The Gazans are Egyptian by nationality, yet I don’t hear many people chastising Egypt for failing to provide for them. Egypt could resolve this problem any time it wanted by repatriating its people. Why does it choose not to? Ah, yes, because blaming the Jews is easier.
Specifically the UN, I.e. the international propaganda arm of the Putin regime.
Then the people running those camps have failed at their ostensible mission. The Jews didn’t spend 1900 years living in tents in Syria waiting for the Roman Empire to give them their land back.
I thought Egypt never naturalized the Palestinians it took in back in the '40s. Neither does Egypt have jus soli (birthright citizenship).
Even if you were right about Gazans being Egyptian nationals and Egypt not taking them back, that would still make them refugees… is that the point you wanted to make?
Britain ceded Gaza to Egypt after WWI, and Egypt occupied the territory in 1948, and again in 1957 after the end of the first Israeli occupation. It’s their responsibility that they’re shirking because they’d rather blame the Jews for the plight of its people than take responsibility for them.
The point I want to make is that the people responsible for them are refusing their duty.
You’re talking about territory. A territory cannot be a refugee. Only people can be refugees. When did Palestinian “refugees” become Egyptian nationals?
I thought you were trying to point out why Palestinians aren’t refugees.
If Palestinians are Egyptian nationals (which they aren’t), but Egypt refuses to protect them, due to events from forever ago, that makes them refugees by definition.
I was pointing out that a city that’s been continuously inhabited by the same people for generations is not a “refugee camp” and its citizens are not “refugees”. To the extent that the Gazans are citizens of any existing state, they are Egyptian, because they are clearly not Israeli, and they cannot be Palestinian because Hamas has been in a state of revolt against the Palestinian government for several decades.
Hopefully by then the question will no longer be relevant.
The UN proved itself to be illegitimate when it refused to expel Russia from its illegally-acquired seat on the Security Council in 2022.
If I understand you correctly, are you saying because Israel won’t take these people, and because Hamas isn’t protecting them, therefore by process of elimination they must be Egyptian nationals? Citizens, even, therefore not refugees, do I have that right?
Either the Gazan people are Israeli, Egyptian, part of a sovereign Gazan nation, or stateless. They cannot be Israeli because neither Israel nor the Gazans claim that they are citizens of Israel. They cannot be part of a sovereign nation because Gaza is not independent from the PA government in the West Bank (which itself is not sovereign) and Hamas is not a responsible government. They cannot be stateless because such a condition is intolerable. They must therefore be Egyptian because Egypt has the best legal claim to sovereignty over that territory.
The concept of refugee was specifically created for this situation for this exact reason, compare Jewish refugees which were made noncitizens in Nazi Germany. Not being combatants or prisoners of war they did not benefit from Geneva conventions which is why we have refugees in International law.
“Pointing out” something that disagrees with reality makes you a crazy person.
Well, Israel’s working on an approach for that one, we know…
Just because Russia abuses the stupid Security Council veto (an intentional design feature - one that the US has also abused, often in Israel’s favour, I might add) and doesn’t belong there doesn’t make UN agencies (which have existed long before the Russian Federation) “the international propaganda arm of the Putin regime”. That’s the unhinged part, buddy.
Refusing to take responsibility for your citizens doesn’t make them stateless. Were the inhabitants of the Bantustans stateless? Were most American blacks prior to 1964 stateless?
I deny the premise - Palestinians were never Egyptian citizens. The only argument you put forward was that Palestinians must be Egyptians by process of elimination but obviously if being stateless is an option then the process of elimination does not point to Egypt.
I’m not familiar with Bantustans but for a big chunk of U.S. history, most American Blacks weren’t considered U.S. nationals.
Think about the logic here. I see what you are saying. But if that was valid logic, how could there be any refugees anywhere ever. After all, all refugees are physically inside some country or other.
A refugee is someone who has been forced to flee their homeland because of war, persecution, or catastrophe. It is inherently a temporary status; either the refugee returns to their homeland or they are resettled elsewhere, in which case they become a national of the place where they have been resettled. Otherwise you’d have Irish “refugees” in America whose ancestors emigrated 180 years ago because of the potato blight.
Keeping families in “refugee” status for generations, where they can never be resettled or repatriated, is abhorrent and indicates a fundamental failure of policy.
So in international law, being “resettled” does not strip one of refugee status. I call to your attention U.S. law where refugees are granted asylum upon which they do not become U.S. citizens but instead retain refugee status, which is its own thing. They have to go through a separate naturalization process to become a U.S. national. Otherwise they are still technically nationals of Venezuela, China, etc.
But if your parents are refugees in the US, and you’re born in the US, you are a US citizen by birthright every bit as much as if your great-great-sixteen-times-over-grandparents had come over on the Mayflower like mine did. We do not create permanently stateless people.