-given right to kill innocent civilians because someone in the general area might have once launched a rocket at them.

**Grey Templar**

Peregrine wrote:
Grey Templar wrote:
The biggest issue for Israel is the silly international outrage they take for defending themselves.

Yeah, that silly international outrage. How dare anyone be bothered when Israel exercises its god-given right to kill innocent civilians because someone in the general area might have once launched a rocket at them.

Thats quite a simplified version of the situation. Hamas deliberatly hides behind civilians, and Israel warns them to get out of the way. Often repeatedly.

**Goliath**

Grey Templar wrote:
The biggest issue for Israel is the silly international outrage they take for defending themselves. Now you really do that as it would be Palestine making war on Israel, one nation state being an agressor and the other making war in retribution.

And the theft of Palestinian land by Israel is what? Israel just nicking a bit of spare land? If you want to say that the Palestinian attacks count as an act of war, you have to accept that the Israeli settlement of Palestinian land counts as an invasion.

**Peregrine**

Grey Templar wrote:
Peregrine wrote:
Grey Templar wrote:
The biggest issue for Israel is the silly international outrage they take for defending themselves.

Yeah, that silly international outrage. How dare anyone be bothered when Israel exercises its god-given right to kill innocent civilians because someone in the general area might have once launched a rocket at them.

Thats quite a simplified version of the situation. Hamas deliberatly hides behind civilians, and Israel warns them to get out of the way. Often repeatedly.

And then when they don't, Israel just blows them up and writes off the civilian deaths as the cost of ensuring that the target is dead. By this ridiculous reasoning every time a suspected murderer or other criminal takes hostages the police should respond by blowing up the building and killing everyone. Except they don't, because civilized people understand that it's not acceptable to just kill anyone who gets in the way of killing who you really want to kill. Sometimes civilized people just have to accept that they can't kill their target this time, and wait for a better opportunity.

**Grey Templar**

Thats a different situation entirely. The hostage takers arn't deliberatly launching military grade ordinance at civilian targets.

Israel does their best to minimize civilian casualities, Hamas deliberatly tries to increase them.

Goliath wrote:
Grey Templar wrote:
The biggest issue for Israel is the silly international outrage they take for defending themselves. Now you really do that as it would be Palestine making war on Israel, one nation state being an agressor and the other making war in retribution.

And the theft of Palestinian land by Israel is what? Israel just nicking a bit of spare land? If you want to say that the Palestinian attacks count as an act of war, you have to accept that the Israeli settlement of Palestinian land counts as an invasion.

Technically, the land was not part of any nation state so it couldn't have been invasion. The Palestinians have never ever had their own country.

Anything after this would be invasion of course, but not before this point in time.

**Goliath**

Grey Templar wrote:
Peregrine wrote:
Grey Templar wrote:
The biggest issue for Israel is the silly international outrage they take for defending themselves.

Yeah, that silly international outrage. How dare anyone be bothered when Israel exercises its god-given right to kill innocent civilians because someone in the general area might have once launched a rocket at them.

Thats quite a simplified version of the situation. Hamas deliberatly hides behind civilians, and Israel warns them to get out of the way. Often repeatedly.

"Get out of the way, we think theres a terrorist hiding among you and we're going to fire rockets at your homes to kill him, if you don't move it's your fault that you die"
Besides, who are you saying is being warned to get out of the way? Hamas? The Civilians?

**JEB_Stuart**

Peregrine wrote:
Grey Templar wrote:
The biggest issue for Israel is the silly international outrage they take for defending themselves.

Yeah, that silly international outrage. How dare anyone be bothered when Israel exercises its god-given right to kill innocent civilians because someone in the general area might have once launched a rocket at them.

The Israelis are consistently seen launching strikes back at places where rockets were in fact launched from. It is not their fault that Palestinian groups put those sites up in the middle of a civilian population. You make it sound as if the Palestinians don't kill innocent civilians, while the Israelis are randomly shelling apartments full of civilians just for the hell of it.

**Peregrine**

JEB_Stuart wrote:
The Israelis are consistently seen launching strikes back at places where rockets were in fact launched from. It is not their fault that Palestinian groups put those sites up in the middle of a civilian population.

If the rockets are fired from places with civilians nearby then you send in troops to carefully deal with it, you don't flatten the whole building with an airstrike. Is it more difficult? Of course. But civilized people understand that you don't always get to do things the easiest way and ignore the consequences.

You make it sound as if the Palestinians don't kill innocent civilians, while the Israelis are randomly shelling apartments full of civilians just for the hell of it.

Obviously there's guilt on both sides, but:

1) Israel claims to be a civilized, modern nation, and gets obscene amounts of military aid from us. If they want to be judged by the standards of a terrorist organization hiding in a poverty-crippled occupied territory then it's time to revoke their status as a legitimate nation and place their territory under someone else's control.

2) Israel's response is massively disproportionate. Some Palestinian launches a rocket that lands in the middle of nowhere and kills nobody, Israel drops an airstrike on the "guilty" party and anyone who happens to be within the blast radius without any apparent concern over how many innocent people die in the process.

**Grey Templar**

Put yourself in their shoes.

Would you rather risk the lives of 30 of your soldiers to take out a rocket battery, potentially getting in a firefight that results in dozens and dozens of casualities both yours, enemy, and civilians, or would you launch a single missile in a precision strike that kills 6 of the enemy and 6-8 civilians?

The missile precision strike has far less collateral damage potential then sending a platoon of soldiers.

**Kanluwen**

Palestine's Arab population is just as likely to be cooperative now as they were during the 1930s.

**Peregrine**

Grey Templar wrote:
Would you rather risk the lives of 30 of your soldiers to take out a rocket battery, potentially getting in a firefight that results in dozens and dozens of casualities both yours, enemy, and civilians, or would you launch a single missile in a precision strike that kills 6 of the enemy and 6-8 civilians?

What part of "you don't get to kill innocent civilians just to make your job easier" is so hard to understand? Part of being a civilized nation is accepting that sometimes you have to expose your troops to additional risk to avoid massacring innocent civilians.

The missile precision strike has far less collateral damage potential then sending a platoon of soldiers.

Then if you can't do it without inflicting dozens of civilian casualties you don't get to do it at all. Deal with it.

**Goliath**

Grey Templar wrote:
Put yourself in their shoes.

Would you rather risk the lives of 30 of your soldiers to take out a rocket battery, potentially getting in a firefight that results in dozens and dozens of casualities both yours, enemy, and civilians, or would you launch a single missile in a precision strike that kills 6 of the enemy and 6-8 civilians?

The missile precision strike has far less collateral damage potential then sending a platoon of soldiers.

Your estimation of the level of Militant deaths compared to civilian deaths is way out.

There have been almost twice as many civilian deaths as there have been militant deaths. (55 militants to 103 Civilians, according to the BBC

**Grey Templar**

Peregrine wrote:
Grey Templar wrote:
Would you rather risk the lives of 30 of your soldiers to take out a rocket battery, potentially getting in a firefight that results in dozens and dozens of casualities both yours, enemy, and civilians, or would you launch a single missile in a precision strike that kills 6 of the enemy and 6-8 civilians?

What part of "you don't get to kill innocent civilians just to make your job easier" is so hard to understand? Part of being a civilized nation is accepting that sometimes you have to expose your troops to additional risk to avoid massacring innocent civilians.

The missile precision strike has far less collateral damage potential then sending a platoon of soldiers.

Then if you can't do it without inflicting dozens of civilian casualties you don't get to do it at all. Deal with it.

So Israel should just take the rocket attacks on the chin if its possable civilians might get harmed? When those rocket attack victims are almost always Israeli civilians and never Israeli military?

**Palindrome**

Grey Templar wrote:

Would you rather risk the lives of 30 of your soldiers to take out a rocket battery, potentially getting in a firefight that results in dozens and dozens of casualities both yours, enemy, and civilians, or would you launch a single missile in a precision strike that kills 6 of the enemy and 6-8 civilians?

Or they could actually try not to be provocative with their methodical land grabs/sanctions/everything else and genuinely try some diplomacy for once. Put yourself in a Palestinians shoes, what would you do?

**Goliath**

Grey Templar wrote:
Peregrine wrote:
Grey Templar wrote:
Would you rather risk the lives of 30 of your soldiers to take out a rocket battery, potentially getting in a firefight that results in dozens and dozens of casualities both yours, enemy, and civilians, or would you launch a single missile in a precision strike that kills 6 of the enemy and 6-8 civilians?

What part of "you don't get to kill innocent civilians just to make your job easier" is so hard to understand? Part of being a civilized nation is accepting that sometimes you have to expose your troops to additional risk to avoid massacring innocent civilians.

The missile precision strike has far less collateral damage potential then sending a platoon of soldiers.

Then if you can't do it without inflicting dozens of civilian casualties you don't get to do it at all. Deal with it.

So Israel should just take the rocket attacks on the chin if its possable civilians might get harmed? When those rocket attack victims are almost always Israeli civilians and never Israeli military?

All 6 of those Israeli casualties must be feeling pretty hard done by. And if you want to use the argument that the Palestinians only hit civilians then you have to accept that the Israeli collateral damge levels are too high as well, because whilst there have been 6 Israeli casualties, four of them were civilians, so they (Hamas) have the same levels of "accuracy" as the Israeli "Defence" Force

**Kanluwen**

Peregrine wrote:
Grey Templar wrote:
Would you rather risk the lives of 30 of your soldiers to take out a rocket battery, potentially getting in a firefight that results in dozens and dozens of casualities both yours, enemy, and civilians, or would you launch a single missile in a precision strike that kills 6 of the enemy and 6-8 civilians?

What part of "you don't get to kill innocent civilians just to make your job easier" is so hard to understand? Part of being a civilized nation is accepting that sometimes you have to expose your troops to additional risk to avoid massacring innocent civilians.

"Massacring"? Way to drag an emotional element into it. Maybe you want to start saying it's genocide too?

Please keep yourself grounded in reality when discussing things. Thanks.

The missile precision strike has far less collateral damage potential then sending a platoon of soldiers.

Then if you can't do it without inflicting dozens of civilian casualties you don't get to do it at all. Deal with it.

Really? That's your answer?

Even if it could be done with no civilian casualties and only the destruction of the rocket batteries, the Palestinians(more specifically: the anti-Israel movement which voted Hamas into power) would continue these attacks. They have a stated goal, and it is not simply "equality". Hamas has its roots in the Black Hand and other anti-Zionist/Israel groups which were a thorn in the side of the British managing Palestine after the first world war.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Goliath wrote:
Grey Templar wrote:
Put yourself in their shoes.

Would you rather risk the lives of 30 of your soldiers to take out a rocket battery, potentially getting in a firefight that results in dozens and dozens of casualities both yours, enemy, and civilians, or would you launch a single missile in a precision strike that kills 6 of the enemy and 6-8 civilians?

The missile precision strike has far less collateral damage potential then sending a platoon of soldiers.

Your estimation of the level of Militant deaths compared to civilian deaths is way out.

There have been almost twice as many civilian deaths as there have been militant deaths. (55 militants to 103 Civilians, according to the BBC

That number only considers those who actually were identified as "militants".

Insurgencies are difficult to deal with simply because not everybody wears a uniform or says "Hey, I'm the enemy!".

**JEB_Stuart**

Peregrine wrote:If the rockets are fired from places with civilians nearby then you send in troops to carefully deal with it, you don't flatten the whole building with an airstrike. Is it more difficult? Of course. But civilized people understand that you don't always get to do things the easiest way and ignore the consequences.

Are you seriously advocating Israeli troops move in to Palestinian territory? That would be counter-productive as this would only further antagonize the situation.

Peregrine wrote:Obviously there's guilt on both sides

If you really think so then instead of offering reactionary judgement, try to understand both sides, and offer criticism to both parties. From what I could tell you were only offering derision for Israel.

Peregrine wrote:1) Israel claims to be a civilized, modern nation, and gets obscene amounts of military aid from us.

Both are true and not mutually exclusive. That being said, North Korea claims to be civilized and modern, as does Syria, Iran, Libya, Egypt, etc., etc. And some of those do receive military aid from the US, notably Egypt. I only compare these nations for the sake of discussion, because based on their actions Israel is the only one of that list that actually practices things like freedom of speech, religion, assembly, etc. Just something to keep in mind.

Peregrine wrote:If they want to be judged by the standards of a terrorist organization hiding in a poverty-crippled occupied territory then it's time to revoke their status as a legitimate nation and place their territory under someone else's control.

Well then it is time to welcome our new Finnish overlords. I think it is a bit presumptuous that just because a nation doesn't act like, well Finland, means that they should lose their country. That is just a tad bit harsh.

Peregrine wrote:2) Israel's response is massively disproportionate. Some Palestinian launches a rocket that lands in the middle of nowhere and kills nobody, Israel drops an airstrike on the "guilty" party and anyone who happens to be within the blast radius without any apparent concern over how many innocent people die in the process.

This is why Israel has worked very hard at creating shockingly accurate missile technology. It is fair to say that the Israeli response is disproportional, but that doesn't mean it is always a bad thing. It is almost certainly better then an outright invasion of the Gaza strip.

Personally I think that if Israel lightened up on the blockade a bit, and Hamas was not in power the conversation would be radically different and more likely to find a peaceful outcome. Hamas' refusal to recognize Israel is a major sticking point, and it is only fair for the Israelis to deny recognition of Palestine while the elected government of Gaza refuses to to the same for them.

**Peregrine**

Grey Templar wrote:
So Israel should just take the rocket attacks on the chin if its possable civilians might get harmed? When those rocket attack victims are almost always Israeli civilians and never Israeli military?

Nice straw man. We aren't talking about a possibility of civilians being harmed, we're talking about near certainty that innocent civilians will be killed, and in greater numbers than any terrorists. There's a difference between "we might accidentally kill someone if things go badly" and "if we fire this missile we're guaranteed to kill innocent people in addition to our target".

**Kanluwen**

Peregrine wrote:
Grey Templar wrote:
So Israel should just take the rocket attacks on the chin if its possable civilians might get harmed? When those rocket attack victims are almost always Israeli civilians and never Israeli military?

Nice straw man. We aren't talking about a possibility of civilians being harmed, we're talking about near certainty that innocent civilians will be killed, and in greater numbers than any terrorists. There's a difference between "we might accidentally kill someone if things go badly" and "if we fire this missile we're guaranteed to kill innocent people in addition to our target".

So now they're "terrorists"?

The people firing rockets into Israel aren't "terrorists" by any stretch of the imagination. If Hamas wanted the rocket attacks to end, they'd end.

**Goliath**

Kanluwen wrote:
Peregrine wrote:
Grey Templar wrote:
So Israel should just take the rocket attacks on the chin if its possable civilians might get harmed? When those rocket attack victims are almost always Israeli civilians and never Israeli military?

Nice straw man. We aren't talking about a possibility of civilians being harmed, we're talking about near certainty that innocent civilians will be killed, and in greater numbers than any terrorists. There's a difference between "we might accidentally kill someone if things go badly" and "if we fire this missile we're guaranteed to kill innocent people in addition to our target".

So now they're "terrorists"?

The people firing rockets into Israel aren't "terrorists" by any stretch of the imagination. If Hamas wanted the rocket attacks to end, they'd end.

He was using the words that Grey Templar used to describe them by in the first post.

**sebster**

What's interesting is how emphatic the vote was. 138 votes for, and just 9 votes against, with 41 abstaining.

And in case anyone's interested, there was apparently a hell of barny behind closed doors here in Australia about it. Our Prime Minister wanted to vote against recognising Palestine just to follow the US line, and much of her party rebelled against here. They ended up with a compromise position to abstain.

Grey Templar wrote:
So now any further rocket attacks will not be the act of terrorists, but acts of war from one nation upon another.

Israel should recognize them, and at the next attack take over for good.

Yeah, Israel really wants to have their troops on the ground, in the region administering the place day to day.

For feth's sake, this is a serious issue. Learn something about it.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Grey Templar wrote:
The biggest issue for Israel is the silly international outrage they take for defending themselves. Now you really do that as it would be Palestine making war on Israel, one nation state being an agressor and the other making war in retribution.

"Oh look, Palestine is firing rockets into Israel, that must be because they're terrorists motivated entirely by evil. And now there's some people saying words, I don't really know or care what they're saying so I'll just assume they're criticising Israel for the only thing I understand about this issue, and that is that Israel is retaliating for those rocket attacks. And now I feel all self-righteous, because I've simplified a complex issue down into evil people and good people, and crazy people defending the evil people."

Your position is absurd. Either learn about this or stop pretending you have a sensible opinion.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Look, in case anyone actually wants to learn something about the situation, here's an interesting picture for you;

That's the King David hotel. It was the centre of the British Administration during the Mandate era. The Jews wanted a better deal than the one being offered, and began their own terror campaign against the British authorities, culminating in the bombing of the King David hotel. It killed 91 people.

I don't condone violence, but I recognise that when you want your own country, you use the tools you have at your disposal. For the Jews at the time, outgunned as they were, that meant bombing campaigns and abductions. It sucks, but that's how it is.

Now, 60 something years later, the Palestinians are doing the same.

And people on-line, with absolutely no understanding of the history of these events, take up this moralistic positions against one side for using whatever weapons they have at their disposal.

**Ratbarf**

And then when they don't, Israel just blows them up and writes off the civilian deaths as the cost of ensuring that the target is dead. By this ridiculous reasoning every time a suspected murderer or other criminal takes hostages the police should respond by blowing up the building and killing everyone. Except they don't, because civilized people understand that it's not acceptable to just kill anyone who gets in the way of killing who you really want to kill. Sometimes civilized people just have to accept that they can't kill their target this time, and wait for a better opportunity.

Lol, you might want to inform America of that, they seemed to be doing a pretty good job of racking up the civillian casualties in the invasion of Iraq.

Or Vietnam, or Bosnia, or heck the British.

Americans have a long history of being trigger happy and doing a piss poor job at target identification. Yet no one suggests that they aren't a civilized state and that their territory should be handed over to someone else.

Hell 9/11 and the subsequent invasion of Afghanistan and the bombings in Yemen Somalia and Pakistan are analogous to the Palestinians shooting rockets and then Israel bombing them back. Yet there isn't anywhere near the outpouring of vitriol and hate as when Israel kills a few Palestinians.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

If they want to be judged by the standards of a terrorist organization hiding in a poverty-crippled occupied territory then it's time to revoke their status as a legitimate nation and place their territory under someone else's control.

Also the only thing that makes a state legitimate is if they can hold the territory they claim. Statehood is a monopoly on force in a given area, everything else is particulars. And I think we can agree that Israel has proven that it is legitimate seeing as it's still standing after three wars and a decades long insurgency.

That's the King David hotel. It was the centre of the British Administration during the Mandate era. The Jews wanted a better deal than the one being offered, and began their own terror campaign against the British authorities, culminating in the bombing of the King David hotel. It killed 91 people.

Yip, and do you know why those 91 people died? Because the British didn't think the Jews would be that audacious. They were actually phoned half an hour before the bomb went off, told there was a bomb, and told to evacuate. The British scoffed at the thought and stayed where they were. Next to the British office was the French office, they were also phoned to clear out, which they did, and didn't suffer a single casualty. I think there is a difference between intending to blow up a building but not hurt anyone, and the Palestinians firing rockets with the intention to kill. Bombs are like gifts, it's that thought that counts, not that you got the result you were aiming for.

**nomotog**

What was Palestine before this vote?

**Ratbarf**

An observer, akin in legal status to NAMBLA I would presume.