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.