Let's be frank and honest about this. This whole "Jordan Is Palestine" stuff is just an attempt to justify the forced removal of Palestinian Christians, Muslims and Druze from their ancestral home. Singer is little more than an apologist for the Israeli loony fundamentalist Right who think that G-d has turned into their real estate agent. Anyone who believes this tripe is obviously the victim of a brain explosion.

Actually, the 'ancestral' home of ALL Palestinians is Syria, the original province of the Turkish Empire which included present day Syria, Jordan, Lebanon and Israel. The 'ancestral' home you speak of is an invention of the British Colonial Office, which drew the boundaries by reference to the political imperatives of the day, such as France insisting on ownership of Lebanon & Syria and ensuring that the leader of the Bedouin who had assisted the British Armies was rewarded with the new kingdom of Transjordan which took in some 80% of the mandated area after the boundaries of Syria and Lebanon had been decided upon. The reward promised to the Arabs under the Balfour declaration was originally to be that of Transjordan (the only Arab leader to actively support the British in the area - the Mufti most assuredly did not).

That being so, it is eminently arguable that the land promised to the Jews, who actively & militarily supported the British/Empire forces (eg Zion Mule Corps, which saw service in Gallipolli) in return for that support, is the remaining 20%. While the legality of the position is questionable, although with good legal support eminently arguable, the fact is that it is a prime bargaining position in any peace talks. This especially, when the basic bargaining position of the other side is and has been since 1948, that Israel was not entitled to anything (even existence).

You really must remember, International Law is not set by the UN, it is established by reference to International Legal norms. From a normative perspective, the opinions or otherwise of the actual inhabitants of 'Palestine' are irrelevant, the only opinion that counts is that of their leaders at the relevant times. Israel conquered the West Bank from Jordan, which has conceded ownership of the same to Israel, much the same way that Israel conquered the Gaza Strip from Egypt, which has made similar concessions. Quite frankly, the legality of their respective post-conquest grants of independance to the people inhabiting the same is seriously questionable.

Another strong bargaining position, eh?

Haganah Bet,

You're so clever but you've tripped yourself up.

'You really must remember, International Law is not set by the UN, it is established by reference to International Legal norms.'

Yes and one of the chief legal norms is the Geneva Convention and that expressly forbids the stealing and settlement of lands taken by conquest.

And it was the UN that mandated the state of Israel. Should we all ignore that mandate and return to the state of affairs in existance before that action? What are the international legal norms involved in the formation of a state in another peoples' homeland?

It seems you'd want to apply UN conventions only when it suits the purposes of Israel. You are damnable and oh so bloody clever!

Doh!

You blokes who insist the Palestinians and Arabs should sit meekly by and allow your weasel words and slimey land stealing be accorded prominence and legality over the rights of people who have title to the land is sickening.

It is you people who are the impediment to peace in the middle east. You are warmongers who support a fascist and racist regime. And if Olmert is any indication ... a corrupt regime.

'Bush, a strong supporter of Olmert and Israel, has generally been polite about the issue. But during an interview with Reuters on Thursday, Bush said that the outpost and settlement issue would be on his agenda as an obstacle toward progress toward peace with the Palestinians.

"I will talk about Israeli settlement expansion, about how that is, that can be, you know, an impediment to success," Bush said. "The unauthorized outposts for example need to be dismantled, like the Israelis said they would do."' George Bush Jan 2008. (nb the date, especially the year 2008 AD.)

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/01/04/africa/mideast.php

Singer is so far out of touch with the current position of George Bush and the current US administration. And he should also seek the positions of the current contenders for US president. Once the appeasement statements to the US Israeli Lobby are stripped away there is an underlying desire similar to good 'ole Georges current position.

Jeez David you need to keep up to date. The world really has woken up to you supporters of the facist and racist pariah state of Israel, and your irrelevant propaganda.

Have a read of the complete article and see what most of the world recognises and will soon start demanding. Mate the movement is coming like a tsunami.

Hagannah Bet,how can vile Zionists like you talk so glibly about the opinions of the people of Gaza and the West Bank being irrelevant just because the Arab leaders were pressured into conceding the territories to Tsrael? The lands were never theirs (that of leaders) to concede;the lands belonged to the people of Gaza and The West Bank or Transjordan. Was a plebscite ever held to determine self-determination? No. The sad thing is that it is one of the many immoral failures of the United Nations to have acquiesced so meekly to a perfidy such as we are discussing. The same thing happeneed in Kashmir despite the Indians promising to hold such a plebicite to give the 90% Muslim Kashmiris to determine their own destiny.

socratease

Keith: "Yes and one of the chief legal norms is the Geneva Convention and that expressly forbids the stealing and settlement of lands taken by conquest."

On this basis you should be equally concerned about the illegal occupation of much of Cyprus by Turkey. Or the stealing of land by Arab militias in Darfur. Or the forcing out of Hindus from Kashmir. Perhaps the ethnic cleansing of Christians from Iraq should rate a mention. Oh, that's right, the perpetrators are Muslims, so anything they do is fine by you.

Keith, here is a link to a page on the Geneva Conventions:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Conventions

Now, please tell me where in these there is a prohibition, let alone an express prohibition, on the conquest of land?

To the others, the leaders of Egypt and Jordan signed Peace Treaties for the same reason that many other countries have signed Peace Treaties - it was no longer in the best interest of their Countries to maintain a costly state of war. But, yes it is true they were pressured, both politically and militarily they had no choice.

Of course the leaders of the Countries which asserted their entitlement to the land were entitled to do so, after all, nobody rose from amongst their 'citizens' made any move to deny their sovereignty, did they? More to the point, both Egypt and Jordan were in physical, legal and actual control of Gaza and the West Bank respectively, prior to their loss of the same in 1967. That is an historical fact. They therefore, not the inhabitants of the area (who appear to have accepted such sovereignty), had sovereignty over the areas and thus were legally capable of making binding treaties in relation to the same.

The purported post-conquest grant of sovereignty to the people of the same is quite probably ineffectual, thus the transfer of ownership was completed by the entry into the peace treaties between Israel-Egypt and Israel-Jordan.

Spurious claims of legal support for arguments, where such support does not exist, do not help. If you decide to continue raising such arguments, could you please do some of your own research (NB Just some would be nice, I'm happy to narrow your point down, but a general idea would be nice).

Jeez Hag

You are clutching at straws.

Of course conquest of land isn't outlawed but the stealing and settlement of conquered land by occupiers is expressely forbidden. And I am pleased you recognise the GC as one of those norms the world applies. Now I'd expect to see you demand Israel apply it to those illegal settlements.

Viking I agree those actions are as repugnant as the actions of the Israelis, but this article only addressed the Israel question. But I'm glad you agree with me in my disgust at the Israelis too.

Keith: "...but this article only addressed the Israel question. But I'm glad you agree with me in my disgust at the Israelis too".

Hardly. I'm glad the Jews have regained their rightful and ancestral homeland. I hope they hang on to all the land they have as of now and never give into the Islamic supremacists (who are cranky because they won something by conquest and then lost it).

Disingenuity, Keith?

But you continue to state that there can be 'land-stealing' by a State, when that State owns the land, through conquest which as you concede is not illegal. The fact that that land is the subject of a peace treaty with the original owners thereof, means that the land; and the real property in it; has been transferred. That means that, although some of the settlers are dangerous ratbags, they are not criminals and the settlements are not illegal (although they may well be under Israeli law, which prohibits the building of some them) under International Law, nor is the land 'stolen', you cannot steal that which you already own.

But the thing is, none of this is an intractable position, it is a negotiating position, which means that it is the initial postion from which haggling can begin. The same with the settlements, similar settlements were set up and then dismantled in return for the Camp David accords, they are simply bargaining chips (much to the despair and disgust of the settlers). What the article points out is that the inability of the Palestinian delegates to consider compromising (always the bane of discussion and negotiation in the Middle East) will drag the whole, sorry saga out further.

PS I have no liking or anything good to say about Olmert, so please don't bring the despicable creep into the discussion.

Viking
"'...But I'm glad you agree with me in my disgust at the Israelis too'.

Hardly...."

On this basis you should be equally unconcerned about the illegal occupation of much of Cyprus by Turkey. Or the stealing of land by Arab militias in Darfur. Or the forcing out of Hindus from Kashmir. Perhaps the ethnic cleansing of Christians from Iraq shouldn't rate a mention. In fact you'd be supporting those actions as they are, as you've indicated, the same as the actions of your beloved Israelis. Oh, that's right, the perpetrators you support are Israelis, so anything they do is fine by you.

You dope, you can't so blatantly express such ideas to have it both ways so openly! It leaves you open to ridicule.

Jeez Hag

Back to your old weasel words argument. Why do you need to argue yourself in circles?

And hey thanks! I perused that reference to that international norm that you told the world forms the basis of international law and guess what I found?

' Right of return
Article 49. The second paragraph of Article 49 provides that persons displaced during armed conflict must be transferred back to their homes as soon as hostilities in the area in question have ceased. This right of displaced persons is often referred to as the "right of return" and has been reaffirmed in later international treaties and conventions. State Practice also establishes this rule as a norm of customary international law, according to the International Committee of the Red Cross.'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Geneva_Convention#Section_I._Provisions_common_to_the_territories_of_the_parties_to_the_conflict_and_to_occupied_territories

How'd ya like them apples mate? I'm still laughing ... in derision.

Keith, you did some research? See, just a little bit of work can make the world a whole lot less of a daunting place, yes?

Yes, the Palestinian People have a right of return to the areas granted them under the 1948 Partition Plan. Israel does not stop them doing so.* Those villager's who remained inside the 1948 boundaries are entitled to remain there, but those who decamped to the Palestinian areas under that plan are not so entitled. They are deemed to have chosen to migrate to the Palestinian areas and are bound by that choice.

The noise surrounding the 'Right of Return' is just that, noise. It relates to the ongoing attempts by certain organisations to suggest that it entitles Palestinian's to return to those areas granted to Israel under binding International Agreement. Such suggestions are spurious, especially given that the same bodies make such mileage out of the fact that the same agreement granted areas to the Palestinian People.

But what it boils down to, is that the Palestinian People can have something, or they can hold out for everything and get nothing. The latter suits the Palestinian Authority (Fatah/PLO), as it allows them to continue to serve and accumulate personal wealth at the expense of their fellow Arabs. Quite frankly, the Arab world is incapable of imposing anything upon Israel which Israel is not willing to give, so compromise is necessary in order to proceed. What the article is about is their intransigence upon the subject, please try to keep up.

* With the minor but important caveat that if the person is one who has taken up arms against the State (or actively supported those that have), they are no longer a civilian/refugee and not entitled to the Right of Return, they have demonstrated their unwillingness to live in peace with the government and unless they can 'PROVE' the opposite, they have lost their right to return (well, at least until a Palestinian State is a reality).

As to the intransigence alluded to above, the sheer lack of understanding is awe-inspiring, here is part of the text from the UN Partition Plan (Resolution 181):

"Chapter 3: Citizenship, International Conventions and Financial Obligations
1. Citizenship

Palestinian citizens residing in Palestine outside the City of Jerusalem, as well as Arabs and Jews who, not holding Palestinian citizenship, reside in Palestine outside the City of Jerusalem shall, upon the recognition of independence, become citizens of the State in which they are resident and enjoy full civil and political rights. Persons over the age of eighteen years may opt, within one year from the date of recognition of independence of the State in which they reside, for citizenship of the other State, providing that no Arab residing in the area of the proposed Arab State shall have the right to opt for citizenship in the proposed Jewish State and no Jew residing in the proposed Jewish State shall have the right to opt for citizenship in the proposed Arab State. The exercise of this right of option will be taken to include the wives and children under eighteen years of age of persons so opting.

...

http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Peace+Process/Guide+to+the+Peace+Process/UN+General+Assembly+Resolution+181.htm"

Recognition of Independence was delayed until the entry into treaties by Jordan and Egypt. Anybody residing in the Palestinian State(s) at that time is deemed to be a citizen of the same. They have no right to opt to take out citizenship of Israel if they are Arabs. Fairly simple I would have thought? Puts the 'Right of Return' under Resolution 194 into perspective does it not? Because unless the individuals concerned where 'residing' inside the borders of Israel (as per UN Res.181), they have no right to return anywhere but the Palestinian areas (id).

Hey Hag

What a load of codswallop.

You don't research. You merely look for rubbish to enhance your long winded fabrications.

Wikipedia isn't research. It's a lazy fools way of justifying their outlandish and unthoughtout assertions.

The Geneva Convention which you cited as one of the norms that forms International Law is quite explicit on refugee return and stealing and settling land. It surprised me you'd given me so much explosive ammunition. But there again I shouldn't have been surprised as you really arn't all that bright.

You should read the Conventions sometime. It might help you to see the idiocy of your support for the Israeli propaganda position.

Why my most learned friend, wherever did I say that I researched ANYTHING on wikipedia? I resort to wikipedia for nothing more than demonstrating a point to ignorant cretins without the wit to conduct their own research. To put it bluntly, I have referenced primary materials from the UN archives more times than I suspect you can count (ie. more than twice).

There is such a thing as ethics, it applies to rational, reasoned argument the same way it applies to life. It requires that the protagonists are willing to maintain some rationality and adhere to minimum standards of conduct, etc. Amongst other things, it precludes them continuing to espouse points/arguments which have been demonstrated conclusively to be false and/or misleading.*

Now, if the above diatribe was launched because a page on wikipedia said something similar to what I said above, that is as maybe. I personally have edited several wikipages and make no apology for that. Also, given that the material in my previous post would appear to completely negate the problems posed to Israel by UNRES 194, I have taken steps to disseminate the information as widely as possible.

PS As regards native intelligence, you may be right - I have a piece of paper which says mine puts me at the percentile ranking of 991/1000 (pesky bell curve).

* Such minima also preclude attempting to discredit your opponents argument, by making personal attacks upon that person, or by denigrating their intelligence. I will forgive you that, because quite frankly I have struggled to maintain the same throughout this post.

HaganahBet>"* With the minor but important caveat that if the person is one who has taken up arms against the State (or actively supported those that have), they are no longer a civilian/refugee and not entitled to the Right of Return

In whose opinion? Honestly this is complete crap. But keep telling yourself that. What you preclude from the discussion is of extreme importance.

ISRAEL IS ILLEGALLY OCCUPYING PALESTINE

Now how many Israelis are part of THAT crime and the crimes flowing from it? The whole government, and nearly all Israelis as they are required to have military service. So where does that put your pretentious argument, Hanagah Bet? To me, it's meaningless and completely hypocritical.

Hey Hag

It seems to me Hag that anyone who disagrees with your propaganda positions are cretins.

Currently, and especially since the crushing defeat in Lebanon, (Propaganda and military defeat) that appears to be most of the world. It seems to include your PM Olmet, 'ole George and the Europeans. Soon I expect you'll be very lonely with your current propaganda inspired mindset and weasel word games. You will be completely overwhelmed by the US, the UN and international law opinions and including of course the rest of us cretins, both uneducated and educated.

But of course you with all your super intelligence haven't the intellect to perceive the way the winds of peace and change are blowing. That is especially accentuated by your subterrainian fortified bunker mentality.

Oh good, I was concerned that the person concerned would have difficulty recognising themself...

Keith first,

so what precisely are 'weasel words'? It seems that the definition does not include the rather bizarre interpretation of UN Resolution 194, Art.11 favoured by yourself, but does include a realistic interpretation of UN Resolution 181? So your problem is (a) with anything which is in Israel's favour; or (b) with anything to do with realism and/or reality?

As to Olmert and the politically inspired idiocy indulged in during the Lebanon campaign, the facts are beginning to come out and they are truly disturbing as to the effectiveness of political appointees during the same. Then again, that is what happens with poor choices for leadership.

Now while on the subject of national leaders, can you please justify the invasion of Iraq by yours? That same person's refusal to 'apologise' to the indigenous owners of this Country?

What is that? You cannot because you don't agree with what that person did?

Touche.

Steel,

The rather bizarre interpretation of UN Resolution 194, Art.11 has been the sticking point in virtually all negotiations which would fix your 'illegal occupation'.* The need for a just & equitable solution to the same is paramount, one derived from the UN Partition Plan (which was introduced to prevent the loss of the essential character of the two states by forced migration from one to the other in the first place) is potentially a good option.

The intransigence on this point (as is the premise of the article) demonstrates the unwillingness of the Palestinian groups to negotiate, they want it all or nothing. As long as they continue to insist upon the one thing no Israeli politician CAN concede, the longer they will receive the latter. The longer the occupation, the longer Fatah/PLO gets fat on the misery of their people. They have no interest in changing the status quo.

* Without dealing with the point, which has been dealt with ad nauseum elsewhere.

'...persons displaced during armed conflict must be transferred back to their homes as soon as hostilities in the area in question have ceased.'

Geneva Convention IV Right of return.

This Hag unlike you refers to individuals and their homes.

It is not as your weasel words arguments try to paint it as a question about whether their homes are in one state or another. Or whether they are 'allowed' only to reside in a state where their homes arn't.

All your abuse just re-inforces the fact you cannot overcome your intellectual deficieny. You cannot agrue black is white or that the right of return to one's home means you have no right to return to your home and expec t people to accept your piece of paper shows your intelligence or intellect is superior to even the dumbest of us cretins.

Oh dear me Hag.

You keep shooting yourself in the foot. I am on the public record for supporting the invasion of Iraq. I always believed if a little bit of our Liberal Democratic traditions were implanted and took root somewhere in the middle east most of the inhabitants of the region would come to abandon the dogmas of their outdated religions. Except of course in Israel where idiocy knows no bounds. A place where black is argued as being white and proponents and sprukers of such positions claim to be of greater intelligence ... because pieces of paper say so...
A place where the leader is chastised, not for attacking the soverign territory of another country, but is attacked for his incompentence in appointing the wrong leadership to the army that failed to win and had to withdraw in the face of world condemnation... And that argument from a man who claims a piece of paper shows his level of intelligence.

Tell me Hag do you hate Olmert because he failled to kill all Hezbollah and has allowed them to become politically and militarily stronger or because he just wants to kill people? Or is it because as PM he reflects the corrupt nature of Israel?

Keith, hostilities ceased in 1993. Upon the cessation of hostilities anybody living within the Palestinian areas only 'home' is the Palestinian areas. You cannot displace the effect of UN Res.181 merely by repeating the same old argument incessantly (the same way the Palestinians do as a matter of fact).

As to Olmert, his imposition of pointless, politically motivated restrictions (Vietnam type actually) upon the military and the idiotic choice of targets that saw an armoured brigade set out to reach the Litani 4 days after setting itself to do that, and then being stopped by Olmert & Co (while Hezbollah took the opportunity to prepare the strongest concentration of anti-armour missiles the IDF had yet encountered in the constricted zone they would have to travel through). Deciding to send them after all, 4 days late, without artillery and infantry, in order to make a political statement... That is criminal, so too were the massive casualties.

But enough of that, I admit, I am suprised that you supported the war in Iraq, although I ain't suprised at the reasoning behind it. Tell me, why do you think Saddam Hussein felt the need to use such tactics, including chemical weapons, against his own people? Surely even you saw some warning signs there? What about the Kurds, didn't you wonder why the Turks keep several divisions in the hills specifically to combat them? What about the assisination of the Lebanese Prime Minister?

Pray tell me, I'd dearly like to understand how, in your mind, the middle east works and could be made better. News flash, even if Israel weren't there, there would not be peace, not in that area.

Hag

The answer is simple and one only need look to the working peace treaties between Egypt and Israel and Jordan and Israel. There is an intregity to the borders, there are no occupations and there are guarantees of security.

That case could easily be applied to a Palestinian state and Israel. The problem of the settlements is simple. They are and would be in soverign Palestinian territory and under the control of a Palenstinian Government. Inhabitants would have dual citizenship. Israeli and Palestinian. Any stolen land would necessarily be returned to the original Palenstinian owners and those displaced could be regared not as criminals but as refugees with the right to return home to Israel.

Reparations for the destruction of Palestinain homes and property during the occupation would need to be made by Israel.



Without the antagonism of the Israeli Occupation I think we'd see peace right across the mid East. It is no chance with the current occupation, landstealing and illegal settlements.

I think the Israelis should recognise the right of return but no return should be allowed. That should be negotiated in exchange for reparations to refugees or their families who wish to exercise the right of return.

So simple see.

Yes historically the holy land has been a hotbed of revolution, conquest, occupation and violence. I once thought nuking the place would be the obvious and permanant solution.

Keith, ok so there appears to be a solid consensus on at least a couple of points - are you aware, that barring the insistence on the full right of return in its fullest possible effect, the same was demanded and given the Palestinians (PLO) at Oslo? Are you aware that the PLO refused the same, unless Barak granted them the full right of return? Which of course Barak could not do, as there was no way he had a mandate to do so (pesky liberal democratic principles).

The reason he had no mandate to do so, the problem is that allowing 5 million Palestinians to take up Israeli citizenship would be the end of Israel (contrary to the purpose of UN Resolution 181 and the specific restrictions upon citizenship contained therein may I add), thus bringing to fruition the stated main aim of both the PLO & HAMAS.

Less the bizarre reading of UNRES 194, or by reading it as subject to UNRES 181 (as it most assuredly is), there is a chance for peace, failing that there is none.

But I repeat, everything you suggested has already been offered - money, reparation, compensation, withdrawal of troops, a Palestinian State, etc. They were refused, thus the article you are commenting upon.

I think keith describers you well when he says you use weasel words. That is a very apt description of your posts here.

Hag>"But I repeat, everything you suggested has already been offered - money, reparation, compensation, withdrawal of troops, a Palestinian State, etc. They were refused, thus the article you are commenting upon."

Hag>"The intransigence on this point (as is the premise of the article) demonstrates the unwillingness of the Palestinian groups to negotiate, they want it all or nothing. As long as they continue to insist upon the one thing no Israeli politician CAN concede,"

Reconcile those comments if you can. You are not wrong on everything (of course) Hanagah Bet, but you are heavily biased on a particular issue.

Huh?

The Palestinians were 'OFFERED' everything Keith and they had ever asked for, except for the Right of Return, which could not be given without causing a civil war in Israel.

They refused.

That is called intransigence, because they could have had an end to all of the concerns that you hold so dear, but would prefer to ignore these gains in favour of destroying Israel.

The original notion underlying Res.181 was to cause migration of Jews to the Jewish State and Arabs to the Arab State. Then each would sooner or later recognise the other, at which point in time, citizenship would be decided by virtue of where each resided on that date.

The UN explicitly prohibited members of either side opting for citizenship of the other State in order to preclude the overwhelming of one by the other through demographic shift. In short, having migrated, the members of each side were prohibited from changing their minds.

Guess what? It worked. Maybe the Palestinians would have been best served by taking legal advice before abandoning their homes/farms and departing for the Arab State. Arrafat should certainly have done so before 'recognising' the State of Israel. The fact is, they didn't.

Caveat emptor.

Look Hag

Here it is in black and white ... again... sigh

'...persons displaced during armed conflict must be transferred back to their homes as soon as hostilities in the area in question have ceased.'

Geneva Convention IV Right of return.

It screams in defiance of your mumbled weasel words.

Barak never offered anything. It is the subject of rumour. And you are indulging in that too.

Is there nothing you can't try and twist.

In the good old Australian tradition I'm givng you a nick name.
'Hagweasel'

Yeah of course, the whole thing is a rumour - that is why the PLO stopped asking/demanding a Palestinian State, the withdrawal of troops, etc. immediately thereafter... That is not the reason for the incessant demands for the right of return...

Yup, its a conspiracy... It was 'them' that made it up simply to dupe poor unfortunates...

But I'll tell you what I think, it is people like you and the PLO who don't actually care what happens to the unfortunates who live in the West Bank/Gaza, but who want to continue the problem so as to enable them/you to continue to try and score points off Israel.

You are just like 'em, you don't want peace - you want Israel to disappear, at least admit it.

Let me repeat, the Palestinian's you are so concerned about, did not live in the State of Israel (even the '48 boundaries) when the State was recognised by arrafat (13/09/1993) they resode in the Palestinian areas (48 boundaries) and thus are entitled to citizenship of the Palestinian State ONLY. They have no ability to opt for citizenship of Israel if they are Arab. So sad, too bad. They are only likely to be awarded any compensation if they can PROVE that they were expelled by the IDF directly.

Show me where in UNRES 194, the UN expressly and explicitly overrode the specific provisions and restrictions enacted by it under UNRES 181. I doubt you can, in fact I'd be extremely interested in seeing if anybody can.

Oh dear me, Hagweasel!

You really have sunk to new lows.

"You are just like 'em, you don't want peace - you want Israel to disappear, at least admit it."

Oh please ... I am on the public record stating I believe Israel should exist and be guaranteed security ... within the '67 borders.

But that's typical of you propagandists. Lie and lie and lie. Gobbels would be truely proud of you.

As for scoring points ... that's what your weasel words are all about. I'm straightforward and criticise Israeli actions because they are degrading, cause death and injury and do great harm to individuals ... who are not your disparaging "'em" but simply people.

You simply use weasel words to argue Israel's right to conquer, steal and illegally settle land and eject individuals who are different.

You also claim intelligence is evidenced by a few scribbles on a piece of paper ... a bit like saying God gave me title to this land because it says so in my book.

On top of that you cast aspersions, deal in rumour and tell outright lies.

OK, I deal in lies?

Where is the clever and well reasoned response that was called for?

Please, before trying to take the topic off to wherever you normally take it with your obfuscatory crap, please:

(1) Tell everyone, in specific detail, of where under (a) International Law; (b) UN Resolutions; and/or (c) the Geneva Conventions - Israel has acted illegally in 'stealing' land?

(2) What specific provision of ANY UN Resolution specifically addresses and eplicitly, expressly and intentionally overrides the provision of UN Resolution 181, which with remarkable exactitude, specifies EXACTLY who is entitled to Israeli citizenship (ie. not anyone who was residing in the West Bank/Gaza on 13 September 1993, they automatically received Palestinian citizenship on that date and as such are NO LONGER REFUGEES - they have nationality, they are also disentitled to Israeli citizenship by their (i) place of residence on that date; and (ii) their ethnicity, as per UN General Assembly Resolution 181, Part 1.C, Chapter 3(1)).

When you feel able to address these two points with researched argument, please feel free to respond, I will be quite happy to debate the issue with you. Until then, I really do not regard the argument as being worth the bandwidth.

PS I would also like to see a denial by any reputable source that the points I suggested above were offered to Arrafat at Oslo. You will not find it, although it will be merely not mentioned by the support crew for the PLO.

I hold basically no hope that you will even make an attempt to do somehting other than you have already done or merely repeat your same tired, old and rehashed crap arguments (that you read somewhere or heard somewhere, who knows). People without the ability to formulate their own arguments are impossible to argue with, they are loath to alter anything becuase they don't quite understand how it works to begin with.

Here is a new word for you. With your piece of paper you'd probably not need to look it up in a dictionary or on the net. Eh?

Obdurate.

You to a T.

Cannot do it, huh?

Here is a nickname for you, WOFTSAB (Waste Of Time, Space And Bandwidth).

Hagweasel,

Why would I bother, you'd deny my argument regardless. You'd be too damned obdurate to accept anything other than an intrepretation supporting your assertions ... and to attempt a debate with that in mind would be a truely cruel and pointless exercise ... and limiting.

Surely you realise you display the limits of your vocabulary and intellect if the best you can do is a simple nonsensical acronym.

Who me, obdurate?

No.

All I want is to see if you can find ANYTHING to support ANY of your repeated assertions, I mean the same must exist, I am a liar and propagandist after all?

All I ask is that the 'evidence' you find, meets the criteria detailed on the previous page, which given that would form the most basic requirement for establishing the truth of your assertions, seems eminently reasonable.

In return, I am willing to go on record as saying that I will happily concede to you any point you are able to prove definatively, or in the absence of definitive proof, that what you are able to establish would consitute even an arguable proof of the same.

I think that is very reasonable, after all you have access to a PC and 'google', thus you can draw upon the collected works of the Palestinian Lobby in establishing your argument. See I'm not even asking you to develop your own argument, although I do expect you to do some research.

I am sure that next time I check this topic, instead of seeing something addressing these points, all I will see is another bunch of excuses why you cannot fulfill these simple conditions. In which case, I will know that you truly deserve your new nickname and will know that you have nothing,

See it is true, an empty vessel really does make the most noise...

Look Hag

Here it is in black and white ... again...and again ... sigh ... and from a source you quoted and referenced.

'...persons displaced during armed conflict must be transferred back to their homes as soon as hostilities in the area in question have ceased.'

Geneva Convention IV Right of return.

Repeat again ... obdurate.

OK WOFTSAB,

So that is the very best you have?

Nothing on the supposed 'theft' of land? Nothing on the 'illegal' occupation of land? Nothing to support your assertion that I am a 'liar' and a 'propagandist' or to show that what was turned down by the PLO at Oslo was something other than 'statehood', 'complete autonomy', 'a complete pullout of the IDF', etc?

Just the reiteration of the tired old excuse for an answer that is UN Resolution 194, Art.11 (actually part thereof) which is not accompanied by that which was specified, namely some evidence that the UN General Assembly expressly and intentionally passed that resolution in order to override the specific, extremely detailed UN Res.181 (passed only a year earlier). Given the nature of your reference, obviously you, like the PLO, would like that Article construed as if it existed entirely in a vacuum (contrary to the basic principles of International Law and the construction of all legal documents except one-off contracts), which is sort of unlikely.

Nonetheless, it is an argument which is raised ad nauseum, so I'll give you some credit for finding at least a semi-viable argument. However, if you wish to raise it with any expectation of being taken seriously, you'll need to show why it should be construed without reference to UN Res.181, Part I.C, Ch.3(1), because when it is construed conformably with that, it is essentially meaningless and of no apparent affect whatever.*

However, as you failed to find any support for your assertion that I am a liar, propagandist, etc. or that Israel is illegally occupying land or has stolen land, your continual suggestion that this is so, makes the nickname valid.

How'd'yalike'dem'apples WOFTSAB?

* Remember, what we are dealing with here is the classical definition of 'refugee', which requires that people be out of the State of which they are a citizen. Under 181(I)(C)(3)(1), all residents of the Palestinian territories are citizens of the State they are in, Palestine, thus do not fall under the definition.

Hagweasel

This is just so boring.

First you qoute the Geneva Convention but rail against or try to ignore or deride those provisions not in Israel's interest, then you quote a couple of UN resolutions but ignore the vast majority that aren't in Israel's interest... get the drift?

Or do I have to put it more simply to you?

How do you view the embracing of Assad by France and the French efforts to reach understanding ... something you'll rant against of course. And did yopu see that fool Olmert and his shaking hands with the other mid East out of touch fool? Don't they realise the world has finally taken notice of the Palestinians and their rights and expectations and that power has shifted to Hamas and Hezbollah in the mid East?

Sheesh then the Yanks, your best Allie, start talking openly with Iran. Astonishing Eh?

What do you think all this means to you and your silly old out of date fundamentalist religious crackpots. What it means is that you are arguing yesterdays arguments and we've all moved on to real issues. There are ineffective inhabitants in backwaters all over this world. You are one of them.

You make me laugh as much as the bloke I met fishing in the Great Sandy Straits in Queensland early Tuesday. I was sailing. He was in a small boat fishing. I saw a big shark and motored over to him and informed him. He said. F..k the bastards got my breakfast again. He looked so sad ... I gave him all my eggs ... a dozen. So sad, so pathetic, so isolated.