Comment by wolverine876
2 years ago
> none of them are taking Palestinian refugees
They believe that Israel would like to drive out the refugees and seize their land, essentially putting an end to Palestinians in Israel. They believe that's what happened when Israel was founded and subsequently - there are still refugee camps, and a priority of Palestinians is the 'right of return' to their former lands - and with recent Jewish settlements in the West Bank, and specifically with Israeli actions in the West Bank since Oct 7.
Essentially, they think refugees will never be allowed back.
That doesn't mean they care, but without that issue resolved, they won't accept refugees. Also, probably they don't want to take on care and feeding of millions, and to simultaneously relieve Israel, their enemy, of that burden.
I agree with you that they have reason to believe that accepting refugees would play into Israel's hands. However, that fact alone is telling: they consider it more important to hurt Israel than to help Palestinians. If Arab nations actually care about Palestinian life as much as they say they do, they would prevent Palestinians from dying.
By way of contrast: Poland took over 1.5 million Ukrainian refugees, despite the fact that most probably won't go back to Ukraine, and that depopulating eastern Ukraine helps Russia.
It’s actually 4 millions: https://www.worldbank.org/en/programs/private-sector-for-ref...
They say they wouldn't be helping the Palestinians, creating yet more permanent refugees and the loss of their land. However, I will say that it's hard to say that the foreign government's choices should outweigh the self-determination of the Palestinians who could actually choose whetehr to leave or stay.
I don't think they care nearly as much as they say they do. I think Hamas doubts it too; one reason for the attack was to stop Arab reconciliation with Israel that may have left Palestinians in the cold.
The idea that they would care seems like a bit of prejudice - Americans and Europeans don't care about every refugee either, no matter where they're from or what they've done, especially these days.
If Polish utmost priority was saving as many Ukrainian lives as possible, they would block the supply of weapons and ammunition to Ukraine and pressure it to surrender. It doesn't seem to me that Polish (Western) intentions are purely humanitarian, but there's also a sense of justice at play (plus geopolitics).
The Ukrainians disagree; I'll trust their opinions about their own lives and country, Colonel.
1 reply →
> Essentially, they think refugees will never be allowed back.
> That doesn't mean they care, but without that issue resolved, they won't accept refugees.
I find this dubious. Under any reasonable humanitarian perspective, a Gazan would benefit by immigrating to most other countries.
The Arab nations around Israel (with the sort of exception of Jordan) can't even bother allowing 3rd generation Palestinian descendants to naturalize. In some, such as Lebanon, this not only precludes political rights, but results in all sorts of benefit losses relative to what others born and raised in the country would receive.
That's a pretty strong sign of "not caring" from a humanitarian perspective.
You may want to do some research on alternative reasons for Muslim countries not take in Palestinian refugees. Such as, for example, not wanting to repeat the fate of Lebanon and, partly, Jordan, which did - resulting Lebanon devolving into a failed state, and Jordan just barely escaping full scale civil war.
You also declare that Israel is the enemy of Muslim nations, which it is not, unless forced by hostilities explicitly declared by the other side.
Also, don't forget that Hamas is part of the Muslim Brotherhood, who assassinated Anwar Sadat. That might make Egypt think twice about welcoming refugees.
In any case, if Arab states are (understandably) refusing Palestinian refugees due to concerns of political stability, why not just say so, instead of blaming solely Israel?
> You also declare that Israel is the enemy of Muslim nations, which it is not, unless forced by hostilities explicitly declared by the other side.
If you mean 'enemy in warfare' then no, they aren't fighting a war directly. But by any other definition of enemy .... In addition, there's Iran (Persian, not Arab).
If they aren't enemies, what do you call them? Allies? Friendly neighbors?
(sadly necessary disclaimer: I am in no position to represent any kind of formal Israel stance on anything, so these are just my thoughts derived from generally available knowledge)
Israel as a state was created solely by following agreements proposed by external parties (UK and UN in particular), and even then mostly on lands that were legitimately bought or were not legally owned by anyone (aside from possibly Ottoman empire in bulk) mostly for the reason of being badlands. It then had aggressive war foisted upon it within 48 hours of creation, which it has then won. Any territorial gains for Israel since then have only happened as a result of defensive wars, and a whole bunch of those territories were given back, including the Sinai peninsula. Gaza strip would also have been given back, except Egypt flatly refused to have anything to do with it (I wonder why).
Israel doesn't have any a priori hostility to Muslim nation-states (or any others, for that matter). You can freely practice Islam (or any other religion, including none at all (with some stupid caveats if you are actually a Jew - not a restriction, but practical incoveniences)) inside of Israel, Arabic is the second official state language.
So, unless a nation-state goes forward and declares, by their own volition, that they want to kill Jews and obliterate Israel, or undertakes practical hostile actions - it's not an enemy of Israel, and Israel would indeed gladly be a friendly neighbour (be it in the literal sense, or planetary), trading, cultural, tourist, scientific and any other kind of partner. At worst, I dare say, a disinterested observer - though it is hard to imagine, given the extroverted and warmly Levantine character.