Hamas & Israel Cease-Fire. Hamas Violates cease-fire. - Page 6

Marc39 · 14th May 2009, 11:18 AM

Originally Posted by webfusion

I am not a lawyer, and I have no idea what you are talking about here.
The High Court of Israel has demanded that these illegal settlements be dismantled. Are you claiming that the Israeli Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to make such a demand?

I imagine the IDF will appeal to the Supreme Court as to the security-related necessity of the outposts. Peace Now, the incessant pests pushing for dismantlement of the settlements, just try to stir up trouble to justify their existence. Too bad Hamas hasn't hit them with rockets.

webfusion · 14th May 2009, 11:43 AM

Originally Posted by Marc39

I imagine the IDF will appeal to the Supreme Court as to the security-related necessity of the outposts. Peace Now, the incessant pests pushing for dismantlement of the settlements, just try to stir up trouble to justify their existence. Too bad Hamas hasn't hit them with rockets.

Imagine all you want. We deal in facts here.

From the article about the High Court asking for clarification about why their order is not being implemented:
"Defense Minister Ehud Barak announced in 2008 he was extending (delaying) the orders' validity for a further year. He said this was in order to reach an agreement with settler leaders."

In other words, to avoid a confrontation with the settlers.
(See: Amona)
Nothing about "security" -- this is strictly a political issue.

You know something, marc39, the more I read your posts, the more I wonder what dog you have in this fight. You never answered me about your specific interests about Israel. Do you have relatives there? Business investments?

Marc39 · 14th May 2009, 12:09 PM

Originally Posted by webfusion

Imagine all you want. We deal in facts here.

Much of what I've read, thus far, are anything but facts. Maybe there's a special place where facts are required that I'm missing.

Quote:

From the article about the High Court asking for clarification about why their order is not being implemented:
"Defense Minister Ehud Barak announced in 2008 he was extending (delaying) the orders' validity for a further year. He said this was in order to reach an agreement with settler leaders."

In other words, to avoid a confrontation with the settlers.
(See: Amona)
Nothing about "security" -- this is strictly a political issue.

That's your conclusion. Obviously, Barak needs to consult with settlers as well as the IDF, to reach a decision. You don't know the full details, nor do I.

And, since you're so concerned about illegal settlements, do, too, apply that concern to illegal Palestinian settlements. Last time I had checked, the West Bank was "disputed" territory, not Palestinian territory.

Lonewulf · 14th May 2009, 12:16 PM

Originally Posted by Marc39

Much of what I've read, thus far, are anything but facts. Maybe there's a special place where facts are required that I'm missing.

webfusion · 14th May 2009, 12:31 PM

Lonewulf, that irony meter reminds me of the famous scene in "THIS IS SPINAL TAP" film, where the explanation is given for the special amplifiers they use, with 11 on the dials.

(obscure reference to a cult movie)

Anyway, marc39, you posted this:
"the settlements are not illegal, unless you can provide legal proof they are."

The Israeli Supreme Court is a pretty legitimate legal source, I'm sure you will agree, and they are indeed saying that some settlements (as named) are illegal.

I was just pointing that out to you.
I have nothing more to add.

Carry on.

Almo · 14th May 2009, 12:33 PM

Originally Posted by yairhol

Israel has declared since 2 A.M., 1.18.09, a unilateral cease-fire with the Hamas.
In response, the Hamas has fired until now 2:18 P.M., 1.18.09, 12 rockets to Israeli civilian towns.

Parky76, ddt, FireGarden, darat, FFT, a unique person,
do you strongly condemn Hamas' actions since 2A.M.?
Hams keeps firing from civilian areas although Israel is not firing at them (at the Hamas). If Israel retaliates there could unfortunately be more civilian casualties along with the dead Hamas terrorists.

Condemn The Hamas?
Yes or No please.

I strongly condemn Hamas for killing civilians.

I strongly condemn Israel's continued violation of international law in building settlements inside the West Bank.

Two wrongs to not make a right. But Israel is FAR from blameless here.

Marc39 · 14th May 2009, 12:35 PM

Originally Posted by webfusion

I have nothing more to add.

Carry on.

Nor, I.

Marc39 · 14th May 2009, 12:38 PM

Originally Posted by Almo

I strongly condemn Hamas for killing civilians.

I strongly condemn Israel's continued violation of international law in building settlements inside the West Bank.

Two wrongs to not make a right. But Israel is FAR from blameless here.

The Israeli settlements are legal, so, you have, in effect, cited one wrong, involving Hamas terrorism, which I wholeheartedly agree with.

webfusion · 14th May 2009, 12:58 PM

All I can say is "wow" -- In post 205, you got a clear indication that some settlements are illegal.
In post 208, you ignore the evidence and return to the meme that they are all legal.

I thought we were done, but I guess not.

Look, let me help everyone out: The problem here is one of what are considered "settlements" ----

For instance, the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem's Old City. That is technically a 'settlement' because it lies within an area that was captured in June 1967. By all proper definitions, the Old City is part of the West Bank. Including the Western wall itself.

The Israelis know that they'll at some point be required to do something about the 'settlements' ---- and there is a specific Hebrew name for the program envisioned:

"Hitnatkut" (Sometimes called realignment or 'disengagement')

Some of the major settlement communities will end up being annexed and made part of the State of Israel officially. Some will be dismantled and yet others will end up as part of a NewPalestine State.

Lonewulf · 14th May 2009, 01:01 PM

Originally Posted by Marc39

The Israeli settlements are legal, so, you have, in effect, cited one wrong, involving Hamas terrorism, which I wholeheartedly agree with.

Quick! Assert it enough times, and it MUST become true!

Marc39 · 14th May 2009, 01:09 PM

Originally Posted by Lonewulf

Quick! Assert it enough times, and it MUST become true!

Prove me wrong.

Marc39 · 14th May 2009, 01:11 PM

Originally Posted by webfusion

All I can say is "wow" -- In post 205, you got a clear indication that some settlements are illegal.
In post 208, you ignore the evidence and return to the meme that they are all legal.

I thought we were done, but I guess not.

Look, let me help everyone out: The problem here is one of what are considered "settlements" ----

For instance, the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem's Old City. That is technically a 'settlement' because it lies within an area that was captured in June 1967. By all proper definitions, the Old City is part of the West Bank. Including the Western wall itself.

The Israelis know that they'll at some point be required to do something about the 'settlements' ---- and there is a specific Hebrew name for the program envisioned:

"Hitnatkut" (Sometimes called realignment or 'disengagement')

Some of the major settlement communities will end up being annexed and made part of the State of Israel officially. Some will be dismantled and yet others will end up as part of a NewPalestine State.

Are you oblivious to the illegal Palestinian construction, or, is your agenda entirely anti-Israel in nature?

webfusion · 14th May 2009, 01:20 PM

Anti-Israel?

I am an Israeli.

My 'agenda' is to attempt to correct the record here at JREF if there seems to be something offered here that is clearly bogus. Your posting on this forum about settlements not being "illegal" was in error.

You have been proved to be in error.
Not all settlements are legal.

webfusion · 14th May 2009, 01:23 PM

HeY, this is my 6000th posting !!!!

That must be worth some celebration.

Marc39 · 14th May 2009, 01:24 PM

Originally Posted by webfusion

Anti-Israel?

I am an Israeli.

So, what?

Quote:

My 'agenda' is to attempt to correct the record here at JREF if there seems to be something offered here that is clearly bogus. Your posting on this forum about settlements not being "illegal" was in error.

You have been proved to be in error.
Not all settlements are legal.

You have been proven to have an anti-Israeli bias.

Praktik · 14th May 2009, 01:43 PM

Originally Posted by Marc39

So, what?

You have been proven to have an anti-Israeli bias.

Not to me.

I see no proof of this bias from any of webfusion's posts.

Why dont you prove it to me, huh?

Marc39 · 14th May 2009, 01:49 PM

Originally Posted by Praktik

Not to me.

I see no proof of this bias from any of webfusion's posts.

You want an award, or, something?

Quote:

Why dont you prove it to me, huh?

Because I have a life?

mortimer · 14th May 2009, 02:34 PM

Originally Posted by Marc39

Because I have a life?

No, because you made the claim. JREFers are expected to back up their claims with evidence.

Thunder · 14th May 2009, 02:37 PM

Originally Posted by Marc39

So, what?

You have been proven to have an anti-Israeli bias.

you have got to be joking!!!

Webfusion is "anti-Israel"??????????????????

he is anything but.

what is your definition of "anti-Israel"???

it appears to be "anyone who disagrees with right-wing Neo-Zionist beliefs and agendas".

how pathetic. how ridiculous. how dishonest.

oh, and btw, the Jewish settlements in the WB are illegal.

Marc39 · 14th May 2009, 02:41 PM

Originally Posted by parky76

you have got to be joking!!!

Webfusion is "anti-Israel"??????????????????

he is anything but.

what is your definition of "anti-Israel"???

it appears to be "anyone who disagrees with right-wing Neo-Zionist beliefs and agendas".

how pathetic. how ridiculous. how dishonest.

Someone who posts accusing Israel of illegal settlement without doing the same with regard to Arab settlement, is, IMO, demonstrating anti-Israel bias.

Marc39 · 14th May 2009, 02:43 PM

Originally Posted by parky76

how pathetic. how ridiculous. how dishonest.

.

You would know, having posted false information about Jew-Only road signs in Israel and Netanyahu saying 9/11 was good. That's just the tip of the iceberg with your posts, 99.9% of which are false.

Thunder · 14th May 2009, 02:53 PM

Originally Posted by Marc39

That's just the tip of the iceberg with your posts, 99.9% of which are false.

how could you possible know..considering you rarely ever challenge posts with any facts, data, links, or info.

just talking from the seat of your pants is meaningless Marc.

Thunder · 14th May 2009, 02:55 PM

Originally Posted by Marc39

Someone who posts accusing Israel of illegal settlement without doing the same with regard to Arab settlement, is, IMO, demonstrating anti-Israel bias.

Israel..is a state.

Arab..is an ethnic group.

Are you aware of the difference?

Please quote the law that says it is illegal for Palestinians to build housing in the West Bank or Gaza.

Marc39 · 14th May 2009, 03:01 PM

Originally Posted by parky76

Israel..is a state.

Arab..is an ethnic group.

Are you aware of the difference?

Please quote the law that says it is illegal for Palestinians to build housing in the West Bank or Gaza.

You cannot even provide a proper definition of a war crime. Don't get involved in international law on the settlements , Mr. Jew-Only road Signs. LOL

Thunder · 14th May 2009, 03:03 PM

Originally Posted by Marc39

You cannot even provide a proper definition of a war crime. Don't get involved in international law on the settlements , Mr. Jew-Only road Signs. LOL

Can you? Mr. genocide of Australian Muslims Supporter?

(b) War Crimes: namely, violations of the laws or customs of war. Such violations shall include, but not be limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave labour or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages. or devastation not justified by military necessity;

(c) Crimes against Humanity: namely, murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population, before or during the war, or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds in execution of or in connection with any crime within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, whether or not in violation of the domestic law of the country where perpetrated."

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/judlawre.asp

but now your posts bore me. goodbye.

Marc39 · 14th May 2009, 03:21 PM

Originally Posted by parky76

Can you? Mr. genocide of Australian Muslims Supporter?

(b) War Crimes: namely, violations of the laws or customs of war. Such violations shall include, but not be limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave labour or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages. or devastation not justified by military necessity;

(c) Crimes against Humanity: namely, murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population, before or during the war, or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds in execution of or in connection with any crime within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, whether or not in violation of the domestic law of the country where perpetrated."

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/judlawre.asp

but now your posts bore me. goodbye.

I have no doubt the Yale School of Law knows the definition of a war crime, however, you do not, or else, you would have been able to offer a definition without needing to cut and paste from an outside source. Still, the definition is not complete. Fail, again...and, again, and, again...

Thunder · 14th May 2009, 03:23 PM

Originally Posted by Marc39

I have no doubt the Yale School of Law knows the definition of a war crime, however, you do not, or else, you would have been able to offer a definition without needing to cut and paste from an outside source. Still, the definition is not complete. Fail, again...and, again, and, again...

See ya Marc.

Marc39 · 14th May 2009, 03:26 PM

Originally Posted by parky76

See ya Marc.

Try cutting and pasting from another source. I mean, it's only fair a person who levels accusations of war crimes against Israel actually know what one is. Keep trying!

scissorhands · 14th May 2009, 03:32 PM

Its funny watching Parky76 pontificating about the rights and wrongs of Israels fight for survival in the middle east, whilst sat at home on his computer in the US.

Marc39 · 14th May 2009, 03:32 PM

Originally Posted by parky76

See ya Marc.

So o-w-n-e-d!

Thunder · 14th May 2009, 03:33 PM

Originally Posted by scissorhands

Its funny watching Parky76 pontificating about the rights and wrongs of Israels fight for survival in the middle east, whilst sat at home on his computer in the US.

and from where do you surf the web? from your desk at UNESCO? your office at the State Department?

i also condemn China's genocide and occupation in Tibet. but I guess i cant do that since I surf the web at home.

scissorhands · 14th May 2009, 03:39 PM

Quote:

and from where do you surf the web? from your desk at UNESCO? your office at the State Department?

Why would that matter?
Im not trying to lecture people on how they should defend their country.
You are.

Marc39 · 14th May 2009, 03:44 PM

Originally Posted by parky76

and from where do you surf the web? from your desk at UNESCO? your office at the State Department?

i also condemn China's genocide and occupation in Tibet. but I guess i cant do that since I surf the web at home.

What of racism and persecution in the Arab and Muslim worlds. Haven't seen anything from you on this.
Owned.

Thunder · 14th May 2009, 03:45 PM

Originally Posted by scissorhands

Why would that matter?
Im not trying to lecture people on how they should defend their country.
You are.

you are right. we in the USA have no right to make suggestions.

what was I thinking????

Marc39 · 14th May 2009, 03:47 PM

Originally Posted by parky76

you are right. we in the USA have no right to make suggestions.

what was I thinking????

No suggestions of reform in the entire Middle East, except for Israel?
Owned.

scissorhands · 14th May 2009, 03:54 PM

Quote:

you are right. we in the USA have no right to make suggestions.

what was I thinking????

You can suggest as much as you wish, pretending you have a clue about the situation or the consequences of your "suggestions" is another matter.
Its nice to be safe in the USA isnt it Parrky?

Thunder · 14th May 2009, 03:58 PM

Originally Posted by Marc39

What of racism and persecution in the Arab and Muslim worlds. Haven't seen anything from you on this.
Owned.

Lonewulf · 14th May 2009, 04:00 PM

Originally Posted by scissorhands

Its funny watching Parky76 pontificating about the rights and wrongs of Israels fight for survival in the middle east, whilst sat at home on his computer in the US.

I hate this kind of argument.

You think that the majority of people supporting Israel are in Israel? Does that nullify all of their arguments?

No. What you are engaging in is an ad hominem.

Thunder · 14th May 2009, 04:00 PM

Originally Posted by scissorhands

You can suggest as much as you wish, pretending you have a clue about the situation or the consequences of your "suggestions" is another matter.
Its nice to be safe in the USA isnt it Parrky?

yeah, really safe here in NYC. we've only been attacked and targeted by terrorists a good 8 times in the last 10 years.

more then any other place in the USA

Thunder · 14th May 2009, 04:01 PM

Originally Posted by Lonewulf

I hate this kind of argument.

You think that the majority of people supporting Israel are in Israel? Does that nullify all of their arguments?

No. What you are engaging in is an ad hominem.

no, you see. if you don't live in Israel, you are only allowed to support Israel. Never critisize Israel.

let me change that, even if you live in Israel, you are not allowed to critisize Israel.

if you criticize Israel..you are an anti-Semite.

14th May 2009, 11:18 AM	#201
Marc39 Banned Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 3,720	Originally Posted by webfusion I am not a lawyer, and I have no idea what you are talking about here. The High Court of Israel has demanded that these illegal settlements be dismantled. Are you claiming that the Israeli Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to make such a demand? I imagine the IDF will appeal to the Supreme Court as to the security-related necessity of the outposts. Peace Now, the incessant pests pushing for dismantlement of the settlements, just try to stir up trouble to justify their existence. Too bad Hamas hasn't hit them with rockets.
Marc39 Banned Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 3,720

14th May 2009, 11:43 AM	#202
webfusion Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Near I-95 Posts: 6,216	Originally Posted by Marc39 I imagine the IDF will appeal to the Supreme Court as to the security-related necessity of the outposts. Peace Now, the incessant pests pushing for dismantlement of the settlements, just try to stir up trouble to justify their existence. Too bad Hamas hasn't hit them with rockets. Imagine all you want. We deal in facts here. From the article about the High Court asking for clarification about why their order is not being implemented: "Defense Minister Ehud Barak announced in 2008 he was extending (delaying) the orders' validity for a further year. He said this was in order to reach an agreement with settler leaders." In other words, to avoid a confrontation with the settlers. (See: Amona) Nothing about "security" -- this is strictly a political issue. You know something, marc39, the more I read your posts, the more I wonder what dog you have in this fight. You never answered me about your specific interests about Israel. Do you have relatives there? Business investments?
	__________________ "You support Israel. Enough said." -- mxwarrior, a rabid anti-Israel JREF poster (now banned) offered this in trying to dismiss all comments offered in rebuttal to him by those JREF'ers who use logic, facts, valid sources, and reality.

14th May 2009, 12:09 PM	#203
Marc39 Banned Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 3,720	Originally Posted by webfusion Imagine all you want. We deal in facts here. Much of what I've read, thus far, are anything but facts. Maybe there's a special place where facts are required that I'm missing. Quote: From the article about the High Court asking for clarification about why their order is not being implemented: "Defense Minister Ehud Barak announced in 2008 he was extending (delaying) the orders' validity for a further year. He said this was in order to reach an agreement with settler leaders." In other words, to avoid a confrontation with the settlers. (See: Amona) Nothing about "security" -- this is strictly a political issue. That's your conclusion. Obviously, Barak needs to consult with settlers as well as the IDF, to reach a decision. You don't know the full details, nor do I. And, since you're so concerned about illegal settlements, do, too, apply that concern to illegal Palestinian settlements. Last time I had checked, the West Bank was "disputed" territory, not Palestinian territory.
Marc39 Banned Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 3,720

14th May 2009, 12:16 PM	#204
Lonewulf Humanistic Cyborg Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: San Antonio, Texas Posts: 10,380	Originally Posted by Marc39 Much of what I've read, thus far, are anything but facts. Maybe there's a special place where facts are required that I'm missing.
	__________________ Writing.com Account

14th May 2009, 12:31 PM	#205
webfusion Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Near I-95 Posts: 6,216	Lonewulf, that irony meter reminds me of the famous scene in "THIS IS SPINAL TAP" film, where the explanation is given for the special amplifiers they use, with 11 on the dials. (obscure reference to a cult movie) Anyway, marc39, you posted this: "the settlements are not illegal, unless you can provide legal proof they are." The Israeli Supreme Court is a pretty legitimate legal source, I'm sure you will agree, and they are indeed saying that some settlements (as named) are illegal. I was just pointing that out to you. I have nothing more to add. Carry on.
	__________________ "You support Israel. Enough said." -- mxwarrior, a rabid anti-Israel JREF poster (now banned) offered this in trying to dismiss all comments offered in rebuttal to him by those JREF'ers who use logic, facts, valid sources, and reality.

14th May 2009, 12:33 PM	#206
Almo Masterblazer Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Montreal, Quebec Posts: 6,404	Originally Posted by yairhol Israel has declared since 2 A.M., 1.18.09, a unilateral cease-fire with the Hamas. In response, the Hamas has fired until now 2:18 P.M., 1.18.09, 12 rockets to Israeli civilian towns. Parky76, ddt, FireGarden, darat, FFT, a unique person, do you strongly condemn Hamas' actions since 2A.M.? Hams keeps firing from civilian areas although Israel is not firing at them (at the Hamas). If Israel retaliates there could unfortunately be more civilian casualties along with the dead Hamas terrorists. Condemn The Hamas? Yes or No please. I strongly condemn Hamas for killing civilians. I strongly condemn Israel's continued violation of international law in building settlements inside the West Bank. Two wrongs to not make a right. But Israel is FAR from blameless here.
	__________________ Almo! My Blog "No society ever collapsed because the poor had too much." — LeftySergeant "It may be that there is no body really at rest, to which the places and motions of others may be referred." –Issac Newton in the Principia

14th May 2009, 12:35 PM	#207
Marc39 Banned Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 3,720	Originally Posted by webfusion I have nothing more to add. Carry on. Nor, I.
Marc39 Banned Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 3,720

14th May 2009, 12:38 PM	#208
Marc39 Banned Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 3,720	Originally Posted by Almo I strongly condemn Hamas for killing civilians. I strongly condemn Israel's continued violation of international law in building settlements inside the West Bank. Two wrongs to not make a right. But Israel is FAR from blameless here. The Israeli settlements are legal, so, you have, in effect, cited one wrong, involving Hamas terrorism, which I wholeheartedly agree with.
Marc39 Banned Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 3,720

14th May 2009, 12:58 PM	#209
webfusion Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Near I-95 Posts: 6,216	All I can say is "wow" -- In post 205, you got a clear indication that some settlements are illegal. In post 208, you ignore the evidence and return to the meme that they are all legal. I thought we were done, but I guess not. Look, let me help everyone out: The problem here is one of what are considered "settlements" ---- For instance, the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem's Old City. That is technically a 'settlement' because it lies within an area that was captured in June 1967. By all proper definitions, the Old City is part of the West Bank. Including the Western wall itself. The Israelis know that they'll at some point be required to do something about the 'settlements' ---- and there is a specific Hebrew name for the program envisioned: "Hitnatkut" (Sometimes called realignment or 'disengagement') Some of the major settlement communities will end up being annexed and made part of the State of Israel officially. Some will be dismantled and yet others will end up as part of a NewPalestine State.
	__________________ "You support Israel. Enough said." -- mxwarrior, a rabid anti-Israel JREF poster (now banned) offered this in trying to dismiss all comments offered in rebuttal to him by those JREF'ers who use logic, facts, valid sources, and reality.

14th May 2009, 01:01 PM	#210
Lonewulf Humanistic Cyborg Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: San Antonio, Texas Posts: 10,380	Originally Posted by Marc39 The Israeli settlements are legal, so, you have, in effect, cited one wrong, involving Hamas terrorism, which I wholeheartedly agree with. Quick! Assert it enough times, and it MUST become true!
	__________________ Writing.com Account

14th May 2009, 01:09 PM	#211
Marc39 Banned Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 3,720	Originally Posted by Lonewulf Quick! Assert it enough times, and it MUST become true! Prove me wrong.
Marc39 Banned Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 3,720

14th May 2009, 01:11 PM	#212
Marc39 Banned Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 3,720	Originally Posted by webfusion All I can say is "wow" -- In post 205, you got a clear indication that some settlements are illegal. In post 208, you ignore the evidence and return to the meme that they are all legal. I thought we were done, but I guess not. Look, let me help everyone out: The problem here is one of what are considered "settlements" ---- For instance, the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem's Old City. That is technically a 'settlement' because it lies within an area that was captured in June 1967. By all proper definitions, the Old City is part of the West Bank. Including the Western wall itself. The Israelis know that they'll at some point be required to do something about the 'settlements' ---- and there is a specific Hebrew name for the program envisioned: "Hitnatkut" (Sometimes called realignment or 'disengagement') Some of the major settlement communities will end up being annexed and made part of the State of Israel officially. Some will be dismantled and yet others will end up as part of a NewPalestine State. Are you oblivious to the illegal Palestinian construction, or, is your agenda entirely anti-Israel in nature?
Marc39 Banned Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 3,720

14th May 2009, 01:20 PM	#213
webfusion Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Near I-95 Posts: 6,216	Anti-Israel? I am an Israeli. My 'agenda' is to attempt to correct the record here at JREF if there seems to be something offered here that is clearly bogus. Your posting on this forum about settlements not being "illegal" was in error. You have been proved to be in error. Not all settlements are legal.
	__________________ "You support Israel. Enough said." -- mxwarrior, a rabid anti-Israel JREF poster (now banned) offered this in trying to dismiss all comments offered in rebuttal to him by those JREF'ers who use logic, facts, valid sources, and reality. Last edited by webfusion; 14th May 2009 at 01:21 PM.

14th May 2009, 01:23 PM	#214
webfusion Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Near I-95 Posts: 6,216	HeY, this is my 6000th posting !!!! That must be worth some celebration.
	__________________ "You support Israel. Enough said." -- mxwarrior, a rabid anti-Israel JREF poster (now banned) offered this in trying to dismiss all comments offered in rebuttal to him by those JREF'ers who use logic, facts, valid sources, and reality.

14th May 2009, 01:24 PM	#215
Marc39 Banned Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 3,720	Originally Posted by webfusion Anti-Israel? I am an Israeli. So, what? Quote: My 'agenda' is to attempt to correct the record here at JREF if there seems to be something offered here that is clearly bogus. Your posting on this forum about settlements not being "illegal" was in error. You have been proved to be in error. Not all settlements are legal. You have been proven to have an anti-Israeli bias.
Marc39 Banned Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 3,720

14th May 2009, 01:43 PM	#216
Praktik Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Tee Dot Posts: 4,241	Originally Posted by Marc39 So, what? You have been proven to have an anti-Israeli bias. Not to me. I see no proof of this bias from any of webfusion's posts. Why dont you prove it to me, huh?
	__________________ “ it has become my conviction that things mean pretty much what we want them to mean. We’ll pluck significance from the least consequential happenstance if it suits us and happily ignore the most flagrantly obvious symmetry between separate aspects of our lives if it threatens some cherished prejudice or cosily comforting belief" -Iain Banks Last edited by Praktik; 14th May 2009 at 01:45 PM.

14th May 2009, 01:49 PM	#217
Marc39 Banned Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 3,720	Originally Posted by Praktik Not to me. I see no proof of this bias from any of webfusion's posts. You want an award, or, something? Quote: Why dont you prove it to me, huh? Because I have a life?
Marc39 Banned Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 3,720

14th May 2009, 02:34 PM	#218
mortimer NWO Janitor Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 3,474	Originally Posted by Marc39 Because I have a life? No, because you made the claim. JREFers are expected to back up their claims with evidence.
	__________________ "why would i bother?" - Bikerdruid, on providing evidence for his claims "I view hamas as an organization fighting for the freedom of its people." - Bikerdruid

14th May 2009, 02:37 PM	#219
Thunder Banned Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Queens Posts: 34,947	Originally Posted by Marc39 So, what? You have been proven to have an anti-Israeli bias. you have got to be joking!!! Webfusion is "anti-Israel"?????????????????? he is anything but. what is your definition of "anti-Israel"??? it appears to be "anyone who disagrees with right-wing Neo-Zionist beliefs and agendas". how pathetic. how ridiculous. how dishonest. oh, and btw, the Jewish settlements in the WB are illegal.
	Last edited by Thunder; 14th May 2009 at 02:40 PM.

14th May 2009, 02:41 PM	#220
Marc39 Banned Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 3,720	Originally Posted by parky76 you have got to be joking!!! Webfusion is "anti-Israel"?????????????????? he is anything but. what is your definition of "anti-Israel"??? it appears to be "anyone who disagrees with right-wing Neo-Zionist beliefs and agendas". how pathetic. how ridiculous. how dishonest. Someone who posts accusing Israel of illegal settlement without doing the same with regard to Arab settlement, is, IMO, demonstrating anti-Israel bias.
Marc39 Banned Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 3,720

14th May 2009, 02:43 PM	#221
Marc39 Banned Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 3,720	Originally Posted by parky76 how pathetic. how ridiculous. how dishonest. . You would know, having posted false information about Jew-Only road signs in Israel and Netanyahu saying 9/11 was good. That's just the tip of the iceberg with your posts, 99.9% of which are false.
Marc39 Banned Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 3,720

14th May 2009, 02:53 PM	#222
Thunder Banned Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Queens Posts: 34,947	Originally Posted by Marc39 That's just the tip of the iceberg with your posts, 99.9% of which are false. how could you possible know..considering you rarely ever challenge posts with any facts, data, links, or info. just talking from the seat of your pants is meaningless Marc.

14th May 2009, 02:55 PM	#223
Thunder Banned Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Queens Posts: 34,947	Originally Posted by Marc39 Someone who posts accusing Israel of illegal settlement without doing the same with regard to Arab settlement, is, IMO, demonstrating anti-Israel bias. Israel..is a state. Arab..is an ethnic group. Are you aware of the difference? Please quote the law that says it is illegal for Palestinians to build housing in the West Bank or Gaza.

14th May 2009, 03:01 PM	#224
Marc39 Banned Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 3,720	Originally Posted by parky76 Israel..is a state. Arab..is an ethnic group. Are you aware of the difference? Please quote the law that says it is illegal for Palestinians to build housing in the West Bank or Gaza. You cannot even provide a proper definition of a war crime. Don't get involved in international law on the settlements , Mr. Jew-Only road Signs. LOL
Marc39 Banned Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 3,720

14th May 2009, 03:03 PM	#225
Thunder Banned Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Queens Posts: 34,947	Originally Posted by Marc39 You cannot even provide a proper definition of a war crime. Don't get involved in international law on the settlements , Mr. Jew-Only road Signs. LOL Can you? Mr. genocide of Australian Muslims Supporter? (b) War Crimes: namely, violations of the laws or customs of war. Such violations shall include, but not be limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave labour or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages. or devastation not justified by military necessity; (c) Crimes against Humanity: namely, murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population, before or during the war, or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds in execution of or in connection with any crime within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, whether or not in violation of the domestic law of the country where perpetrated." http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/judlawre.asp but now your posts bore me. goodbye.
	Last edited by Thunder; 14th May 2009 at 03:15 PM.

14th May 2009, 03:21 PM	#226
Marc39 Banned Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 3,720	Originally Posted by parky76 Can you? Mr. genocide of Australian Muslims Supporter? (b) War Crimes: namely, violations of the laws or customs of war. Such violations shall include, but not be limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave labour or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages. or devastation not justified by military necessity; (c) Crimes against Humanity: namely, murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population, before or during the war, or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds in execution of or in connection with any crime within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, whether or not in violation of the domestic law of the country where perpetrated." http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/judlawre.asp but now your posts bore me. goodbye. I have no doubt the Yale School of Law knows the definition of a war crime, however, you do not, or else, you would have been able to offer a definition without needing to cut and paste from an outside source. Still, the definition is not complete. Fail, again...and, again, and, again...
Marc39 Banned Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 3,720

14th May 2009, 03:23 PM	#227
Thunder Banned Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Queens Posts: 34,947	Originally Posted by Marc39 I have no doubt the Yale School of Law knows the definition of a war crime, however, you do not, or else, you would have been able to offer a definition without needing to cut and paste from an outside source. Still, the definition is not complete. Fail, again...and, again, and, again... See ya Marc.

14th May 2009, 03:26 PM	#228
Marc39 Banned Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 3,720	Originally Posted by parky76 See ya Marc. Try cutting and pasting from another source. I mean, it's only fair a person who levels accusations of war crimes against Israel actually know what one is. Keep trying!
Marc39 Banned Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 3,720

14th May 2009, 03:32 PM	#229
scissorhands Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 1,537	Its funny watching Parky76 pontificating about the rights and wrongs of Israels fight for survival in the middle east, whilst sat at home on his computer in the US.

14th May 2009, 03:32 PM	#230
Marc39 Banned Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 3,720	Originally Posted by parky76 See ya Marc. So o-w-n-e-d!
Marc39 Banned Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 3,720

14th May 2009, 03:33 PM	#231
Thunder Banned Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Queens Posts: 34,947	Originally Posted by scissorhands Its funny watching Parky76 pontificating about the rights and wrongs of Israels fight for survival in the middle east, whilst sat at home on his computer in the US. and from where do you surf the web? from your desk at UNESCO? your office at the State Department? i also condemn China's genocide and occupation in Tibet. but I guess i cant do that since I surf the web at home.
	Last edited by Thunder; 14th May 2009 at 03:35 PM.

14th May 2009, 03:39 PM	#232
scissorhands Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 1,537	Quote: and from where do you surf the web? from your desk at UNESCO? your office at the State Department? Why would that matter? Im not trying to lecture people on how they should defend their country. You are.

14th May 2009, 03:44 PM	#233
Marc39 Banned Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 3,720	Originally Posted by parky76 and from where do you surf the web? from your desk at UNESCO? your office at the State Department? i also condemn China's genocide and occupation in Tibet. but I guess i cant do that since I surf the web at home. What of racism and persecution in the Arab and Muslim worlds. Haven't seen anything from you on this. Owned.
Marc39 Banned Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 3,720

14th May 2009, 03:45 PM	#234
Thunder Banned Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Queens Posts: 34,947	Originally Posted by scissorhands Why would that matter? Im not trying to lecture people on how they should defend their country. You are. you are right. we in the USA have no right to make suggestions. what was I thinking????

14th May 2009, 03:47 PM	#235
Marc39 Banned Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 3,720	Originally Posted by parky76 you are right. we in the USA have no right to make suggestions. what was I thinking???? No suggestions of reform in the entire Middle East, except for Israel? Owned.
Marc39 Banned Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 3,720