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.