Of course the Palestinians do not have a sovereign state. Their land is occupied. The question of Palestinian sovereignty is irrelevant to the issue of this discussion: the Palestinian threat to take Israel before the ICC. The term, “disputed territory,” is not mentioned in any of the UN resolutions in which Israel is in violation, nor in articles of the 4th Geneva Convention. UNSC 242 demands “withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict.” It doesn’t say withdrawal from “disputed territory.” Israel refuses to withdraw and is in violation of that resolution, thus, in violation of international law. The land is still occupied. Israel is cited for illegal activities in occupied territories in UNSC resolutions 242, 446, 452, 465 484, and it has no legal basis for sovereignty in Jerusalem. The word “disputed” is not in the text of any of the resolutions. The question of sovereignty is irrelevant to article 49 of the 4th Convention. In #56 you read: Protocol 1 of article 85 of the 4th Geneva Convention declares that the transfer of an occupiers civilian population to occupied territory is a grave breach of article 49 of the 4th Convention. In fact, you won’t find the word, “sovereignty,” in the text of the 4th Convention. Apparently, the new Palestine UN status allows Palestine to be a signatory of the ICC. You shall see.

Does that mean, according to your silly theses, that Poland should return East Prussia to Germany? How about Istria -- shall we force Croatia to return it to Italy? Not to mention Okinawa -- the United States annexed 90 percent thereof in order to build Fort Buckner. Is that illegal? No, Roger, it is what happens to the defeated who wage wars of aggression. That actually would apply to the Arabs who have started six -- count them -- wars against Israel. They lost. All six times. Cry me a river. There are consequences, and they are not always pleasant. Or would you deny the State of Israel the same sovereign rights that accrue to all other states? By the way -- Israel is not a signatory to the treaty which created the ICC. Neither, for that matter, is the United States. Cry me another river, baby. Do you understand the difference between resolutions passed under Chapter VI and Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter? Guess which ones are binding and enforceable -- and which ones are not. Hey -- what native American tribe was illegally booted out of Fairfax? I do believe it was the Iriquois. So, when are you giving up your home to its rightful owners? You're an ass, Roger. Why do you keep coming back here, only to get chewed up and spat out? Well -- as we say in the shipping biz -- whatever floats your boat.

SHABBAST SHALOM MY DEAR I LOVE YOU AND ALL YOUR FAMILY, YOU POST SUCH COMMON SENSE. GOD BLESS YOU YOU SHOULD ALL LIVE TO MATAYIM V ARBAIM SHANNIM IM GOOD BREYOUT DANNY. ++

so you admit that the palestinians do not have a sovereign state. therefore, they cannot adhere to the rome treaty. all that rest of what you say becomes totally irrelevant to the question at hand.

the jihadists have taken over north africa and much of the middle east. iran will have nuclear weapons unless obama decides to do something about it. i am always concerned about israel given her geographic location, but i am not concerned about diplomatic isolation.

danny, i have not heard from you for some time. thank you very much for your post and good wishes. shabbat shalom to you and your entire family, including your family in israel.

The Palestinians have never had a sovereign state. They have always been occupied. That point was made irrelevant when the UN recently voted to grant Palestine non-member state status. That allows Palestine to become a signatory of the ICC. You shall soon see the results of that.