'...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took root somewhere in the middle east most of the inhabitants of the region would come to abandon the dogmas of their outdated religions.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.