(no subject)

[philipjmoss.livejournal.com]

Comments

Re: Confusing

[agnosticoracle.livejournal.com]

The failed initiative said "right of all refugees, including Palestinians to return to their land of origin", not "the right to return of only Palestinians." I think ethnic cleansing is bad, don't you?

Re: Confusing

[ocschwar.livejournal.com]

The organization I just referred to in my comments is the United Nations Organization, which you just in the comment above.

The UN has existed for 60 years now, during which it has treated exactly one group and one group only as being entitled to a "rigth of return", while repudiating it in regards to numerous other groups.

That other organization, the SDP, gives some rhetorical window dressing about other refugee groups, while claiming that there were no Jewish refugees driven out of Arab countries.

Both organizations prove all too aptly that international law does not in fact contain a "right of return" for all refugees.

Re: Confusing

[agnosticoracle.livejournal.com]

United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees' Convention and Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees I sited gives refugees the right to return. That document specifically doesn't apply to Palestinians because other organizations have jurisdiction there. Resolution 194 deals specifically with the aftermath of the 1948 Israeli war of independence. It deals only with issues in Israel/Palestine one of which was refugees.

All refugees should have a right to go home.

Re: Confusing

[ocschwar.livejournal.com]

Even the Sudetenland Germans?

Re: Confusing

[agnosticoracle.livejournal.com]

I think that question is a technical violation of Godwins law.

Re: Confusing

[ocschwar.livejournal.com]

Not to the Czechs, it isn't. Nor to the Sudetenlanders.

Both groups exist. Their case is being treated explicitly as one in which the refugees do not have the right of return.

Re: Confusing

[agnosticoracle.livejournal.com]

If your agrument is that Palestinians should not be allowed to go home until all the world immigration problems are solved your just being silly. For that matter in the case of the Sudeten Germans you might want to brush up on inter-Europe immigration policy in the EU.

When you find yourself defending ethnic cleansing you should realize you lost the argument.

Re: Confusing

[ocschwar.livejournal.com]

My argument is that there is no universal right of return, as shown by the actions of such organizations as the UN.

Are you ready to concede that much, or are you going to claim that the Sudetenland Germans do, in fact, have the right of return?

After the Sudetenlanders, there are other groups that also are relevant.

Re: Confusing

[agnosticoracle.livejournal.com]

The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees' Convention and Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees recognizes the general right to return of refugees.

I guess you didn't read up on EU immigration policy. Take a look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizenship_of_the_European_Union

You will note this sentence "the right of free movement and residence throughout the Union and the right to apply to work in any position." So any German, Sudeten or otherwise can move to and work in the Czech Republic. Europe has decided ethnic cleansing is bad. Why do you keep trying to support it?

Re: Confusing

[ocschwar.livejournal.com]

They could move into the Czech republic. They would not get their property back except if they bought it, and they would not be Czech citizens, so that is hardly a "right of return" to be a foreigner in the land you "returned" to.

So, are you ready to concede that there is not, in fact, a universal right of return?

I still don't see anywhere where I said I supported ethnic cleansing. I certainly would not advocate any more acts of it. The Palestinians, however (poll after poll shows this) are stringly in favor of doing more ethnic cleansing in the near future.

Of Jews, that is.

Re: Confusing

[agnosticoracle.livejournal.com]

Not allowing refugees to come home after a conflict is ethnic cleansing.

Re: Confusing

[ocschwar.livejournal.com]

Then international law supports ethnic cleansing. In case after case after case.

Start with the Indian constitution. Then one that said anyone who left India to Pakistan in 1947 is banned from returning.

Re: Confusing

[agnosticoracle.livejournal.com]

So you are saying that Palestinians should not be allowed to go home because international law is imperfectly applied? That is a very lame argument. People should be allowed to come home after a conflict. It is just common decency.

Re: Confusing

[ocschwar.livejournal.com]

I am saying that Palestinians should not be allowed to go "home" because international law does not support their return. In every case except that of the Palestinians, international law held that refugee status is not heritable, and that if a refugee finds himself unable to return home, tough luck for his kids, who must find a home elsewhere for themselves.

It isn't very nice, but that is how international law treats every refugee group except the Palestinians.

The Palestinians are now a FOURTH GENERATION refugee group. There is no other group allowed to keep calling themselves refugees. Not a one.

As for common decency, Palestinian public opinion is indecent in what it supports. I can cite case after case of ethnic cleansing in which Palestinian public opinion sided with the cleanser and against the cleansees. Starting with the case of the Kurds of Kirkuk (cleansed by Saddam in the 1990s, and whose return to Kirkuk is now being impeded).

When I see common decency in Palestinian public opinion, I might care. That will of course be one cold day in Hell.

Re: Confusing

[agnosticoracle.livejournal.com]

Lukid/Kadima and Hamas deserve each other. Unfortunately a lot of innocent people don't deserve them. So don't expect me to support your side that dirty war.

Re: Confusing

[ocschwar.livejournal.com]

I am not asking you to support a side. I am asking you to admit that international law does not support a right of return.

Now, I have repeatedly shown you how international law treated the case of several refugee groups:

The Sudetenland Germans.

The Konigsberg Germans.

The Vilnius Poles.

The refugees who fled India for Pakistan.

The Turks who fled Greece and Bulgaria, and vice versa.

And there are plenty of others, adding up to around a hundred times the number of Palestinians driven out in 1948.

None of them are given the right of return, because refugee status is not heritable.

That is international law. Ready to concede to reality?