Germany: Israel must refrain from new settlements

[EagleKeeper]

Example of Hamas able to control the tunnels
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2010/0415/Hamas-closes-Gaza-Strip-tunnels-as-Israelis-fear-kidnapping
Taxes on goods coming through tunnels

 

[Lemon law]

Whoppee, EK observes "Isreal is not letting weapons in." As into Gaza.

But earth to EK, when EGYPT and JORDAN lose all faith in Israel and refuse to co-operate with the Israeli embargo of the West Bank and Gaza, there ain't a damn thing Israel can do about it other the cry WAA WAA WAA. That falls on totally deaf ears in the international community.

But still, Gaza rocket attacks don't increase as the Gaza economy gets a huge shot in the arm with consumer goods and cement that drops Gaza unemployment from 50% to a more manageable rate.

I have a piece of advice for you EK, don't hold your breath waiting for Egypt to reverse its policy and help Israel remove the smuggling Tunnels into Gaza. Its a win win for Gaza and Egypt. As for Israel, they always have WAA WAA WAA and nothing more.
The world reality has changed and Israel has not.

 

[Orignal Earl]

Example of Hamas able to control the tunnels
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2010/0415/Hamas-closes-Gaza-Strip-tunnels-as-Israelis-fear-kidnapping
Taxes on goods coming through tunnels

No mention of weapons in the first link

And I don't know about your second link because it also says things like *Hamas has tried to rein in rocket attacks out of Gaza*
It's making Hamas sound reasonable and that's not part of you guys propaganda
Course that paper is in the UK and the UK does not list Hamas as a terror org
Actually both links make Hamas seem reasonable

 

[cybrsage]

If the US stopped backing Israel...they be forced to negotiate...and peace would be an option.

HAMAS has the destruction of Israel as one of their non-negotiable demands. What does Israel gain from negotiating with a group whose primary demand is Israel's destruction?

 

[cybrsage]

No mention of weapons in the first link

And I don't know about your second link because it also says things like *Hamas has tried to rein in rocket attacks out of Gaza*
It's making Hamas sound reasonable and that's not part of you guys propaganda
Course that paper is in the UK and the UK does not list Hamas as a terror org
Actually both links make Hamas seem reasonable

Notice this from the first link:

Hamas officials say they will not allow Gaza to become a base for terrorist attacks in Egypt.

“This would destroy our relations with the Egyptians,” he continued. “Hamas does not oppose kidnapping Israelis, but not from Egypt.”

They do not want to piss off Egypt...so they are able to easily prevent the tunnels from being used to perform terrorst attacks in Egypt. Amazingly enough, some here claim then suddenly lose the ability to stop terrorist attacks against Israel while at the same time being able to stop terrorst attacks against Egypt.

Yeah...I agree, those who think that way are pretty silly.

 

[Orignal Earl]

Notice this from the first link:

Yeah...I agree, those who think that way are pretty silly.

You think a government can control 1.6 million people?
Can Nebraska control its people? No chance in hell of a terrorist coming out of that state?

And I'm getting too egg nogged up and more folks are piling in so until tommorrow
Merry Christmas

 

[Lemon law]

HAMAS has the destruction of Israel as one of their non-negotiable demands. What does Israel gain from negotiating with a group whose primary demand is Israel's destruction?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What a piece of prime bullshit cybrsage, please explain why Israel can pick and choose who to negotiate with and who not?

Every other nation on earth engaged in wars with other nations or terrorists groups, realizes that they may not like the entity they are at "War with" , but if they want a a peace rather than engage in a protracted war they cannot win, they have hold their nose, and negotiate with the enemy they hate if they want to end a war that is bleeding them dry also.

Its why the USA engaged in peace talks with the North Koreans, engaged in peace talks with the North Vietnamese, engaged in peace talks with Saddam Hussein at the end of Gulf war one, and now even engages in peace talks with the Taliban.

But somehow cybrsage you assert, only Israel out of all other world nations has the right to refuse to negotiate with other entities that do not like Israel.

Yet at the same you stand four square for the Israeli right to act in total hostility to any entity it does not like as Israel dedicates itself to their destruction. As a classic example may be Hamas, who democratically won the right to lead the people of Gaza. As Israel dedicates itself to the destruction of Hamas.

And now Israel suddenly discovers, the very Hamas and Gaza they tried to drive to total starvation, has resulted in EGYPT saying to Israel, we will no longer help or allow Israel to embargo Hamas.

Please join EK in your group cry of WAA WAA WAA,

 

[cybrsage]

You think a government can control 1.6 million people?

I think they can at least attempt to do it.

Can Nebraska control its people? No chance in hell of a terrorist coming out of that state?

If they had the civil rights record of HAMAS and the itty bitty border area to buard, they could probably do an amazingly great job. Remember, Israel is controlling much of the border into Gaza, so there is very little length to actually worry about. Add to it that HAMAS is the main terrorist group, and they do not care about slitting throats for no reason at all, and you get a very effective control mechanism.

And I'm getting too egg nogged up and more folks are piling in so until tommorrow
Merry Christmas

Merry Christmas to you too, hope your day is blessed and full of joy.

 

[Lonbjerg]

HAMAS has the destruction of Israel as one of their non-negotiable demands. What does Israel gain from negotiating with a group whose primary demand is Israel's destruction?

What does the bible and the rapture have to do with the real world and politics?

As long as Israel continues with their illegal settlemets I cosinder both parties for FUBAR...

 

[cybrsage]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What a piece of prime bullshit cybrsage, please explain why Israel can pick and choose who to negotiate with and who not?

EVERY nation can pick and choose who they negotiate with. What, you think nations are not allowed to do that?

Here, I will put it in a way that makes you a party to it:

You are in a bank and the bank is robbed. You are taken hostage. The hostage takers have several demands and the police negotiation unit starts talking to them.

After a bit, they are getting closer to a resolution, only there is one thing the hostage takers refuse to negotiate on. This demand is that they get to kill you. This is one demand they refuse to budge on.

In your opinion, to end the standoff, should the police say "sure, kill Lemon"? Would you support that resolution? Remember, this is a non-negotiable demand.

(Note, before you get all stupid, this is an example to help you understand the futility of negotiating with people who have as a non-negotiable demand the destruction of others. I am not saying the Middle East situation is like a bank robbery.)

 

[cybrsage]

What does the bible and the rapture have to do with the real world and politics?

Did not metion either one. HAMAS is the terrorist group which was elected to rule Gaza.

As long as Israel continues with their illegal settlemets I cosinder both parties for FUBAR...

They are not illegal, I will post the info later to show why. It is now time to open presents.

 

[Lonbjerg]

Did not metion either one. HAMAS is the terrorist group which was elected to rule Gaza.

Im not defending HAMAS...stop your bullshit of making it sound like it!

They are not illegal, I will post the info later to show why. It is now time to open presents.

Bollocks, they ar eboth illegal...and based on fucking religion.

http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1677.pdf
http://www.ochaopt.org/documents/TheHumanitarianImpactOfIsraeliInfrastructureTheWestBank_annexes.pdf
http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/global-iss...ternational-communityinternational-community/

Only ones that think they are legal...are Israel.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/03/world/middleeast/03mideast.html?_r=1

And here is the people doing the settling:

Religious fruitcakes...hoping for the "promised land" and "the rapture"...

 

[cybrsage]

Im not defending HAMAS...stop your bullshit of making it sound like it!

I never claimed you were. I am going to assume you are either in 3rd grade still and therefor have not learned enough English to understand basic sentences or that English is not your primary language.

You are reading sentences and deciding they do not mean anything close to the words which were actually used.

Bollocks, they ar eboth illegal...and based on fucking religion.

Nope, to both. The religion one is simple to counter - Israel is a secular state. They hold elections where their leaders are voted into office by citizens and these citizens are of many different religions.

You can read up on the legality here:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_law_and_Israeli_settlements#Legal_arguments

Your first link was about a wall. Last time I checked, a wall is not a settlement. No wonder you are so confused about things.

Your second link assumes those who are volutarily moving into the areas are causing natives to be forced out of the areas. The areas had no locals in them to displace or alter the makeup of.

The third just says they are illegal but offers no support for it. Fluff piece.

Also, Israel did not sign the Geneva Conventions until 1951, so anything which happened prior to then does not count at all.

Religious fruitcakes...hoping for the "promised land" and "the rapture"...

Support for that? Or are you just being a bigot again?

 

[Lonbjerg]

Your first link was about a wall. Last time I checked, a wall is not a settlement. No wonder you are so confused about things.

When you only read the title or the first paragraph, it's no wonder you are so confused about things.

Your second link assumes those who are volutarily moving into the areas are causing natives to be forced out of the areas. The areas had no locals in them to displace or alter the makeup of.

When you only read the title or the first paragraph, it's no wonder you are so confused about things.

The third just says they are illegal but offers no support for it. Fluff piece.

When you are cluess about the first two links, no wonder you think that the UK foreign office havn't got a clue

Also, Israel did not sign the Geneva Conventions until 1951, so anything which happened prior to then does not count at all.

So the settlements stopped in 1951?

Are you a religious fruitcake?

 

[JEDIYoda]

Are you a religious fruitcake?

He perfectly sane! It seems to em as if your Fruitcake!!

 

[Lonbjerg]

He perfectly sane! It seems to em as if your Fruitcake!!

Since that triggered you, I take you are one of the religious nutters that keeps feeding the fire in the middleeast?

 

[cybrsage]

Listen to this youtube link so you can really understand it. It is short and easy to understand.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGYxLWUKwWo

Just some quick tidbits:

Israel did not take any land from a nation called Palestine. There has never been a nation called Palestine.
Israel took land from Jordan - which was illegally occupying Judeah and Samaria (they called it the West Bank). No nation recognized Jordan's claim to the land - not even any of the other Arab nations.
UN Resolution 181 was accepted by Jews but not by Arabs so the Arabs launched a war against the Jews.
The "1967 border" was actually setup in 1949, but the Arabs claims this border had no political significance. This means the territores are NOT occupied, but rather DISPUTED territories because there were no previous legal soveriegn in the area to have taken the territories from. Judge Stephen Schwebel, prior President of the International Court of Justice, hold this legal view, so it is not just some crackpot idea.

 

[cybrsage]

When you only read the title or the first paragraph, it's no wonder you are so confused about things.

When you only read the title or the first paragraph, it's no wonder you are so confused about things.

When you are cluess about the first two links, no wonder you think that the UK foreign office havn't got a clue

When you do not quote the relevant portion, I will start at the beginning of your link. When the first paragraph shows it is not relevant, I stop reading.

Quote the portions you say are relevant, include the link to said portions, and then I can read the portions you claim are relevant.

So the settlements stopped in 1951?

Nevel claimed they did. I simply stated that anything prior to 1951 is irrelevant, to prevent you from using said info in any discussion when it related to the four Geneva Conventions.

 

[cybrsage]

Since that triggered you, I take you are one of the religious nutters that keeps feeding the fire in the middleeast?

If you remove the bigotry and idiotic statements from your posts, you will have a far stronger position from which to argue. Using derogatory statements against an entire race or religion as your supporting evidence shows you actually have no valid or logical supporting evidence.

This works in all cases, not just this specific one.

But please, feel free to minimize your own position by basing your reasoning in bigotry and hatred rather than rational facts.

 

[Lonbjerg]

When you do not quote the relevant portion, I will start at the beginning of your link. When the first paragraph shows it is not relevant, I stop reading.

Quote the portions you say are relevant, include the link to said portions, and then I can read the portions you claim are relevant.

The entire links are relevant...this isn't Fox News...no TL;DR version for religious hillbillies...

Nevel claimed they did. I simply stated that anything prior to 1951 is irrelevant, to prevent you from using said info in any discussion when it related to the four Geneva Conventions.

We are debating events AFTER 1951...wake up.

 

[cybrsage]

The entire links are relevant...this isn't Fox News...no TL;DR version for religious hillbillies...

I noticed you refuse to quote the relevant portions. This means you refuse to support yourself, especially in light of you already saying the first paragraph of your links has nothing to do with what you are saying.

You want me to blindly believe you, but that is silly. No one but your pet northern cavefish blindly believes you...and that is because northern cavefish are actually blind, so it has no choice...it is also very lacking in intelligence, which is a requirement to blindly believe you.

 

[Lonbjerg]

I noticed you refuse to quote the relevant portions. This means you refuse to support yourself, especially in light of you already saying the first paragraph of your links has nothing to do with what you are saying.

You want me to blindly believe you, but that is silly. No one but your pet northern cavefish blindly believes you...and that is because northern cavefish are actually blind, so it has no choice...it is also very lacking in intelligence, which is a requirement to blindly believe you.

I notice you refuse to read links...nice fallacy though.

That you have the attention span of a twat is your problem not mine.

My guess is that superstion ate you neurons *shrugs*

 

[cybrsage]

...lots of words that do nothing to support my position...

I am willing to discuss these issues with you, but without you actively supporting yourself there is nothing to discuss.

Post your link and quote the relevant portion you wish me to read. It is not hard to do. You complained that I only read the portion that was irrelevant to the discussion...so simply post the relevant portions and we can continue.

Until you do such, there is nothing to discuss. You might as well post a link to Bing and call it a win.

 

[Lonbjerg]

I am willing to discuss these issues with you, but without you actively supporting yourself there is nothing to discuss.

Post your link and quote the relevant portion you wish me to read. It is not hard to do. You complained that I only read the portion that was irrelevant to the discussion...so simply post the relevant portions and we can continue.

Until you do such, there is nothing to discuss. You might as well post a link to Bing and call it a win.

You just keep whining and avoid the links with lots of difficult words.
Like I said...only Israel think that the settlements are legal..and that is even spilltin the country, which has beentaken hostage by relious nutter and their retarded superstition...and backed by other relious nutter from the US.

The problem is religous nutters poluting the real world with their superstion...not politics.

But you run off...bbecause even the first line in your own link says this:

The international community considers the establishment of Israeli settlements in the Israeli-occupied territories illegal under international law.

Only Israel thinks tehy are legal.
You mentioned 1951.
The territories in mention where occupied in 1967.

So both loigc, law and math are concepts you have difficulty with :thumbsdown:

 

[JEDIYoda]

You just keep whining and avoid the links with lots of difficult words.
Like I said...only Israel think that the settlements are legal..and that is even spilltin the country, which has beentaken hostage by relious nutter and their retarded superstition...and backed by other relious nutter from the US.

The problem is religous nutters poluting the real world with their superstion...not politics.

But you run off...bbecause even the first line in your own link says this:

The international community considers the establishment of Israeli settlements in the Israeli-occupied territories illegal under international law.

Only Israel thinks tehy are legal.
You mentioned 1951.
The territories in mention where occupied in 1967.

So both loigc, law and math are concepts you have difficulty with :thumbsdown:

You can spout off and be ignorant all you want! But what the International community thinks does not matter in the least bit!!
What international law says doesn`t matter at all! In fact anything having to do with the International Community as well as International Law is a huge Joke!!

International anything Only works if the International Community as a whole abides by whatever is international Law!

The International Community has no hold or way force Israel to abide by International law!

Hell even Russia and the United States and even China ignore International law when it opposes what is in their best interest.

International law, International Community, The UN, Kentucky Fried Chicken are all a huge joke with no teeth whatsoever.

So regardless of your ranting and raving it`s all a huge Joke!!

And don`t be a idiot and try to tell my how important international Law is and how we must abide by it...lol..leave that for LEMON LAW!!