Sure am. Do you think the refugee camps are some sort of geopolitical version of Munchausen by Proxy?
I think you’re a little unfair here.
First of all, nations, generally, have no obligation to accept and provide basic needs for unlimited amounts of refugees, far less grant them citizenship. In total, there are 8 million refugees or stateless persons in that region, half of them Palestinian refugees (as a comparison, the population in the West Bank and Gaza combined is 3.6 million, in Israel 6.2 million).
Secondly, the Casablanca Protocol grants Palestinian refugees much more rights than they otherwise would have had as refugees. The document grants them the right to residency, work and freedom of movement (including the right to reenter the country they reside in if they leave).
These are rights not normally available to refugees elsewhere in the world.
However, you will find that Arab nations have implemented the Protocol (and other covenants) differently. Syria and Jordan have been liberal in their treatment of Palestinian refugees (in Jordan many have even been given citizenship and they have Representatives in the Parliament). Lebanon and the Gulf States (Kuwait in particular), and to some degree Egypt, have been much more restrictive.
A good place to start if you’re interested in the legal side of this subject is the following article, from which I’m quoting the section dealing with the Casablanca Protocol:
It’s not a perfect analogy, of course, but there is something there - the Syrians make sure persons in their care (and therfore in their power) continue to suffer, often exaggerating their troubles, in order to win sympathy and a heightened self-worth. It’s true of any nation that keeps people it’s supposed to care about in camps. They might not be the original cause of the refugees problems, but they do their best to excaberate them.
In the case of Syria this is not true. Other things aside, most of the refugee camps in Syria are run by the UNRWA, not by the Syrian government. Even in the 3 camps not run by UNRWA, this organization has a participating role.
Try Egypt (or Libya) and you might have a case.
Perhaps I am a little unfair given the nature of the world. But while the US does many things wrong, we have accepted many refugees from around the world, integrated them into our society, and granted their children citizenship: Palestinians, Vietnamese, Hmong, Cuban, and many more. That is the background I am comparing this to I guess. Yes, we are a larger country and perhaps could absorb these people better.
But my understanding is that the Arab nations encouraged the refugees to leave during the wars to start with, so I feel I that they should have more responsibility towards the refugees than towards a random famine induced refugee crisis or something. The Palestinians who remained in Israel, to my understanding were granted citizenship and are treated fairly well.
I think that I speak for the majority of America when I say that I hate the thought of all those people in hopeless limbo and would like nothing better than the whole situation to just go away. Now where did I leave my magic wand?
I’m going to copy/past the response I posted to the same argument some days ago in a previous thread :
*The USA resettle 70 000 refugees/ year on its territory. That’s roughly 0.025% of the US population. There are 360 000 Palestianian refugees in Lebanon, for a population of roughly 4 millions. If Lebanon resettled these refuges at the same rate the US does, hence would aply the […] US standarts, it would allow in 1000 refugees/ year, hence it would take 360 years to resettle them all. And that without even considering the fact that Lebanon is much poorer. So, are you telling me that you’re not asking Lebanon to do way more than the US, […], is doing? *
- proportionnally, [it] would mean for the US to resettle 25 millions people, 350 times more than it does. *
Speaking about refugees and other countries’ obligation (or not) to absorb them:
Israel has absorbed two enormous waves of immigration, both of which could well be described as waves of refugees:
In the years 1948-1951, Israel received neraly 700,000 immigrants (comparable to Israel’s initial population following the 1948 war of about 650,000). The Israeli Board of Statistics, whence these numbers come (legend is in Hebrew, see explanation below), says that during this period, the average number of immigrants as a percentage of the population (for the latter part of the period, including previous immigrants!) was 15%. Most of these immigrants were refugees from Arab countries who essentially threw them out after the independence of Israel. Yes, there were what amounts to refugee camps throught the couintry at the time (the ma’abarot) - but they were named “fords” (as in river fords - you may prefer the term “crossing points”) for a reason - by 1960 they were gone. And the immigrants themselves had full rights from day one - even if they didn’t have the same economic conditions as every one else (the difference wasn’t that great, though - all but the very rich or powerful suffered through the early '50-s)
In the years 1990-1991, as the Soviet Union began falling apart at the seams, Israel absorbed some 375,000 immigrants, roughly 8% of our population at the time. These were absorbed without lowering the standard of living and without creating refugee camps of any sort.
These immigrants/refugees were not Israeli citizens before the fact - Israel chose to accept them (as it does every Jew, whether needy or not) because of a perceived kinship.
Why shouldn’t the Arab world, much of it with more economic strength than Israel, do the same for its own? The name of the game is politics and nothing but - because the project, on a humane and technical level, is doable
Dani
P.S. Legend for the linked table.
The table goes from right to left.
The rightmost colums is (duh!) the year(s) in question.
Next column to the left is the absolute number of immigrants in this period.
Next columt (third from right) is the percentage of total immigration. Doesn’t add up to 100% because some periods have further breakdown.
Last column on the left is the rate of immigration in immigrants per thousand permanent residents - so the number 155.8 in the row for 1948-1951 means that during this period, the average rate of immigration was nearly 156 immigrants per 1000 existing residents (since this is a multi-year stat, I believe this means that the sums are cumulative, e.g., the numbers for 1952 would be counted as a percentage of population on 1948 + immigrants from the previous years).
That’s probably doable (which doesn’t mean that it would be easy). The fact that politics are involved is quite obvious. Which doesn’t mean these political choices necessarily aren’t sensible. Arab countries can be affraid of destabilization, like in Jordan during the “blak september”. Also, they are opposed on principle to let the refugees in because it would mean accepting as a “fait accompli” the results of Israeli policies they’re opposed to, and finally switch the burden of the Palestinian refugees from Israel to them.
Anyway, I see no particular reason why arab countries should feel more obligated than any other country to let in / grant citizenship to the Palestinian refugees. I’m not sure where you’re from, but why wouldn’t your country have the same obligation towards the Palestinians?
Israel is definitely an exception. I can’t think of any other country which granted citizenship to so much aliens. None other come even remotely close. So, yes, maybe Lebanon could absord a number of refugees equivalent to 10% of its population. But France could similary grant citizenship to 6 millions refugees, or the US to 25 millions of them. I suspect that the numerous refugees issues all over the world would be solved overnight if western countries adopted such policies. I would even vote for it if asked.
The issue is : if our wealthy countries don’t do this, what kind of hypocrisy does it take to demand that much poorer countries do it? Because the Palestinians are also arabs, or, for the most part, muslims? Then, why didn’t the EU countries grant citizenship to all the the refugees from the Balkans? Why don’t the USA let in all the christian refugees? I perceive this as a double standart.
I forgot. You stated :
It’s definitely untrue. Much of the arab world has much less economic strength than Israel. The wealthy emirates and kingdoms of the arabic peninsula are an outstandish exception, not the norm.
We got here by your chastisement of the Palestinian refugees using their refugee status to promote themselves as victims for political gain.
I found that statement to have somewhat of a pot/kettle/black ring to it.
The simple answer to that is that the Arab nations claim to care about the Palestinians’ welfare. They are the ones who won’t shut up about it and who won’t make peace with Israel because of it. If they cared about the Palestinians as much as they care about blaming Israel for everything, they’d make a real effort to help them - not help their so-called “leaders”, or help their political daydreams, but help the actual individual people. Arab leaders keep on talking about “Arab Unity”, but ignore the fact that unity means mutual responsibility.
Except, the vital difference is that Munchausen’s by proxy is psychological. Like you said, people with it do it to win sympathy and a heightened self-worth. I think the motivation here is different.
Syria and the other countries keep the Palestinians in camps as a weapon to use against Israel. The Syrians figure they can use the Palestinians to destabilize Israel, but to do that, they need to do two things. First, they need to keep the Palestinians marginalized and poor. If they let the Palestinians fully acculturate and become part of Syrian life, they won’t be radicalized.
Second, they need to take control of the Palesitinain terror groups and be able to control them, which they’re trying to do with their control of Saiqa and an offshoot of the PFLP, as well as the various attempts by pro-Syrian factions to take control of the PLO.
Much as we could have let the 1948-1952 refugees from the Arab world rot in refugee camps for two generations. But we chose to put our money - such as existed - where our mouth was, and do everything possible to absorb them. It even worked. The Arab world, as Alessan has already responded, puts its collective mouth behind the “plight of the Palestinians”, yet does everything to keep them in their misery, rather than resolve the situation in a humanitarian manner.
Because, again as Alessan already said, they are the ones who keep harping on the Palestinians plight and on their own obligation as their “Arab brethren” to help them…
I suppose you’ve diasabled display of the Location field… enable it, and you’ll understand which side of the issue I’m coming from (hint: a non-Arab country in the middle east…) I’m not even claiming non-partisanship.
I think my country has done its bit to absorb those it sees as its “brethren”… and we aren’t that wealthy, either! And the EU has never claimed that the Balkans refugees are their “brothers” and have never claimed a greater “nation” of Europe, ranging across all of Europe including the Balkans. This may be in the offing in the relatively near future as the EU continues to expand, and yes, I’d then expect the EU to take care of a refugee crisis inside its borders!
Dani
I’m confused – who are these refugees? Are you saying that in the 1948-1952 period, some Arabs fled from Arab states to Israel, and Israel let them in? I thought the Arabs now living in Israel proper were simply Palestinians who never left.
Well, those Arabs did happen to be Jewish… but essentially, yes - after 1948, the muslim Arabs in most Arab countries kicked the sorry asses of the Jewish Arabs out (so much for no connection between anti-Israeli and anti-Jewish…)
We took them in.
Dani
Are there (or was there) Sephardic Jews actually identifying themselves as Arabs, or are you using a rhetorical trick, here?
Around here, calling an Oriental Jew (not all Sephardim are from Arab countries) an “Arab Jew” is fighting words, so I’m pretty sure he’s being rhetorical. However, the refugees were Jewish citizens of Arab nations, who had been living there for centuries and who had deep roots in the community, so the analogy is still valid.
But Israel was founded based on the Law of Return, which says it has to accept any Jew coming from anywhere. So it is by no means remarkable, nor cause for boasting, that Israel admitted these Jewish Arabs in 1948-52. That’s what Israel was supposed to be all about. If there were a civil war in say, Syria or Jordan or Egypt, and Muslim Arab refugees desperately tried to get into Israel, I don’t think they could expect such a warm welcome. I don’t think they could expect any welcome at all.
Duh! It’s our job to take care of the Jews. That’s what we say and that’s what we do. It is the Arab countries’ job to help other Arabs - or at least so they say…
What happened is that an effective partition took place around 1950 in the Mid-east. Arabs from Israel fled to the neighboring countries; Jews from the neighboring countries feld to Israel.
The Jews who fled to Israel, nearly doubling its population in less than five years, were resettled. The Arabs who fled to the Arab countries, a far smaller percentage of the population of those countries, and their descendents, have been showcased for posterity by their “brethren” :rolleyes:
Alessan: I certainly wouldn’t call any Israeli Jew “an Arab” to their face (well, unless [s]he were a really good friend :)). But historically speaking it’s not at all rhetorical to say that the Arab Jews were expelled from the Arab countries solely because they were of Jewish culture/religion, and not because of some other distinguishing factor.
Dani
It is important to note that in both cases, “fled” effectively means “were driven.”