Reply #43: Lawyers may dispute the meaning of Art 13, but the moral answer is surely clear?

[kayecy]

....The opposing view holds that Art. 13 applies to those returning to their own country, not necessarily those who lived or owned land in an area before the country was established.

Lawyers will argue about the meaning of any word, but we are dealing with human lives here....I would have thought no one with a grain of humanity would object to an innocent refugee returning to the area where he was born whether or not someone had declared it was now a new country or not.....Your “.....before the country was established”.. seems to be rather inhumane and immoral don’t you think?

Ten years ago, the USA went to war in order to force the Serbs to allow refugee Kosovo Albanian to return their homes.....Why is the Kosovo situation different to the 1948 Palestinian refugees?

...There are no examples of refugees having acted previously on any universal right of return.

I think you are wrong.....Security Council Resolution 1244 (1999) states:
” Encourages all Member States and international organizations to contribute to economic and social reconstruction as well as to the safe return of refugees and displaced persons”....perhaps not universal declaration, but clearly indicating a precedent.

...If it would apply to the Palestinians then it would certainly also have to apply to the Jews expelled from Arab states, which no one is arguing for

I think you would find that most of the civilized world, (with the possible exception of Arabs and Jews) would argue that Jews should have a right to return to their homes in Arab states.
.