but "all other serial killers", as you claim, WERE NOT JUDGED AND SENTENCED IN THE HAGUE. THERE WERE NEVER EVEN UN RESOLUTIONS OF MISCONDUCT AGAINST THE OTHER SERIAL KILLERS. THERE WERE NEVER ANY GOLDSTONE REPORTS AGAINST OTHER SERIAL KILLERS. THE SERIAL KILLERS ARE THE USA, ENGLAND, RUSSIA, CHINA, MUGHABE, DARFUR, SOMALIA, IRAN, NETHERLANDS, SPAIN, AUSTRALIA, NEW ZEALAND, NATO none of these groups and countries were ever served with a goldstone report. so, all the serial killers you are talking about, who committed war crimes in all parts of the world, in iraq, in afghanistan, in yemen, in iran, etc... were never served a goldstone report and were never demanded to stand trial at the hague. only one "serial killer" has been exempt from this above kindly treatment of the un and national bodies in closing their eyes to their atrociites of war. it is israel. if and when, all serial killers as you call them, recieve the same treatment as israel recieves, then and only then, would israel deem the goldstone report as just and the hague as necessary. hameed aboughaze, iranian

Thank you very much, Hameed, for reducing to language comprehensible by "Matty Groves" precisely the content of my post. It would appear that "Matty Groves" is not capable of grasping even the simplest of concepts. Thank you again.

Hameed Sarah B cannot acknowledge that Israel ratified the Fourth Geneva Convention and therefore is bound by Article 28 which outlaws the use of civilians as Human Shields, a fact that she acknowledges by virtue that the Israeli Supreme Court ruling that the IDF were in breach of International Law for hiding behind women and children. In short she is in full denial about IDF war crimes and dreams of carpet bombing civilian towns and villages. Israel does not have a say in the matter. Israel will be referred to the ICC of the Ban deems so. The ICC can claim universal jurisdiction and proceed with the case without Israel's authorization/approval. Don’t you know this?

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=74e_1230826559 The only mention of the IDF using 'Human Shields' that I found on the net are isolated cases to 'stop Palestinians throwing stones.. at their friends, tied to an IDF jeep or made to stand in front of one'. That's not nice and the soldiers in question were punished...hence your "Supreme Court ruling". How can you compare that to Gadi's experience (post #48) terrorists using kids to help them cross roads in wartime? Oh, I forgot with your spin.. you could ...for you it's the same thing..a WAR CRIME

show us a single line in which the goldstone report condemned israel using human sheilds in gaza. provide the complete report and underline this accusation please. hameed aboughaze, iranian

"According to defense officials, the Israel Defense Forces made use of the ‘human shield’ procedure on 1,200 occasions over the last five years, and only on one occasion did a Palestinian civilian get hurt. An 18-year-old Palestinian was killed in 2002 during one such operation.'' Show me where Hamas questions if what they're doing is wrong or right....go on... if you're man/woman enough, that is......

I doubt it ....

Um, Matty - perhaps you missed the myriad of videos and witnesses who have pretty proven "unequivocally" of Hamas' guilt. I'm simply asking for the same evidence against the IDF. Now, you claim a court ruling has made it fact - but I'm not privy to the facts they are presented, nor the context in which they were, so is it really fair to ask me to accept a judicial ruling without question? You didn't accept the same judicial ruling that put the rightful jewish owners into a house in Shiek Jarrah.

The Fourth Geneva Convention on Rules of War was adopted August 12, 1949 by the international community in response to Nazi atrocities during World War II. It was ratified by Israel in 1951. The international treaty governs the treatment of civilians during wartime, including hostages, diplomats, spies, bystanders and civilians in territory under military occupation. The convention outlaws torture, collective punishment and the resettlement by an occupying power of its own civilians on territory under its military control. In the sixty-one years since its adoption, the Fourth Geneva Convention has never been used to condemn world atrocities, including those in Bosnia, Rwanda, Kosovo, the Congo, Tibet, Sudan, Indonesia or, for that matter, any other conflict-ridden places. Since 1997 the Arab group at the United Nations has been trying to invoke the Fourth Geneva Convention against Israel, in regard to its settlements in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and in particular at Har Homa in Jerusalem. This is a tactic in the on-going Palestinian Arab attempts to undermine the Oslo "Peace Process". Rather than participate in bi-lateral negotiations as agreed in the Oslo Accords and successive documents, it is more satisfactory to the Palestinian Arabs to appeal for international condemnation of Israel. Israel rejects applying the Fourth Geneva Convention to Israeli settlements in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, stating that those territories were captured in 1967 as a result of a defensive war against Jordan and Egypt, countries which had illegally occupied them since 1948. Furthermore, it is Article 49 that is commonly cited to accuse Israel of violating the Fourth Geneva Convention. But a close reading of Article 49 reveals that it prohibits "individual or mass forcible transfers" which are not happening in the territories under Israeli administration. Further, the Occupying Power is obliged not to "deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population" to territories under its control. The use of "deport" and "transfer" indicate that the Convention prohibits the Occupying Power from the active or forcible transfer of its own civilians. Article 49 does not oblige Israel to prevent voluntary settlement by its civilian population just because Arabs don't like it. It is also interesting to find in the Fourth Geneva Convention, in Art. 3 and elsewhere, prohibitions of murder, violence to life and person, and other acts that are commonly employed by Palestinian Arabs against innocent Israeli civilians. To date no one in the international community has made a formal protest against these Palestinian Arab tactics.

Matty I tried getting all the links you provided in vain. "page cannot be found" If the links you provide are not in red, the pages cannot be found.

Trying to teach me about the Fourth Geneva Convention? LOL! As if you could teach me anything about international convention, law or anything else. I note you have not responded, but rahter have chosen to slink away with your mangy tail tucked between your equally mangy legs. I expected as much.

Matty who knows so much about international law… your quotes from the Genève convention are very isolated – the laws of war do recognise that in war civilians may (sadly) die – this alone is not a war crime and do not constitute a violation of international law. You need to look at other aspects such as proportionality, necessity, and all the elements of self defence, but I am not starting a class here. I am just being annoyed by you claiming to be an expert. Second – Israel, FYI, never ratified the Genève convention. The humanitarian parts of the Genève convention are recognised as customary international law, and thus indeed binding (Israel also announced that it will respect it), but your claim that Israel has ratified the convention is just not true. Even though it doesn’t make much difference in this case, I suspect you use a lot of these “little” mistakes in your arguments in order to mislead readers. One last point about international customary law and the validity of the Genève convention (related also to Sarrah B’s point about equality in front of the law). International customary law apply when there is a long and very wide compliance by the world nations to a certain custom. This is why it is important to know that as Sarrah B mentioned, the sad reality is, that the Genève convention is constantly violated by the world nations. Thus, I can’t see how the ICJ’s announcement about it being international customary law can be valid. Wishful thinking probably. One last word - we all wish for peace, but reality is much more complicated than what you see on TV.