False assumptions on the 4th Geneva Convention regards to the MIDDLE EAST. The nonstate entity commonly known as "Palestine." PA and PLO do not constitute a state as defined by the law and applicable to international law because both entities lack a defined territory with a permanent population controlled by a government that has the capacity to enter into foreign relations. 'Palestine' is an amorphous entity whose status remains a question. The UN Status as well only relates to Palestine as . A geographical region...... The drafters failed to anticipate and account for an international armed conflict involving nonstate entities. Switzerland in 1989 already refused the PLO to become a member of the 4th Geneva Convention, as they were not a Sovereign State. Excerpt: On June 21, 1989, the Swiss Federal Council in Geneva received a letter from the Permanent Observer of Palestine to the United Nations stating: "[T]he Executive Committee of the Palestine Liberation Organization, entrusted with the functions of the Government of the State of Palestine by decision of the Palestine National Council, decided, on 4 May 1989, to adhere to the Four Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 and the two Protocols additional thereto." Int'l Comm. of the Red Cross, States Party to the Following International Humanitarian Law and Other Related Treaties as of 19.03.2004, at 7, http://www.icrc.org/Web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/htmlall/party_main_treaties/ $File/IHL_and_other_related_Treaties.pdf (last visited Apr. 20, 2004) (quoting from above-mentioned letter). On September 13, 1989, the Swiss Federal Council decided that the letter amounted to NO valid accession "due to the uncertainty within the international community as to the existence or non-existence of a State of Palestine." There is simply no legal argument that can create an accommodation for a nonstate actor in a Convention restricted by the fundamental international law doctrine of sovereign rights-- only states can be bound to treaties, and belligerent occupation rules only apply vis-a-vis the territory of another state.

"[s]o yes, the us is the biggest perpetrator of war crimes, but Israel is not far behind. by proportion, it is probably the same" you say. -- Edward, you sound like a true idiot. In a world of totalitarian China, the murderous Sudan and all the repressive dictatorships and cleptocracies of Africa, South America and the entire Muslim world, where people are afraid to open their mouths for fear of disappearing and where the concept of human rights is just a topic used in speeches at the international conferences, you find USA and Israel as the worst offenders of human rights? Where are you getting your information from? You want real war crimes? look to Palestinian Authority, Hamas and the rest of the cast for the deliberate murder of Israeli civilians, Sudan, Libya, Ivory Coast, Kosovo, Indonesia (the slaughter in East Timur just ended), Columbia, Peru (not the government, the red rebels) and the list can go on and on.

All right, his grandparents were Zionists and his parents were ...what exactly? Children of Zionists? A place of birth means nothing. Obviously it does not mean loyalty to one's own country, since the grandson prefers to live in GB, the very country his grandparents had to fight for freedom. Why did his parent's urged the withdrawal to pre 1967 line after the war? Was it pragmatism, or were they following the Moscow line?

By what right do British courts have jurisdiction over foreign nationals over alleged incidents that took place on foreign soil? If find this whole issue utterly laughable

Actually, the British courts could have jurisdiction, if the complainant now resides in GB, and the if the defendant can be served with the process in GB, personal jurisdiction over defendant, regardless where the crime occurred. Provided of cause that the Court is willing to accept that London is a proper venue for the case. Here, an obviously, anti-Israeli judge decided that he wants the case in his jurisdiction, despite no evidence of merit of such an action, and the obvious danger that the Israelis, or anybody else, could grab British politicians, generals or pilots and charge them with crimes against humanity for their actions in Yugoslavia, against the Serb civilians, in Afghanistan, against Afghani civilians and currently in Iraq, against Iraqi civilians. I guess the judge never thought that far, or he still has the delusions of the invincibility of the non- existent British Empire. Actually, Israelis a few years back would have had a wonderful case against the British for crimes against humanity, namely keeping Jewish Holocaust survivors incarcerated in the concentration camps on Cyprus from 1945 to 1948 and, as I dimly recall from some PBS show, sinking some ships carrying Jewish refugees, in the Mediterranean, killing them all. Alas, the perpetrators of those crimes are probably dead. Even so, there can still be a pretty decent civil case against GB.

Give it a greedy rest already !!!- the ISRAELIS HAVE COMMITTED WAR CRIMES AND MACHOVER IS GOING TO EXPOSE IT- TOO BAD FOR YOU.

I'm talking about British war crimes, not Shoah, although the victims were the survivors of Shoah, you ignoramus. It is well documented and seen by millions on PBS. But Jews don't have to get the Brits; Serbs can easily do it, and many others, although the Jews most certainly have a very strong and valid case. As to the alleged so called "Israeli crimes," there is a very recent exposé about the al-Dura fraud. And then there is the exposure of the Jenin fraud. And then we all saw it on television when those "Palestinian" corpses came to life, and then pretended to be dead again during all those colorful funerals. So, now, whenever I hear any Arab claims of children killed by Israelis, I don't believe them; when I hear claims of Israeli atrocities, I don't believe them. You Arabs are pathological liars, and your communist defenders are too. It has been too well proved and documented. As to Shoah, don’t even touch it. You and your kind could not even begin to pay for crimes you and your's have committed against the Jews, to even up the score. So, rest it. It marks you immediately, for who and what you are.

The reality is that only a tiny percentage of the enormous amount of property Europeans stole from the millions of Jews they murdered has ever been returned. There is a very greedy party here, but it sure ain't the Jews. The reality is that the vast majority of the very worst murderers have been protected by all European countries since the end of World War II. There surely is a truly wicked party here, but it sure ain't the Jews.