That is a very good point, however, as I mentioned before Egypt does not have jus soli. The U.S. is one of the few countries with birthright citizenship.
~Max
Then they should.
But they don’t.
~Max
I’m going to ask you to pick the lesser of two evils. Please assume for the sake of argument that the Palestinian people are stateless (the state of Palestine having long since ceased to exist or protect its people).
Refugee status for generations, entitled to aid and protections under international law.
or
No refugee status past first generation, children not entitled to aid or protections under international law.
~Max
There shouldn’t be a need for refugee status after the first generation; you should be a citizen of the country in which you were born and fully entitled to all the rights and privileges granted to a citizen thereof.
In the case of the Gazans, that country is Egypt.
Maybe you are right, about how things should be, but that’s not the way things are which is why I asked you to assume the people are stateless before answering.
~Max
And whose fault is that? It’s not Israel’s fault that Egypt refuses to take responsibility for its people. Perhaps the UN, should it ever free itself from Putin’s yoke, should devote its energy to eliminating statelessness rather than preserving it.
The US’ seat and veto power are lawful as established by the UN Charter. Russia is illegally squatting in a seat which the Charter provided to the Soviet Union.
What does fault have to do with refugee versus non-refugee?
Even if Palestinians in Gaza were technically Egyptian citizens (they aren’t), that would not change the fact that Egypt isn’t protecting them. That lack of protection from their home country (which Egypt isn’t) makes them refugees. Would you take away what little aid Gazans actually receive by virtue of being classified as refugees, just because you don’t believe Egypt has a right to self-determination?
~Max
How does that work? Are they there by force? Do they sneak in at night?
Egypt should be protecting them. That’s my point.
Personally I’d prefer the creation of an independent Republic of Gaza with Israel providing for its internal security until such time as responsible self-government can be reestablished.
But it isn’t. In some hypothetical parallel universe where Egypt protects the Palestinians living in Gaza, those Palestinians would not be refugees. In the real world where Egypt doesn’t give a rat’s ass, the Palestinians are refugees.
~Max
Then that is a problem that needs to be resolved by establishing a Gazan state.
But it isn’t resolved, so they are refugees.
Refugee is the kind of label that indicates there is a problem in need of urgent resolution. Multiple generations of refugees should be abhorrent and indicate broad policy failure.
~Max
The people in charge clearly don’t think it’s “urgent” if they’ve been refugees for 76 years.
Class, can you say “ongoing occupation”?
Which Israel, no doubt, gets to decide…
1820 years, here we come…
Because ending the occupation in 2006 and turning things over to whoever won the election has clearly worked out SO well, right?
Oh, I was unaware the blockade ended in 2006…
I didn’t realize “occupation” and “blockade” were synonyms.
But it is urgent, and has been, and refugee is the correct term.
Like climate change is urgent, or like a gushing wound is urgent, the fact that it is being stupidly ignored does not magically make it any less urgent.
~Max
If you have a people who have been “refugees” for 76 years and cannot be repatriated, and a sovereign state for them cannot be established, then you ought to be working on finding countries for them to resettle in instead of deliberately keeping them stateless because maybe someday Israel will collapse and all the Jews will die.