BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Such a move is historically and morally justified

The UN’s own failures in the past should be a warning, not a motivation, regarding involvement in a conflict where it has limited power to implement an outcome. The UN’s goal needs to be the creation of a stable Palestinian state living in peace with Israel. This policy would in reality encourage the exact opposite.  While it would do little to help the Palestinians, delegitimizing Israel’s creation would be a tool in the hands of figures in the Arab world and elsewhere whose interests in the region are not in peace with Israel but in its destruction. It seems likely Iran at the very minimum would seize on a claim that Israel’s license to exist has been withdrawn. In turn, if Israel interpreted the UN’s move as a an attack on its legitimacy as a state, it would be likely to interpret the move as having anti-Semitic overtones, strengthening the hands of those in Israel who see the UN as a stalking horse for anti-Semitism, and thereby reducing the UN’s ability to play a future role in resolving the conflict.
The will make that a two-state solution will be the final settlement even if its contours are unclear

In the long-run UN action may freeze the negotiations into a discussion of a two-state solution, but UN action is not required to reach this eventuality. Even Avigdor Lieberman on the Far Right accepts that there will be two states, and that has been the basic premise of the Peace Process since 1994. On the issues which have actually prevented a two state solution from coming to fruition- disputes about borders, armaments, security, and settlements, the UN would accomplish nothing. Furthermore, it might well make both sides intransigent, the Israelis due to perceiving themselves as being backed into a corner internationally, the Palestinians due to the belief they no longer need to make concessions.
Such a move will make Palestinian expectations much higher and their position more intransigent

The problem of expectations exists on both sides. The Israelis also have an expectation that they can continue the status quo indefinitely, that the Palestinian “problem” is a containable security issue, especially after the success of the “wall”, and that the international community is all bark. UN action, especially if the US were to allow it through an abstention rather than a positive vote would indicate that both international and American patience are not infinite and probably have as great an impact on Israel as the recognition would have on the Palestinians.
Israel remembers past failures of the international community when it came to Jews and doubts the UN’s Impartiality

Israelis have a low opinion of some UN organs, and with a good degree of justification. But they are also remarkably pragmatic. They understand that while they need to protect their own interests, they also need friends, and Israeli voters will turn on their own leaders with a vengeance if they ever think they are jeopardizing the relationship with the United States. This can be seen in the reaction to the decision of the Bush Administration to freeze loan guarantees to Israel in 1991 due to the repeated refusal of the government of Yitzhak Shamir to halt settlement construction. The result, despite outrage on the American Right and in sectors of Israeli opinion, was the crushing defeat of the Shamir in the 1992 elections by Yitzhak Rabin.[1] If the US abstains on UN recognition of Palestine, which would be necessary for such recognition to pass, it will send a message to the Israeli public and likely severely impact the next election. [1] Rosner, Shmuel, ‘When US doesn’t meddle in Israeli politics, it strengthens the right’, JewishJournal.com, 9 December 2011, http://www.jewishjournal.com/rosnersdomain/item/david_weinberg_95_of_us_...
An attempt to build up international support reinforces Israeli fears of a Palestinian state being used as a platform for attacks against them

Israel’s concerns are not with sovereignty per se, but with the willingness of Palestinians to behave in a legally responsible manner becoming of an international state. Adopting a policy of seeking legitimacy at the UN and then asserting their rights legally is probably the best Palestinian strategy in this respect, as it makes clear that they wish to move the conflict from one of either violent or nonviolent resistance to one of legal arguments under international law. Rather than denying Palestine sovereignty Israel instead should be seeking to gain guarantees within treaties that Palestine will not allow any foreign bases on its soil. Russia does not want NATO bases in the former Soviet Union but this does not mean it denies these states sovereignty.
Even a successful move for statehood would place the United States in a challenging position, and alienate American opinion which the Palestinians are dependent on

One reason why the United States would find a push for UN Recognition of a Palestinian state so awkward is because it has so many other concerns it has to value against the conflict. Whereas relations with Israel are the dominant issue in Palestinian foreign policy, and a leading one in Israel’s, the US has to maintain its position and interests else ware in the world. This means that the United States has to balance domestic considerations with the need to appeal to world opinion. It also means that the United States has an interest in a settlement to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Even if the US were inclined to allow the Palestinians to suffer in punishment for bringing up the issue, the dynamics of UN Recognition would raise the price of the continuation of the conflict for the United States. That is because it would be increase the interest of every other country in the world in the conflict, if for no other reason than rather than an internal affair, there would now be a principle of national sovereignty involved.
Schools are best places to ensure good nutrition

Schools already have enough pressures just to educate their students, they do not need additional pressure from having to ensure their nutrition as well. In the UK kitchen improvements cost £200 million and many local councils found they needed to take money from other budgets such as school maintainance budgets showing the increase in pressure on schools.[1] [1] BBC News, ‘Q&A; Free school meals for infants’, 2 September 2014, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-28981684
Schools are best places to ensure good nutrition

Education is universal from 5 or 6 to 16 years old in most countries, 58% of children worldwide attend secondary school,[1] with even poor countries providing education for all from 5 to 12 years old. As a result giving breakfast at school will mean that all children between these ages receive it. [1] Unicef, ‘58: The percentage of children of secondary school age worldwide who attend secondary school is 58’, Unicef global databases, 2008, http://www.unicef.org/factoftheweek/index_50244.html
A healthy breakfast improves students concentration

Children are in school to learn. To do this they need to concentrate. To be able to concentrate they need to have a balanced meal – one without too much sugar – that will ensure they are not hungry until lunchtime. A child who is hungry is not going to be concentrating on their studies. A study by the Indian National Institute of Nutrition has shown a regular breakfast to result in a 2% increase in test scores in addition to other health benefits.[1] [1] Gajre, N.S., Fernandez, S., Balakrishna, N., and Vazir, S., ‘Breakfast Eating Habit and its Influence on Attention-concentration, Immediate Memory and School Achievement’, National Institute of Nutrition, 31 March 2008, http://www.indianpediatrics.net/oct2008/824.pdf
Government should focus on the most needy

A primary responsibility of the government is for reducing inequality and ensuring that everyone has a basic living standard. A basic living standard includes food. As a result providing breakfasts should be for those who are most in need of a helping hand from government. Those who are wealthier and can afford their own breakfast do not need this help so any such breakfast policy should be means tested to only apply to those who need it. This is the case with the United States School Breakfast Program.
A school breakfast for all is a greater cost on schools

Everything costs. Providing free school to all breakfasts will cost the government money for ingredients, cafeteria staff, administration, even possibly new facilities. In the USA the Breakfast Program costs $3.3 billion to provide free or reduced price breakfasts to 10.1 million students.[1] There is a limited total amount of money so the cost will mean there is something else the government will not be able to do. This proposal may mean, for example, that the government cannot afford to hire more teachers to reduce class sizes. [1] Food and Nutrition Service, ‘The School Breakfast Program’, September 2013 http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/SBPfactsheet.pdf
A maximum working week provides protection for workers.

Workers already have protection from over work. They have the ability to say "no" and they also have the ability to find themselves other, less lengthy employment. The fact that jobs with long hours exist is proof that people are happy with the situation. A survey of people opting out of the European working time directive shows that 1 in 4 workers opt out of a limit to their working hours. "The survey also demonstrates that working hours have not substantially changed since the introduction of the new rules because of the large-scale use of the opt-out clause." Not only that but workers can already claim for work related injuries, stress and maltreatment via the tribunals and courts, so a deterrent already exists for businesses to overwork their employees. 1 Liza Morgan "Little option But To Opt Out under Working hour Rules" improve this
Policing such a policy creates its own set of problems for the society and costs for the economy

That's right, even more jobs would be created by hiring people to check on procedures, workplaces and hours worked. When there are literally millions of displaced potential workers and all the social and economic problems unemployment can cause this is no bad thing. Not only that but there are already policing of business operations present in all advanced economies, this function could be simply added to the list of things to check for by those agencies. New employment within existing organisations is therefore created, so there is a doubling effect from this policy.
There should be no legally mandated ceiling on weekly working hours as it limits economic growth.

It isn't actually being suggested that we reduce the total amount of work done. What is being suggested is that we have some of the unemployed be allowed to get access to the labour that is required via limiting the hours existing workers can put in. GDP growth can still be achieved as the amount of work remains unchanged. In fact, as more of the population become involved in the workforce a lot of other problems and costs will disappear from the economy and society that imposes a maximum working week." two economists argue that a drop of two percentage points in unemployment would mean a 9% decline in burglary, 14% in rape and robbery and 30% in assault."1 1 Prof. Rudolph Winter-Ebmer ""Identifying the Effect of Unemployment on Crime" CEPR Discussion paper, 2001 improve this
There must be a maximum amount of performance that people are capable of, given rest and reward. To work people too long is to waste their potential.

Human beings require downtime in the form of sleep and rest in order to maintain their peak functioning. Long working hours cut into this rest and sleep time and therefore reduce their effectiveness as workers. A cap on the amount of work that people do per week allows for proper rest periods. Tired workers are prone to making mistakes, one of the mistakes they can make is to think they can skip necessary sleep with no ill effects. "While some people may like to believe that they can train their bodies to not require as much sleep as they once did this belief is false"1 A mandatory cap on the hours they work removes the decision from them and avoids this problem. 1Sarah Ledoux – “The effects of sleep deprivation on brain and behaviour” Biology 202 Bryn Mawr College 01/03/2008
There should be a legally mandated ceiling on weekly working hours, because it creates employment.

According to the CIA World Factbook, non-industrialised countries have an average of 30% unemployment and industrialised nations have somewhere between 4-12% unemployment1. Underemployment is considered to be even higher, though precise figures are by their very nature impossible to acquire. By capping the working hours of those in employment, the unemployed stand an increased chance of entering the workforce. With no option but to hire more staff, businesses will have no choice but to hire the currently out of work to fulfil their labour requirements. This is economically beneficial, as the costs of long term unemployment to an economy are enormous. In industrialised countries the unemployed are already being paid via taxes, with this change there can be at least some productivity from them. 1 "World unemployment figures by country" The Cia World Factbook, July 12th, 2011
Introducing a cap on working hours would reduce unemployment.

One of the most fundamental principles of economics is that of supply and demand. By artificially reducing the supply (of hours) then demand must increase for other labour, ceteris paribus. The only question once that is realised is what limit should there be on working hours to ensure full employment. (Or employment at maximum practical capacity.) The purpose of the economy is to serve people, and having a large percentage of people excluded when there is an easy and obvious fix is to fail in the economies mission. improve this
A maximum working week provides protection for workers.

In the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in article 23 “Everyone has the right to work… to just and favourable conditions of work” and article 24 “Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay”1 both relate to a fundamental freedom from being forced to work too hard. Working for too many hours per week can affect health, wellbeing and productivity over the medium to longer term. In extremis, as we can see in the “karoshi” phenomenon in Japan, people can work themselves to an early grave.2 Even in less extreme examples, we can see health issues affecting productivity and causing medical problems which require paying to treat.  The WHO estimates that work related stress costs $300bn p.a. in the US, to take one example.3 It goes without saying that all this avoidable stress and medical trouble needs paying for. That the businesses themselves manage to push those costs onto wider society or the state doesn’t make those costs go anywhere from the point of view of an economy as a whole. Therefore a maximum working week prevents business from externalising costs to others. 1United Nations, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948
Policing such a policy creates its own set of problems for the society and costs for the economy

Complying with any regulation has a cost attached, and so does policing that regulation in order to make it effective. How would anyone know who was working where and for how long without either a very accepting populace or a very draconian state? At best there will be ignored regulations - 14-16% of the economy is already avoiding legal responsibilities1 and with employers dissuaded from taking risks that are larger than they would otherwise be, a working week cap has the effect of making the "shadow" economy even more attractive to businesses. 1 Friedrich Schneider with DominikEnste, "The Growth of the Underground Economy" IMF Paper 2002
The market already limits worker hours when left to its own devices, no intrusion is required.

Long hours which reduce worker effectiveness already make a business less competitive. The invisible hand will remove those businesses which exploit their workers, or who don't take into account employee motivation and what they need to get maximum productivity far more effectively as they are beaten in the marketplace by those companies which do take those things into account. Improvements in worker conditions always come first from the private sector seeking to maximise profits. This has been true as far back as the industrial revolution.
There should be no legally mandated ceiling on weekly working hours as it limits economic growth.

The transaction, hiring and human resource costs of forcing businesses to take on more workers mean that productivity is reduced and resources are wasted. While GDP might rise because of these actions, GDP will rise due to a fallacy of the "labour theory of value"1 kind. Effort isn't in and of itself productive, though it will add to many measures of GDP. Currently displaced workers would be better served inventing new products and services for the economy they are in. 1 Mick Brooks "An Introduction to The Labour Theory Of Value Part One" Marxist.com 15th Oct 2002
Small and mid sized businesses cannot afford the extra costs involved in complying with such a policy.

Each new worker has certain fixed costs associated with their employment. Tax, insurance, training, office space, record keeping, background checks, sickness, disciplinary as well as necessary equipment, the actual cost of hiring them and advertising for them and other benefits (usually this adds up to 1.25-1.4x base salary per worker.1 1 Joe Hadzima "How Much Does an Employee Cost?" Boston Business Journal (reprinted for MIT 2005) improve this
There must be a maximum amount of performance that people are capable of, given rest and reward. To work people too long is to waste their potential.

While people do indeed need proper rest and downtime in order to perform to their maximum potential, exactly how much rest they need changes from individual to individual. A "one size fits all" approach through legislation will necessarily mean that some people who could work quite comfortably with no ill effects will be prevented from doing so. The choice to work or not rightly belongs to them, as does even their decision to risk their health. It might be worth it to someone to take a chance on sleep deprivation in order to earn more pay.
There should be a legally mandated ceiling on weekly working hours, because it creates employment.

If those who are unemployed were the right people to be doing those jobs, they already would be. Employers want to maximise their bottom line and will hire the best workers they can find. Forcing them to take on lower skilled and less able employees reduces competitiveness and causes inefficiencies.   "The bell curve for worker productivity can be divided into roughly four groups. People in the top 16% who produce the most (superior), people between 84% and 51% who produce more than average, people between 50% and 17% who produce less than average, and people in the bottom 16%."1 Having to hire people from the lower 16% will cost businesses a fortune in lost productivity. 1 Dr. Wendell Williams, "The Incredible Cost of Bad Hire" October 11th, 2001
Introducing a cap on working hours would reduce unemployment.

Business will replace workers not with other workers, but with machines, especially in the age of robotics and other automated mass production methodologies. Businesses will replace the lost manpower not with more manpower, but with machines wherever possible. "Automation has eliminated some 10 million jobs, mostly in manufacturing" (between 1994 and 2004)1 The actual effect will be to boost productivity AND increase unemployment for the economy that implements it. The other alternative business can choose is to outsource labour to a country which doesn't have the same stringent standards, which also increases unemployment in the economy with a cap on worker hours. In such a case, the employment, production and business all leave the capped area. 1 Gregory M. Lamb "Automation streamlines services and high-tech, but at what cost?" USA Today 30th August 2004 improve this
The deterrent effect of the Court ensures wide-spread and equal adherence to international law.

The US holds a unique position in the fabric of the protection of international peace and security. Whilst it might be appropriate for other States to consent to the jurisdiction of the ICC, these States do not bear the responsibilities and attendant risks beholden to the 200,000 US troops in continuous forward deployment. The armed forces of the US that have responded to three hundred per cent more contingency situations during the previous decade than during the whole of the Cold War. It is clear that the world more than ever looks to the US for its safety. Furthermore, the military dominance of the US increases the likelihood of prosecution. When rogue regimes are incapable of defeating the US by any military means, they are likely to resort to 'asymmetric challenges' to their forces. Challenging the authority of the US in the ICC will be more damaging to US interests and willingness to intervene than any conventional military opposition. The indispensable nation must therefore be permitted to dispense with the ICC. improve this
The ICC generates crippling expenses.

The budget of the ICC is not particularly excessive and can be maintained without US finance. The withholding of US funds from the UN budget is a familiar tactic for expressing disapproval. In 1998, the total US arrears on assessed contributions that had been approved by the Security Council amounted to over $1.3 billion1. Whilst the operation of UN institutions and operations, in particular peacekeeping, might have suffered, the UN was still able to function. Likewise, there is no reason to suggest that the refusal of the US, or even Japan, to ratify the Rome Statute, would preclude the operation of the ICC. The Statute allows the donation of additional funds and resources from other State Parties. With regard to the ICTY, the EU has consistently contributed personnel, in addition to the payment of the assessed contribution of each of the 15 States. $100 million might seem a significant expense. However, it is both trite and true that no price should be put on justice. Not least justice for thousands of victims of some of the most heinous crimes imaginable. 1 Lautze, S. (2000, October). US Arrears to the UN. Retrieved May 11, 2011, from Humanitarian Exchange Magazine: improve this
It may be in the best interests of victims and their state for war criminals not to be brought to trial.

It is always in the best interest of victims for war criminals to be brought to justice, even if in the intermediate period there is a great deal of stress and suppressed grief. The ICC has the power not only to punish war criminals with incarceration, but order reparations to be paid to victims. Though financial reward cannot cover the loss of life or injury, it is a start and could not directly come from the criminal themselves without the influence and power of the ICC. Furthermore, it establishes a precedent that demonstrates to the wider public that victims will, however long it takes and however hard the ICC must work, get justice for their suffering.