Recognition as a state is important in international law, as it means the Palestinians now have a right to territorial integrity. That makes it illegal for anyone to violate Palestine's borders, if they can be defined. Of course, international law and "what the USA is prepared to agree to" tend to be the same thing most of the time, but diplomatically and politically this is a massive boost for Palestine. (I have a degree in international law.)
As for Leveson, we in print media are unanimous in that we will accept what the Government decides. Proper regulation is what everyone wants. The only question is the role the Government will play.
Bear this in mind:
Most people in the media do not work in print.
Most people in print media do not work for tabloids, or for News International.
Most people who work for tabloids do not work on stories which raise privacy issues.
Most people - almost everyone - working on such stories never hacked a phone or breached the existing - very stringent - code of practice.
Shouting "Rupert Murdoch" a lot does not tell the whole story or make you seem interesting or intelligent.
Also, compare the proportion of journalists who hacked phones with the proportion of MPs who fiddled their expenses (and, crucially, were caught doing so by a printed newspaper, the only type of media organisation with the resources to research it properly) and you'll understand why the Government cannot be trusted to regulate the media. Sooner or later they will suppress a story that needs to be told.
The Speaker spent large amounts of public money on court action to try to stop the details of MPs' expenses being released publically, and in the end the Daily Telegraph only got hold of them by paying £50,000 for stolen files.
It's not about "Who watches the watchmen?" It's "Who's the bigger bunch of cunts?" In short: careful, now.