The Australian's foreign editor (and Tony Abbott's childhood bestie), Greg Sheridan, knows what "most people" don't:
"Donald Trump's move of the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem is right in principle and will contribute to the cause of peace in the Middle East, though not in the way that most people think." (Trump injects some realism into Middle East, The Australian, 17/5/18)
(Err... so "most people" think it "right in principle" and that it "will contribute to the cause of peace"? OH, REALLY?)
But moving right along, the answer is:
"... because it recognises reality and communicates an important message to the Palestinian leadership - that they do not have a veto over any aspect of the US relationship with Israel, or of international moves generally relating to Israel."
Damn! And we (like the Palestinians of course) have been labouring under the illusion that they did have such a veto! Who'd have thought?
But those revelations from the Sheridan bubble are not what I wanted to highlight today. It's this one:
"No one thinks they can reverse the population movements that took place between India and Pakistan 70 years ago." Ergo, the Palestinian right of return is simply unrealistic.
First, the clear differences between the two events. All Indian parties (Nehru's Congress Party most reluctantly and Jinnah's Muslim League enthusiastically) consented to partition. The Palestinians did not. It was imposed on them by a UNGA bullied by the US into voting for it. Moreover, in India at the time both Hindus and Muslims were indigenous to the country, while in Palestine the indigenous population were facing a takeover of their homeland by a settler-colonial minority.
But the big problem with Sheridan's assertion is that, unlike India, Israel encourages immigration. Of Jews only, of course. Ergo, if it can find room for more and more Jews from wherever (not to mention 'lost tribes' from India, no less!), it's got no excuse for excluding indigenous Palestinian refugees. Other than racism, that is.