The writer says "The first objective [ie, the return of 1948 Palestinian refugees to former homes and properties inside Green Line Israel], ..., is completely incompatible with a two state solution since it undermines the right of Israel as a sovereign state to determine its own immigration policies."

Does he really think the return of refugees to their own former homes should be equated to the immigration of newcomers? Is he trying to deceive his readers on this - hoping they won't devote any intelligent thought to the issue? Or is he so blinded by his prejudice that he just doesn't see things straight?

Article suffers from being over-stuffed with details on the run - without explaining early on why the issue is important.

Any reader who is not a Palestinian political specialist is left wondering "So what?"

It's all very criticising bds but the author fails to mention the reason for it or any alternative. While the Palestinians may not be clear on whether a one state or two state solution is best, it seems the Israelis are simply opting for the status quo. One state where Jews and some Palestinians have rights while millions of Palestinians live under a military occupation. As long as this situation is maintained, Israel can continue to install Jewish settlers on Palestinian land. Around half a million so far

Rhys, what you fail to understand there is no what you term 'Palestinian land'

There is no race of people called Palestinians, the same as there is no country, nor has there ever been by the name of Palestine.

1948, Israel proclaimed independence. Arabs choose war rather than accept the partition of Palestine between its Jewish and Arab populations. Five armies attacked the fledgling State of Israel. 6,373 Israelis were killed but despite that they were triumphant.

1967 Israel offered to relinquish the land for peace with its neighbours, the response issued at a summit in Khartoum, was not one NO, but three:

“No peace with Israel, no negotiations with Israel, no recognition of Israel."

2000 Camp David offered Arabs a sovereign state with shared control of Jerusalem and billions of dollars compensation for Arab refugees. Arafat refused the offer, instead launched the deadly terror war known as the Second Intifada.

2008 Olmert offered Abbas a peace agreement that would have guaranteed a Palestinian state in virtually all Judaea, Samaria, and Gaza, also part of Jerusalem.

Once again, the Palestinians turned down the offer.

There are no millions living under military occupation. I have no idea where you get that from.

As of September this year there are some 1,670,000 Israeli Arabs. They live a normal life within the general community, voting, working playing, being educated etc. with full rights in every walk of life.

Area C in Judaea and Samaria some 48,000 Arabs live and certainly not under "military occupation" as you put it, but it is under Israeli control according to the Oslo Accords. They are free to go about there daily lives as they wish.

Area B is largely empty and under joint control with little Israeli presence.

Area A is under PA control, with no Israeli presence and some 1.8 million Arabs live there.

What sent the Palestinians backwards was the refusal by Abbas and the PLO to accept that Hamas won the last election!

The Israelis and the Yanks seized upon this sordid event and bowed to the traitor who sold out the Palestinians. They then used Abbas to divide and conquer.

Since that time, the Israelis have become more brazen, more brutal, more imperial and they are building settlements in the West Bank like there is no tomorrow!

Arafat knew there was no way to achieve anything for the Palestinians except by the use of force. He understood that the Israelis could talk underwater and that all their promises were empty. He knew that they did understand cold steel and bullets and that the Palestinians would never achieve anything except by military force!

The Palestinians need to put the broom through the PLO, get rid of all the collaborators, then hold new elections. If they do this, they can once again present a united front, work together as a people to fight against the sixty-plus year occupation.

And I mean FIGHT using all means!

What is extreme about objecting to Israeli oppression via white phosphorous bombs and theft of land/freedoms ?