Tuesday, June 27, 2006
Interesting post by Volokh's Bernstein:
On a more personal level, I've had a few email conversations with Volokh Conspiracy readers along the following lines:
Reader: Israel is illegitimate because it violated international law by not allowing Palestinians who fled Israel during the War of Independence to return.
Me: I'm not an expert on international law, but I do know something about Israeli history. There is no practical way Israel could have permitted the return of most of these refugees. First, the Palestinian and broader Arab leadership remained committed after the war to Israel's destruction. The Arab community within Israel's border had participated in the war against Israel. The immediate result of allowing hundreds of thousands of generally hostile Arabs back into Israel (which had well less than a million Jewish residents at its founding) would have been constant intercommunal violence and ultimately another war. You can't expect Israel to have committed national suicide...
Much more, including long discussion thread, here. (via Instapundit)
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: The Cult of International Law.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.solomonia.com/cgi-bin/mt4/mt-renamedtb.cgi/6457
I'm having trouble getting onto the Volokh discussion, but I just wanted to make this point: what law are we talking about here? Unless we are told what law has allegedly been broken, we shouldn't accept assertions that this or that action is against international law. As far as I know, the crucial thing here is Security Council Resolution 194, itself a recommendation and not a binding resolution, which resolves that "the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return....
Mistake in above post: General Assembly resolution 194, not Security Coundil resolution 194, so no binding force at all (and even then it's unclear what it means in practice)
http://www.defenddemocracy.org//in_the_media/in_the_media_show.htm?doc_id=245738
For a discussion thread of, I assume, mostly lawyers it was disappointing because of the lack of contextual facts.
The history of Turkish rule and the forced introduction of "newly "converted" to Islam Eastern Europeans" to the region; the British bringing in Syrians and Egyptians for the ports and other labor.
Sinai only became part of Egypt in the 1920s.
It's amazing that people will discuss UN and resolutions against Israel but ignore its negative impact on Palestinians:
http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=7&x_issue=52&x_article=960
"Why do Palestinians in Gaza still live in refugee camps? Did the Israelis force Palestinians to stay in the squalid, overcrowded camps?
Palestinians still live in refugee camps, even when the camps are in Palestinian Authority controlled areas, because the PLO opposes and prevents refugee resettlement. As the PLO slogan goes, A Palestinian refugee never moves out of his camp except to return home (ie, to Israel). "
"What is perhaps surprising is that the United Nations also opposed the program, and passed harsh resolutions demanding that Israel remove the Palestinians from their new homes and return them to the squalid camps. For example, UN General Assembly Resolution 31/15 of Nov. 23, 1976: ..."
"Similarly, UNGA Resolution 34/52 of November 23, 1979 declared that: ..."
Read the complete post because it points out UN machinations.
Maybe Volokh should read this link.