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.
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Hamas & Israel Cease-Fire. Hamas Violates cease-fire.
- Thread starter yairhol
- Start date
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
Philosopher
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2004
- Messages
- 9,798
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?
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.
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.
webfusion
Philosopher
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2004
- Messages
- 9,798
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.
(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
Masterblazer
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.
Nor, I.
The Israeli settlements are legal, so, you have, in effect, cited one wrong, involving Hamas terrorism, which I wholeheartedly agree with.
webfusion
Philosopher
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2004
- Messages
- 9,798
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.
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
Humanistic Cyborg
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2005
- Messages
- 10,375
Quick! Assert it enough times, and it MUST become true!
Prove me wrong.
Are you oblivious to the illegal Palestinian construction, or, is your agenda entirely anti-Israel in nature?
webfusion
Philosopher
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2004
- Messages
- 9,798
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.
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.
Last edited:
Praktik
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2007
- Messages
- 5,244
Not to me.
I see no proof of this bias from any of webfusion's posts.
Why dont you prove it to me, huh?
Last edited:
mortimer
NWO Janitor
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2004
- Messages
- 3,517
No, because you made the claim. JREFers are expected to back up their claims with evidence.
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:
Someone who posts accusing Israel of illegal settlement without doing the same with regard to Arab settlement, is, IMO, demonstrating anti-Israel bias.