Madam, - Kevin Myers denies that the right of return of Palestinian refugees is enshrined in international law "in any meaningful sense" (An Irishman's Diary, January 19th).
However, it transpires that Mr Myers is sceptical about the usefulness of international law, "in the absence of international police and international courts", hence the question of a "meaningful sense" hardly arises.
But such institutions do in fact exist, e.g. the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court. If they are ineffectual, it is because the US, in its own interests and those of Israel, refuses to accept their authority.
Mr Myers lists a number of situations in which refugees have been prevented from returning to their homelands, such as the Sudeten Germans ("in lederhosen, slapping their thighs" - Mr Myers likes racial caricatures), Greeks of Turkish origin, Americans of Irish origin. One might accept that geopolitical realities combine to make a return of these exiles impracticable without thereby conceding that the right of return of Palestinians is equally impracticable.
However, it seems that this question doesn't arise in the first place, because "Israel is not going to permit" such an eventuality, and neither will the US. A rogue state and its superpower patron are to circumvent international law with impunity, and the rest of us are to genuflect to these incontrovertible realities.
The logical conclusion of Mr Myers's argument is that the results of ethnic cleansing must always be accepted, unless the superpower decrees otherwise. Given his rejection of the concept of a right of return, how does he rate the right of the Jewish people to "return", after almost 2,000 years, to a country that happens to be inhabited by another people? - Yours, etc.,
RAYMOND DEANE, Chair, Ireland Palestine Solidarity Campaign, Dublin 1.