(no subject)

[philipjmoss.livejournal.com]

Comments

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?