Strewth:

1)I suggest debating the issues, not trading insults. Name-calling lowers the level of dialogue and serves no constructive purpose.

2)Res. 194 refers to all refugees created by the conflict, not just Palestinian refugees; talks about other issues, as well; and whether you feel it was emasculated is irrelevant.

Not only do you and I have problems with 194, but so do Palestinians. For example, it demands free access to holy places where the PA prevents Jewish prayer, and calls for the internationalization and demilitarization of some areas now claimed by or under PA control (including the suggested capital of Palestine). Palestinians generally oppose its recommendations re refugees when those refugees are Jews. Palestinians want an unconditional right of return for Palestinian refugees, while the resolution lists conditions: that return be limited to those who wish to live at peace with their neighbors, that their return not be immediate but only "at the earliest practicable date"; and that there be an option of compensating refugees for lost property. Perhaps most significant, the resolution only refers to the refugees themselves, not their descendents.

There is no contradiction between UN members having "reaffirmed" the resolution and not being interested in implementing it.

Here is more food for thought about 194: http://web.israelinsider.com/Views/2654.htm

3)85% of Palestine's population at the time" did not become refugees, and if there was ethnic cleansing, it was in both directions. And what I wrote earlier stands: Res. 194 wouldn't change what happened in 1948; and one need not support ethnic cleansing to oppose Res. 194, or oppose ethnic cleansing to support Res. 194.

4)"See 5" is a non sequitur.

5)The temporary flight of refugees from the conflict zone was in both directions--Lebanese civilians went north; Israeli civilians south. It was not "ethnic cleansing."

6)“I've actually been calling on our Zionistas to disassociate themselves from this most troubling practice, so far without result.” Not true. When we say we oppose ethnic cleansing, you pretend not to hear, and then claim that those in favor are “more honest”, “showing us your true face”, etc. It’s a classic prejudiced, paranoid response.

Keith, sorry for the delay:

Isn't Australia also "a firm regime that can impose discipline on wayward elements"? now is Australia a dictatorship?

Isn't the USA a democracy? and is it peaceful?

Where did you get this strange idea as if Israel suppress individuals? are you aware of the extreme diversity of views there? are you aware that Israeli Arabs have their own political parties and speak openly in Parliament against the state of Israel. An Arab-Israeli legislator recently called on terrorists to kidnap Israeli soldiers: the attorney-general ruled that even this was not sufficient to strip him of his citizenship and parliament-membership. That could not happen even in Australia - if that's not democracy, what is?

About Syria: the Golan Heights are an extreme strategical vantage point. It is very difficult to trust a regime that proved untrustworthy in the past, have 10000's missiles with chemical warheads directed at you, befriends Iran that openly declares its intention to annihilate Israel, and arms its terrorists, to take positions over a kilometer almost vertically straight above your head.

Another problem: unlike the West-Bank and Gaza, Israel formally annexed the Golan Heights and its formerly-Syrian residents are now happily Israeli citizens, their children were born Israelis and don't want to return to a 3rd-world dictatorship.

"you are one of those Judea Christian fundamentalists": you make me laugh!

The only thing repugnant about the israeli occupation is the settlers. Until those fundies arrived and began to harass the local population, no other occupation in history was more humane. The local (occupied) population was happy and content. Their conditions, safety and freedoms were never better, far better than what they previously had under Jordan and later under Arafat and Hamas. They moved freely, entered Israel to find work, and Israelis were shopping without fear in Gaza, Ramallah and Hebron and went on holiday to Jericho. With an open and safe border, both Israel and the occupied Arabs enjoyed a massive surge in tourism.

The key for peace is the removal of fundamentalists from both sides... but I don't know how it can be done.

sganot:

1) The naked propagandist dresses himself up as a debater & advocate of "dialogue"? Don't pee on our legs and tell us it's raining.

2) Oh yes, the "Jewish" refugees of 1948 Palestine! Benny, Benny, back to the drawing board, mate! It's gotta be 'The Birth of the Palestinian & JEWISH Refugee Problem Revisited' from now on. Sganot, does the Ministry for Hasbara over there pay you by the word or by the sheer ingenuity of your obfuscations? The chutzpah of those Palestinians! After we've gone to the time and trouble of ethnically cleansing them, they actually expect to return to their homes and lands UNCONDITIONALLY? Oi. And they still don't know the meaning of "at the earliest practicable date" after 58 years? What to do with such people, Sganot?

3) Really? You don't like 85%? Do you have a problem then with the fact that what WAS a huge majority in 80% of pre 1948 Palestine was reduced to a small minority afterwards? "And if there was ethnic cleansing"? Can't make up your mind? Now, you oppose 194 I take it? The Palestinians just upped stakes and went on a holiday, yes? Let's say they want to come back home, and that they're prepared to sit for that Living at Peace with Their Neighbours Test, OK? What then might be your objection(s) to their return?

5) That nice man Mr Regev who pops up on our TV screens every night and is surely senior to you in the hasbara stakes was quoted in Haaretz of 12/8/06 telling us that Israel wished to hand over to the Lebanese army "a cleaner south Lebanon." Now if he doesn't have a problem with cleaning out such places why should you?

6) And yours, as usual, is the classic Zionist propagandist smokescreen response.

Strewth,

I am not a fan of removing the Palestinians, am not convinced it would work, and agree that it is repulsive. Nevertheless, the status quo is also repulsive, and after 60 years of failed pursuit of a two state solution, other alternatives ought to be considered.

It is also self evident, that many Palestinians are already refugees for most practical purposes, but have no place to go. There is nothing morally abhorrent in recognising this and giving them a place to go.

Why disregard any option which might offer the people of Palestine a chance to give their children a better life. How could just considering this be so repulsive to anyone who really cares about the people of Palestine?

I'd love to discuss other proposals for resolving this problem, but whilst I see a lot of blame and malice on this issue, I hardly ever hear proposals for realistic solutions. Are there any others? Strewth?

Kalin,

Is it really so hard? Let's make it easy for you. Here's a hypothetical: I turf you and your family out of your house, move my family in, and blaze away at you if you dare approach. Now tell me what steps you're going to take to win your home back. Will you, for example, be asking the government to find you alternative accomodation?

Yuytsu,

It seems that every time I read stuff from people like you, I begin to think that we should've left the Nazi's alone...join up with em instead.

Why did we bother anyway? All we have done is give it away to people who we fought against. Oh, and save then repay us by demanding we bow to them when in reality, Israel should be bowing to us.