1) "The Palestinian people's land has been occupied by invaders just as Iraq is also being occupied by invaders. In such instances we will always be on the side of the non aggressor, the innocent, those who are being unjustly invaded."

a) I am sure that those Palestinan refugees that have been living in the Nahr el-Bared camp for decades now, and that remain inside the camp watching as Lebanese battle tanks mass on the fringes of their camp, ready to strike, are incredibly happy that you are taking such a strong stance, irrespective of the fact that it is now 40-years-old, and that there is no hope in site for a single Palestinian refugeee; quite the opposite. Your argument seems to be that if the Palestinian refugees have to choose between a 'state', or going home, they will choose the state (regardless of the fact that it will lack many of the characteristics of a 'state', such as an army and control of its coast/airspace/water - it will be a 'statelet' at best), and will choose to give up their 'Right of Return' - to their homes, not to a new Palestinian state.

b) You will note that my article also calls for an end to the State of Israel. Do you mean to imply that I am nonetheless taking the side of the aggressor? That I have no interest in ending the occupation?

2) "It is our firm position that the Palestinian people must have their own independent and free state and they have the right to choose their own destiny. To accept anything less is to accept lawlessness and theft and the subjugation of a people as legitimate. "

a) Can you have a "firm position", which retards the open debate of viable alternatives, and at the same time suggest that the Palestinians "have the right to choose their own destiny"? How exactly can they choose, if there are no forums permitting open and rational debate? Do they have "the right to choose", so long as their choice falls within your "firm position"; so long as it accords what you have already chosen on their behalf?

b) What is your plan for bringing about "their own independent and free state" (there has been 40 years to prepare one)? Meanwhile, Palestinian refugees are being slaughtered.

c) UNGA resolution 181 - the 'Partition Resolution' - called for the internationalization of Jerusalem, and awarded 44 per cent of historic Palestine to the Palestinians. To accept an Israeli state on more than 56 per cent of historic Palestine, or any state upon Jerusalem, "is to accept lawlessness and theft". Do you think there will ever be a Palestinian state on 44 per cent of historic Palestine?

3) "To condone such antisocial and murderous behavior by governments and states drags our entire civilization toward the abyss of repression, war and self destruction."

Should we not act to save the UN soon, it will surely go the way of the 'League of Nations', guaranteeing ALL, whether they live in their own 'state' or not, "the abyss of repression, war and self destruction". Hardly a noble stance.

Cameron Hunt