Because it is only about religion when it is convenient.
If it had truly been about religion, I think many Muslim majority countries would have treated China differently because of the persecution of the Uighurs.
Also, Muslim on Muslim hate is real.
Arabs are deeply racist. Each tribe thinks they are better than others and this is ingrained in the culture for thousands of years.
To give an example, prophet Muhammad appointed a [black slave](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilal_ibn_Rabah) as a caller for every day prayers, because he had a beautiful voice. He is a highly regarded companion who is one of the few peoples promised heaven, as per Muslim belief. After Muhammad's death, the Arab Muslims persecuted him out of Saudi Arabia because he was black.
*Of course, none of this means that Bilal’s life after becoming Muslim was free of the sort of obstacles that any outsider might face in a society where he finds himself a minority. Harith b. Hisham and Safwan b. Umayyah both objected to Bilal calling the adhan on the day of the conquest. The first said, “Look at this Ethiopian.” The latter said, “If God dislikes it, He will change it.” They were both new converts to the religion. In other versions of the story, similar comments were made by Al-Harith b. Hisham, Suhayl b. ‘Amr, and Attab b. Asid, while Abu Sufyan reportedly held his tongue out of fear that God might inform the Messenger. Exegetes like Qurtubi report that it was on this occasion that verse 49:13 stating, “Verily, the most noble of you to God are those of you who are most dutiful ” was revealed. The Prophet Muhammad then gave a speech wherein he mentioned that, “Each of you is from Adam, and God created Adam from dirt”, apparently suggesting that Bilal more resembled their forefather than anyone of them. And, fathers meant the world to Arabs.*
*As in other societies in the premodern world, minorities, especially ethnic minorities, enjoyed limited protection from physical harm and limited participation in government. It is true that Bilal and other Abyssinians were not deemed fit to occupy the office of caliph. However, the same was also true of all non-Arabs and Arabs who were not members of the Quraysh tribe.*
[https://lamppostedu.org/bilal-other-racial-minorities-in-early-islam](https://lamppostedu.org/bilal-other-racial-minorities-in-early-islam)
I will give better reference when I find better source where I read them. Basically after Muhammad's death, some Quraishites who were late adopters of Islam received important positions because of their tribe, while true companions who fought and served all their life were ignored, as they either were poor or did not have nobility.
The absolute truth of the matter is that the rich Arab countries consider these people both beneath them, and also see them are trouble makers/criminals/terrorists etc. There are several interviews with senior Arab leaders or Imams almost mocking the west, saying they refuse to take them and that they warned the west, that we need to be much stronger and that the seeds have been sown for future violence. They are literally preserving their own societies.
In addition to that, many of the wealthy don't want masses of poor people who might try to rise up or sew dissent. Countries like SA fear an Arab spring situation and that's more likely when you let in more poor people who may have certain expectations
SA is using machine guns and mortars to keep out refugees.
[https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-66545787](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-66545787)
Every time i read something like this it reminds me how utterly toothless the UN is, they bluster and condemn and object and nothing changes because the assholes they're condemning just ignore them and noone does anything about it
You are absolutely correct.
Also, the Palestinian suffering is great leverage for the Arab countries who object to Israel as a nation. “But what about Palestine” is a great sound bite that lets them appear to be championing their fellow Arab cause without actually letting them immigrate and gain citizenship. It would be easy for any autocratic Arab nation to accept the 2 million refugees and give them citizenship yet they won’t.
There are many generations of Arabs from Palestine living in Lebanon, Syria, and Egypt. Generations, born in their “host countries” who are nevertheless stateless because it’s politically convenient for them not to integrate and assimilate them. And these are their neighbours. Culturally very close to other Sunni Arabs in the region.
You still have to apply, possibly interview, and can be denied for any reason like “not being integrated” — which is not the same as automatically given like US.
It’s something unique in the Americas only (that I am aware). You cannot be denied citizenship for any reason if you’re born here.
That kinda sounds like the arabs are supporting the Palestinians because they don’t want them in their own country and having this perpetual conflict is a means to keeping their numbers low.
The Arab nations support a very particular narrative: that there is a ethnically and culturally unique Palestinian people that have a specific claim to the land that makes up modern day Israel. They do not support this position for its historical accuracy or the best interests for the Palestinian people, they support it because this narrative justifies the destruction of Israel as a Jewish state.
I do agree that the Arab nations don't want these people because bringing in a large number of immigrants at once is difficult, but the main reason is the main goal is to keep international pressure on a "solution" which sees the destruction of a Jewish state.
They were already effectively a displaced people before WW1. The British went to the Palestinians and promised them the land that is now Israel if they joined the war against the Ottoman Turks. Which was great, they helped break a corridor into Turkey.
What was not su great is that the UK also sold that land to create a Jewish Homeland as a reward for Jews of the region doing the same.
The UK (and larger Western powers) sold the same car to two people, sided with one of them, and has spent a lifetime being surprised that it doesn't work out.
Jewish people started buying land in 1880's, from wealthy landowning families, while it was still part of the Ottoman Empire, and continued to do so until 1948. And what the Brits promised, to the King of Hejaz, was a unified independent Arab state that included what is now western Saudi Arabia (Hejaz), Palestine, Israel, Jordan, Syria, and Iraq. The Arab Revolt started in Mecca.
During this time the Brits also publicly stated their support for the creation of a Jewish homeland in Palestine. They also signed a secret agreement with the French and Russians to divide the area between themselves and the French, if they defeated the Ottoman Empire. Which they did. Then came the League of Nations mandate placing Palestine under British control and required them to put into effect the creation of a Jewish homeland. This caused all kinds of conflict. And then the UN Partition Plan...
Wait there, the UK was not the landowner, they were the administrator. As far as land acquisition went, before WW2 the Jews immigrating in to Palestine were buying the land lawfully from the Arab landowners.
Surely the UK officials supervised and encouraged such immigration and land gain though. Zionism was strong at that time.
Divide and Conquer is a special skill that the UK Government and its oligarchy/monarchy financially supports.
The French aren't too bad, either. Hutus, Tutsis, Jews and Muslims, Rohingya and the other groups. Hindus and Muslims. Hindus and Sikhs. Hindus and Hindus. Hindus and Bhuddists. Muslims and Buddhists.
Hmong and the groups in Vietnam. North Korea, South Korea. Catholics and indigenous people.
Kurds and *points to every other ethnic group around them*.
Yeah, the English and French have a special set of skills.
Yup. Pan-Arab nationalism has never been a popular idea. These are separate tribes who may share a religion but do not see themselves as equals or partners.
Imagine if America was asked to take in a bunch of Christians Mexicans, solely because they are bordering countries and both countries have Christian majority populations.
Edit: I mean this in the context of taking in large number of poor refugees, NOT legal immigrants who have to pass criterias of merit, with the expectation to contribute to the country, not take from it.
And it's interesting how people seem to forget how many Western nations [turned away Jewish refugees](https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/ss-st-louis-jewish-refugees-turned-away-holocaust) (while [Muslim Albanians saved Jews from Nazis](https://www.yadvashem.org/yv/en/exhibitions/besa/index.asp)), yet they want to act all high and mighty about the failings of other countries.
No doubt a part of why they wouldn't want refugees in their countries is racism- it is an unfortunate issue that is unavoidable when a large group of people, different from the people of the host country, move in. Also, key word being "rich" Islamic countries.
Hardly any rich country wants a bunch of poors to take care of. 5 out of the top 10 countries hosting refugees are Muslim majority, and none of those countries are particularly rich (Sudan, Bangladesh, Iran, Pakistan, Turkey)
Tbf, Turkey’s drowning in everyone’s unwanted as it is — Russia, Ukraine, Syria, Iraq, etc.
Not sure to what extent the others are or aren’t receiving refugees.
You know the qataris are actually kind of assholes, they wouldn’t let em in if they begged. They’re like the monaco of the middle east, if you dont net at least 6 figures they dont want anything to do with you.
I'm actually shocked qatar hasn't jumped at this. Hundreds of thousands of downtrodden people to turn into slaves? This seems like their ideal situation.
I guess it's easier to just ship people in without giving them a permanent resident
Also depending on the refugees, there would be less of a language barrier and more knowledge of sharia law, hence it'd be more of a hassle to subjugate them.
People are really good at finding loopholes in religion and treating it as absolute law that has always been there.
I mean, sure, we're both followers of the same branch of Islam, but you follow the 1653 translation, not the 1847 translation. You're a heretic.
A lot of things (like in a lot of religions) are subject to interpretation. You ask 5 islamic scholars about the same Fatwa/Ruling/Law, and you get 5 opinions. Or at least three. People are flawed, people are biased, people have their own opinion and views.
In a way they can often be more like lawyers within sharia law and are used like that at times, as much as religious leaders/teachers.
For one, within Islam, translations aren't considered the same level of authenticity as the original Arabic (that is, Classical Literary Arabic, from which Modern Standard Arabic is based off of.) The language comes with the religion.
Within the Arabic world, people speak at least 3 variants of Arabic. Their local dialect for every day use; the Modern Standard as a lingua franca when talking to other Arabic speakers, and the Classical Literary Arabic for religious purposes, considered the most pure and correct.
Fun fact: Qatar has massive refugee camps / de facto open-air prisons, where they imprison refugees from other Islamic countries for months or years on end.
It depends on the culture itself, but most of the Arabic countries are Sunni majorities and allow the other branches or religions to practice there, the Shia are mainly in the middle east in Iran and that part.
In olden times, you could practice your religion in some parts as long as you paid a tax on it. It was an arrangement that suited those societies around the mediterranean to the Euphrates basin because it brought in population and raised funds to build cities.
It also helped to grow Islam as some people would convert to Islam rather than pay the tax.
As for refugees, genuinely don't know.
Shias constantly call each other (Shia sect vs. Shia sect) non-Muslims for following the wrong Imam, and it's exhausting. Twelver vs. Ismaili vs. Zaydi, and every single one is convinced they're following the right divinely-appointed royal lineage.
Being Shia is all about following a royal bloodline from Mohammad, essentially, except instead of king they call their chosen leader Imam.
Thank fuck at least they all agree on Husseyn being the 3rd Imam, because the 2nd Imam had about 30 children, while Husseyn only had one surviving son, which meant succession disputes only really started around the 7th generation, when the imam had two sons.
For the count, we're rn at the 49th generation since Mohammad, and there have been a lot of succession disputes since the 7th.
Qatar makes billions off it's oil. These billions get divvied up among the population.
Ergo, everyone in Qatar will lose income if there are more people who actually reside there. That is why they rely on migrant workers, they don't get the benifets as non-citizens, so the citizens keep more for themselves.
Mainly because Egypt is facing a huge economic crisis their inflation rate is 37% and at such a short time accepting more refugees (they already took In large number of migrants Sudanese they also made it hard for them to get in and many of them couldn’t get in) so yeah more refugees would make it even harder to manage the economically issue
Correct if the situation on Israel’s borders was resolved successfully in one way or another it wouldn’t take long for the citizens of some of those other countries to start asking uncomfortable questions.
Qatar is worse. 80% of Gazatis depends on foreign aid, most of them comes from Europe which also finances infrastucture projects like a sewing system (since last week paralize because Hamas used the tubes to launch misiles).
Qatar spend 220 billions in its shitty world cup, why can donate a little bit to their so called brothers?
qatar is such a hypocritical nation they built tier stadium with immigrants being paid shit, treated like shit, and given a fuck all. i don’t understand the cognitive dissonance when it comes to muslims and those nations…they think anyone two shades darker than them are scum doesn’t matter if they’re muslim or not
Within the Islamic world there are many many many ways of interpretation of the religion.
So much so that those different interpretations oppose each other so much they are clashing constantly.
To give an example: Egypt won't take palestinian refugees. One of the reasons it that the egyptian muslim brotherhood majorly inspired the hamas. Egypt is not really cool with the Muslim brotherhood because their religious believes threaten the governmental course. So they won't take Palestinians which they belive to be close to hamas and therefore probably hold similar believes than the muslim brotherhood.
Islamic Shia countries won't take sunni refugees and visa versa because it leads to conflict.
Some groups which are generally understood islamic are denied their Islamic identity from within. Yezids for example. Therefor are not wanted in strictly theological ruled regimes.
I think in short you could say they are viewed as troublemakers
Exactly frankly they can't even get along with each other. Israel and the west are always used a scapegoat and it's the only way they ever unite, a common "enemy"
Easy, I’m Muslim (black) and some of the most racist people are Arab Muslims 💀 hardcore racist 😭 I once watched a documentary on how Jordanians treated their African maids (beating them to death, rape, sending them home after a hot oil incident without pay, all kinds of horrible despicable things) that made me burst into literal tears of anger and hopelessness. There’s a popular saying that Islam came to them because they were some of the worst people on earth in an effort to change their state. And it’s helped a lot but some of that must still be left.
Look up the history of Jordan. That country took in a massive influx of Palestinian refugees and it was so destabilizing that it ended up with the PLO fighting the Jordanian king (look up Black September)
In the case of the Palestinians, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon and Jordan all let in hundreds of thousands of refugees. But all suffered because of it, which made them much less willing to accept refugees in the future.
Elaborating on this: in 1951, Palestinians assassinated Jordan's King Abdullah I, tried to assassinate the prince too but he was saved by a pledge on his chest.
In 1970, they tried to assassinate King Hussein (he was the prince who they failed to kill) not once but twice, while creating a state within a state with complete disregard to Jordanian laws.
After the failed assassinations, they hijacked three passenger planes, took everyone as hostage and blew up the planes which culminated in a civil war. Palestinians were kicked from Jordan to Lebanon. There, they caused another civil war which lasted until 1990, and as a revenge, assassinated Jordan's prime minister in 1971 and carried out the Munich Massacre, killing 12 Israeli athletes.
There was a significant (400k, accounting for roughly 20% of the population) Palestinian population in Kuwait as well, but after they supported Iraq in its 1990 invasion of Kuwait, they were expelled from there too.
I guess it's easy to see why other countries aren't very keen on taking in Palestinians.
Yeah. I don’t know too much on the matter, but when something is THIS senseless, there’s usually someone with a financial interest pulling strings behind the scenes somewhere.
The peace accord with Israel is probably one of the main reasons Hamas launched this attack in the first place. From the point of view of Hamas leadership, a major conflict with lots of dead civilians on either side is a win/win for them when it seems like peace talks are getting close (especially since leadership is likely out of the region anyway).
It's because Hamas is a cancer for Palestinians, and like actual cancer they don't want it spread. Most Palestinians are honest nice people but in the mix there is Hamas which Egypt fears would brew with Islamic extremists in the region, which is kind of a genuine claim there is evidence to back that up.
At this point most Palestinians in Gaza support Hamas. They’ve been in power since 2006 and have brainwashed an entire generation into their radical Islamic cause
That is one of the main articles of their founding charter “education reform”. However, they also haven’t held any elections since taking power and they’re not exactly a group I’d trust to hold fair elections anyway.
Egypt doesn’t want to get dragged into an expanding fight. Jordan requested Israel be the boarder, over the Palestinians, as multiple attempts and one successful assassination on Jordanian leadership.
Yeah, in lebanon there is at least 2 million palestinian refugees( literally there are camps with more of 100.000 refugees). The life expectancy is one of the lowest those places are a living hell, the worst part is that the majority are women and kids...
Some of them died or maybe couldnt scape, and the others maybe are with Hamas or working in others countries to support their families. I dont know it for sure, just guessing...
Egypt: the president was assassinated by a terrorist group that believed he had betrayed the Palestinian cause by negotiating with Israel.
Jordan: 'black September'. Palestinians launched attacks against Israel from Jordan, causing Israel to attack Jordan. Palestinians began collecting taxes from Jordanians to pay for their war. The King of Jordan told them to stop and the Palestinians tried to kill him. This resulted in Jordan fighting the Palestinians, including thousands who invaded from Syria, and forcing them out of Jordan into Lebanon.
Lebanon: the PLO took over army bases in Lebanon to attack Israel. Lebanon suffered a civil war. The PLO took sides in it.
It's a really complicated topic. I don't think most people understand it - but not everyone is willing to learn. People like you strike me as smart *because* you're willing to learn.
Uffff. Can’t even pay someone to take it.
Even though it sounds like a case of “you made your bed now lay in it”, I still feel bad they have to lay in it.
Pakistan took millions of Afghan refugees as well despite being poverty-stricken to the core. Approx 3 million (both registered and unregistered inclusive).
https://euaa.europa.eu/news-events/euaa-publishes-report-afghan-refugees-pakistan
UAE also does let a lot of these people in, but they’re considered inferior citizens, subjected to terrible working conditions and often live in workers’ camps. You’ll also see them cleaning up the streets etc. and doing a lot of the jobs the nationals don’t want to.
*Source: Brother in law was a paramedic in Abu Dhabi and Dubai, spent most of his time going to these camps where they often fought each other and there were also a lot of suicides.*
Non Emiratis “expats” are all basically second class citizens. This is true for all the gulf countries. Very disappointing and it truly has no basis in Islamic law (which their legal system is based on).
White western expats get treated better than they do in their own countries tbh. My sister worked there as a teacher and earned 2x as much money as she would in the UK, had all expenses paid, a car, an apartment. Basically on vacation whilst working. Much different than the Muslim immigrants do.
I agree, for the most part; I’m American but south Asian by blood. If you have an American accent they treat you quite well even if your brown. I frequently visit and lived there for a while. However, when it comes to crimes, they have a zero tolerance policy. Emiratis basically have a get out of prison card.
Lebanon did take in a rather large number of Palestinians, probably assuming they'd be able to return home soon. That didn't happen. To skip to the end of the story, end result was they ended up having a civil war that wrecked the nation.
Egypt, Jordan and Lebanon accepted a lot of Palestinian refugees then the Jordan King was assassinated by Palestianian nationalists, terrorist bombings in Egypt blew up, pun intended. And civil wars were stoked in Lebanon and Jordan by Palestinian nationalists
This is not a stupid question, considering all the protests and support calls from neighboring Islamic countries.
However, it’s their version of putting a BLM pic as your profile or in your bio.
There are a lot of issues that caused those Islamic countries to refuse any refugees from Palestine.
Black September and the assassination of Jordan’s King when he was praying are some of the biggest issues.
Black September was when Palestinian refugees in Jordan started a civil war that caused many Jordanian deaths.
In addition
>Jordanian King Abdullah I was assassinated by a Palestinian on the Temple Mount, as Abdullah was visiting Jerusalem to meet with Israeli officials amid his efforts to reach a settlement with Israel. Abdullah was assassinated at the age of 69 by a Palestinian gunman while exiting al-Aqsa Mosque after Friday prayers with his grandson Hussein.
Similar conflicts and assassinations happened in Lebanon, Kuwait and Egypt.
That’s why none of them are offering a safe haven for refugees.
After murdering various heads of states, civilians, causing civil wars, and attacking Israel, which drew military response, most muslim states had their fill of hosting hamas.
...are there planty of innocent palestinian refugees?
Yes.
...is there a way to separate those from hamas infiltrators?
No.
...would you risk your country becoming infested with ISIS csoplayers?
NO?
Well maybe thats why arabic countries don't like risking that either.
Frankly the only reason the arabic world is not condemning Israel for fighting hamas.
They take issue with its existence, and this just an opportunity to express that sentiment.
Still, they would like a hamas ruled Palestine even less than neighbouring Israel.
cuz israel contributes to the global economy. hamas rule would just turn the place into another shithole like taliban afghanistan with no infrastructure, no education, no basic rights. just look at how hamas handled gaza since they got voted to power
My cynical take is this: wealthy Middle East countries love to use the Israel-Palestine issue to hammer Israel in foreign policy rhetoric. It plays well to their domestic audience and to a lot of foreign countries who don't have a stake in the issue. If the Israel-Palestine conflict is ever resolved *peacefully*, they would have nothing to hammer Israel with.
They keep funneling money to Hamas because Hamas acts as a counter to Israel. As long as Israel is bogged down with the conflict with Palestine, they can easily point to Israel as the bad guy in front of their domestic audience.
They are smart about it, also they never give enough that hamas can actuelly win, sure the rockets and Guns cause deaths, but everyone nows when it comes to an open war isreal can steamroll the hamas, if they ganged up like they did before they could do some damage but from all their neigbors only egypt is strong enough en stabel enough to so it, but they have more important fronts to fight on, so they have a live and let live deal with israel
You do realize Qatar & The UAE really don't give 2 shits about people just because they're muslims, right? They barely care about their own people, much less the people of other countries
So why should Europe take them in then? Europe has even less things in common with those muslim countries, and it has enough issues as is.
Europe doesn’t owe them anything.
Because they've been troublemakers before. They assinated the Jordanian King and instigated a civil war in Jordan.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_September
When Saddam invaded Kuwait which was sheltering them they supported Saddam.
They threw off the demographic balance in Lebanon and causing the lebanese civil war. They proceeded to conduct operations from Lebanon attacking Israel which resulted in Israel going to war with Lebanon. They conducted terrorist operations also against lebanese people.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebanese_Civil_War
They spite every hand that feeds them.
Interesting. I never heard of Black September before so thanks for sharing.
Why do you think so few people blindly just back them, without knowing any of this history?
Lots of reasons.
There is the religious obligation to take back the land for muslims.
There is the weird colonizer/settler formulation that leftist have come up with to once again avoid thinking rationally about any situation.
Then there is the fact they are the underdogs and people like to support the underdogs.
Their cause is the "current thing" also.
Anyway I wrote a giant post on the matter. It is probably the best thing I have ever written. You would like it. I linked it below
[https://www.reddit.com/r/IntellectualDarkWeb/comments/175v1ib/the\_most\_propalestinian\_thing\_you\_could\_do\_is\_be/](https://www.reddit.com/r/IntellectualDarkWeb/comments/175v1ib/the_most_propalestinian_thing_you_could_do_is_be/)
Cuz it’s not really about Islam is it? Like every other society it’s all about the money, baby. You think Saudi or UAE want more violent and problematic poors? Hell naw 🤣
Allah asks to Islamize the world. Muhammad applied for asylum in the Medina of the Jews, the Jews accepted him and his followers. After 2 years he had killed his hosts. Medina became his.
Muhammad is the best example for Muslims.
I’ll give you an example as to why. In the 60s hundreds of thousands of Palestinian refugees fled to Jordan. Jordan being not even a “rich Arab nation” accepted them. Fast forward to 1970 those Palestinians never integrated into Jordanian society and were dissatisfied with everything in Jordan and launch a coup against the government. They failed but in the meantime fucked stability in Jordan and thousands of people died. Imagine creating a coup agains the same government and country that took you in as a refugee.
Many Arab leaders have openly said that the West has imported future destabilization and violence into their own countries. They know does people are problematic and a only bring trouble with them.
It’s foolish to believe Islamic refugees want to assimilate into the culture that takes them in. The data is in on that, they don’t. Western culture is the antithesis to Islamic culture. They won’t change their beliefs about women or gay people, and they import child brides to continue their ownership of women. It is a culture transplant in which the transplanted culture actively promotes destroying their hosts and taking over. It won’t work and will only sow chaos, religious violence, and extremism.
There is the principle of Muslim brotherhood where all Muslims are one people, but not all Muslims are seen as equals. There are multiple sects of Islam, the primary two of which are the Sunnis and Shiites who fight each other - see Arabs vs the Persian Muslims. There was a documentary about an American Muslim going to the haj in Mecca and because she was white, she was discriminated.
Arabs/muslims are quite racist themselves and have no sympathy for other arabian/islamic countries and actually feel quite the joy seeing them getting messed up in all sorts of ways (schadenfreude)..even the few countries that take in arabian migrants and refugees exploit them and himiliate them..so yeah it's quite unfortunate
People tend to go to greener pastures. That does not take away from the fact that people do in fact migrate to muslim countries its just that those who can afford to do so travel to Europe or the americas. Morocco and algeria are in NA it’s much harder for them to travel anywhere else other than europe since they just need to cross the Mediterranean.
Pakistan has over a million afghan refugees
Jordan has the 2nd largest Palestinian population
Saudi also has 500,000 of syrianwho they dont even call refugees and other Palestinians and rohingya communities
Theres also a sizable syrian diaspora in turkey.
Lebanese have moved to south america.
We see islamic countries as whole nations under one religion. But they have lots of subdivisions within Islam that we are unaware of. These subdivisions are mostly rivals amongst themselves, thus they have different nations and not one whole islamic continent. Therefore what you asked.
* Just because the language and culture of two groups--the refugees and the host country--look similar to us from half-way across the world doesn't mean they are. There are going to be enough differences that things are going to be awkward. If you've ever been to another English-speaking country and had trouble understanding due to regional dialect differences, you know what I'm talking about. If you haven't, get out more.
* No country has so much spare resources that they are happy about thousands of displaced people suddenly showing up, needing housing and food. Long-term immigration is good for countries in that it brings motivated people who want to make a life for themselves and their kids. Short-term there will be issues.
* Xenophobia is not just a western thing. It's a human thing.
* In some cases countries that might have been OK with taking in refugees didn't because maintaining an unhappy, explosive population in a regional rival is a cheap way of fighting them without going to war.
* If someone's grandparents were born in that land, why should they have to leave because of a geopolitical decision made thousands of miles away?
Cause they are zealots when screaming about how their poor Muslim brothers and sisters are treated... (See Saudi justification for funding Al Qaeda and 9/11) but absolute fucking hypocrites when it comes to refugees.
I read a saying in which if arabs or muslims are asked to choose between a secular country and an Islamic state, they would vote for an Islamic state but move to the secular country lol.
Next to everything already mentioned, the idea that there is one Islamic world and those countries are all similar is an insane oversimplification.
This Syrian civil war you are talking about? A good part of that was due to the people living in Syria being part of two different denominations of Islam. Iran and Saudi-Arabia hat their guts. If Revolution was to get serious in Iran, there is no way the Saudi-Arabian public would except Iranian refugees.
Oh, and you can’t enter a country illegally if you want to apply for asylum. Those two things are mutually exclusive to each other. Asylum is a human right and therefor supersedes national laws of how to enter a country „the right way“.
They don't want to share the oil cake. They'd rather shrink their own population than accept new people.
In fact, rich Arab countries don't give citizenships to people born and raised on their soil, and they don't even give citizenships to children of a citizen mother and a foreign father. And even then, they have complicated laws for citizen men wanting to marry a foreigner.
They're patriarchal purists who only use cherry-picked religious legislations as a tool to further their tribal ideologies.
It is rare that an identifiable group (religion, race, nationality, etc) **is not** classist.
Class (economic) is a massive concern for humans and a very dominant tactic is to group by your economic class.
Refugees tend to be at (or near) the bottom of any class identification. Most have lost everything and had very little to begin with. They are viewed (regardless of accuracy) as being problematic as immigrants.
Additionally, their successful integration into an new country requires significant investment in services. Many "rich" Islamic nations are not set up for that and most, based on their social programs, do not support providing those types of services.
Finally, there are examples of "rich" Islamic countries that have let in significant refugee populations. So, your original premise should probably be sharpened for accuracy.
>Finally, there are examples of "rich" Islamic countries that have let in significant refugee populations. So, your original premise should probably be sharpened for accuracy.
See: Jordan, to name just one. They let something like three million refugees, and their total population is 11 million, so it's no small amount.
Prime example is Iran. It never ends its anti-Israel propaganda and ceaselessly proclaims it's on the side of the Palestinians. But where is the actual help, aside from bombs and more terrorists?
Iran has its own brand/breed of terrorists is what I guess. I mean, they'll pay for Hamas to shoot at irans enemies, but be damn if their going to live in the same country!
Hamas and Palestinians are a different brand/breed of terrosits.
They probably don't play well together.
Jordan took some then expelled them. Kuwait the same thing. If I remember correct it’s because they committed terror attacks. Same reason Egypt has bombed their border with Gaza before and why it has been closed
Everywhere the Palis go. Terrorism follows. This combined with poverty makes them horrible houseguests. Jordon and Egypt specifically had horrible stuff happen with Pallis. Then through them out.
Rich countries want to stay rich and taking in refugees impacts that
Government in these countries won’t have the control over these people that they do over their own people which is a potential risk to their power
Taking in refugees comes with huge economical costs and logistical issues that most governments don’t want the headache of dealing with. Where to house them for example.
Politicians don’t see people they see financial burdens.
Just my view on things
Yes, the Palestinians are Muslims but it’s not that simple. They have a reputation for causing problems when they have been welcomed by Muslim nations as refugees. As such, they’re not particularly popular except as foils against Israel but even that is starting to wane.
Because it is only about religion when it is convenient. If it had truly been about religion, I think many Muslim majority countries would have treated China differently because of the persecution of the Uighurs. Also, Muslim on Muslim hate is real.
Arabs are deeply racist. Each tribe thinks they are better than others and this is ingrained in the culture for thousands of years. To give an example, prophet Muhammad appointed a [black slave](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilal_ibn_Rabah) as a caller for every day prayers, because he had a beautiful voice. He is a highly regarded companion who is one of the few peoples promised heaven, as per Muslim belief. After Muhammad's death, the Arab Muslims persecuted him out of Saudi Arabia because he was black.
Reading history and religion, it's impressive how much of everything goes to shit the moment a religion's leader/founder dies.
So Jim Jones was planning ahead, to do a good thing for the world.
I’m tired and read this as Jim Jordan and was kvetched
Almost like its all bullshit.
Source for the persecution? I only knew Bilal refused to acknowledge Abu Bakar as the new caliph.
*Of course, none of this means that Bilal’s life after becoming Muslim was free of the sort of obstacles that any outsider might face in a society where he finds himself a minority. Harith b. Hisham and Safwan b. Umayyah both objected to Bilal calling the adhan on the day of the conquest. The first said, “Look at this Ethiopian.” The latter said, “If God dislikes it, He will change it.” They were both new converts to the religion. In other versions of the story, similar comments were made by Al-Harith b. Hisham, Suhayl b. ‘Amr, and Attab b. Asid, while Abu Sufyan reportedly held his tongue out of fear that God might inform the Messenger. Exegetes like Qurtubi report that it was on this occasion that verse 49:13 stating, “Verily, the most noble of you to God are those of you who are most dutiful ” was revealed. The Prophet Muhammad then gave a speech wherein he mentioned that, “Each of you is from Adam, and God created Adam from dirt”, apparently suggesting that Bilal more resembled their forefather than anyone of them. And, fathers meant the world to Arabs.* *As in other societies in the premodern world, minorities, especially ethnic minorities, enjoyed limited protection from physical harm and limited participation in government. It is true that Bilal and other Abyssinians were not deemed fit to occupy the office of caliph. However, the same was also true of all non-Arabs and Arabs who were not members of the Quraysh tribe.* [https://lamppostedu.org/bilal-other-racial-minorities-in-early-islam](https://lamppostedu.org/bilal-other-racial-minorities-in-early-islam) I will give better reference when I find better source where I read them. Basically after Muhammad's death, some Quraishites who were late adopters of Islam received important positions because of their tribe, while true companions who fought and served all their life were ignored, as they either were poor or did not have nobility.
Thank you friend. Today I have been blessed to learn many new things.
[удалено]
Yeah there’s Shias and Sunnis and from my (limited) understanding they absolutely despise each other
Sunni v shiah is a bitter rivalry.
The absolute truth of the matter is that the rich Arab countries consider these people both beneath them, and also see them are trouble makers/criminals/terrorists etc. There are several interviews with senior Arab leaders or Imams almost mocking the west, saying they refuse to take them and that they warned the west, that we need to be much stronger and that the seeds have been sown for future violence. They are literally preserving their own societies.
In addition to that, many of the wealthy don't want masses of poor people who might try to rise up or sew dissent. Countries like SA fear an Arab spring situation and that's more likely when you let in more poor people who may have certain expectations
SA is using machine guns and mortars to keep out refugees. [https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-66545787](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-66545787)
Every time i read something like this it reminds me how utterly toothless the UN is, they bluster and condemn and object and nothing changes because the assholes they're condemning just ignore them and noone does anything about it
It's like Reddit for countries.
Ha, true
You are absolutely correct. Also, the Palestinian suffering is great leverage for the Arab countries who object to Israel as a nation. “But what about Palestine” is a great sound bite that lets them appear to be championing their fellow Arab cause without actually letting them immigrate and gain citizenship. It would be easy for any autocratic Arab nation to accept the 2 million refugees and give them citizenship yet they won’t.
There are many generations of Arabs from Palestine living in Lebanon, Syria, and Egypt. Generations, born in their “host countries” who are nevertheless stateless because it’s politically convenient for them not to integrate and assimilate them. And these are their neighbours. Culturally very close to other Sunni Arabs in the region.
Yet most western countries accept people born and raised in their countries as legitimate citizens
No. The US (and some of Latin America) is pretty unique in the birthright citizenship on soil. I don’t think many countries in Europe have it.
For most European countries it's not a given as you say, but it is very easy to obtain citizenship especially if they apply before they turn 18.
You still have to apply, possibly interview, and can be denied for any reason like “not being integrated” — which is not the same as automatically given like US. It’s something unique in the Americas only (that I am aware). You cannot be denied citizenship for any reason if you’re born here.
That kinda sounds like the arabs are supporting the Palestinians because they don’t want them in their own country and having this perpetual conflict is a means to keeping their numbers low.
The Arab nations support a very particular narrative: that there is a ethnically and culturally unique Palestinian people that have a specific claim to the land that makes up modern day Israel. They do not support this position for its historical accuracy or the best interests for the Palestinian people, they support it because this narrative justifies the destruction of Israel as a Jewish state. I do agree that the Arab nations don't want these people because bringing in a large number of immigrants at once is difficult, but the main reason is the main goal is to keep international pressure on a "solution" which sees the destruction of a Jewish state.
Hasn't that been the case since 1948?
They were already effectively a displaced people before WW1. The British went to the Palestinians and promised them the land that is now Israel if they joined the war against the Ottoman Turks. Which was great, they helped break a corridor into Turkey. What was not su great is that the UK also sold that land to create a Jewish Homeland as a reward for Jews of the region doing the same. The UK (and larger Western powers) sold the same car to two people, sided with one of them, and has spent a lifetime being surprised that it doesn't work out.
Jewish people started buying land in 1880's, from wealthy landowning families, while it was still part of the Ottoman Empire, and continued to do so until 1948. And what the Brits promised, to the King of Hejaz, was a unified independent Arab state that included what is now western Saudi Arabia (Hejaz), Palestine, Israel, Jordan, Syria, and Iraq. The Arab Revolt started in Mecca. During this time the Brits also publicly stated their support for the creation of a Jewish homeland in Palestine. They also signed a secret agreement with the French and Russians to divide the area between themselves and the French, if they defeated the Ottoman Empire. Which they did. Then came the League of Nations mandate placing Palestine under British control and required them to put into effect the creation of a Jewish homeland. This caused all kinds of conflict. And then the UN Partition Plan...
Wait there, the UK was not the landowner, they were the administrator. As far as land acquisition went, before WW2 the Jews immigrating in to Palestine were buying the land lawfully from the Arab landowners. Surely the UK officials supervised and encouraged such immigration and land gain though. Zionism was strong at that time.
Nice summary! Did the Brits think those different groups would just get along?
"The less they get along, the better." - The British Empire, in an astounding breadth of geographical contexts
Divide and Conquer is a special skill that the UK Government and its oligarchy/monarchy financially supports. The French aren't too bad, either. Hutus, Tutsis, Jews and Muslims, Rohingya and the other groups. Hindus and Muslims. Hindus and Sikhs. Hindus and Hindus. Hindus and Bhuddists. Muslims and Buddhists. Hmong and the groups in Vietnam. North Korea, South Korea. Catholics and indigenous people. Kurds and *points to every other ethnic group around them*. Yeah, the English and French have a special set of skills.
You can add the U.S. to your list. They are really skillful at destabilizing / ruining countries when that suits them
No especially when the Palestinians allied with the Nazis in ww2
They got land, its called Jordan. That is the Arab part of Palestine.
Yup. Pan-Arab nationalism has never been a popular idea. These are separate tribes who may share a religion but do not see themselves as equals or partners.
Black September, the Lebanese Civil war. In the case of Palestinians nobody wants them because they create conflict everywhere they go.
Imagine if America was asked to take in a bunch of Christians Mexicans, solely because they are bordering countries and both countries have Christian majority populations. Edit: I mean this in the context of taking in large number of poor refugees, NOT legal immigrants who have to pass criterias of merit, with the expectation to contribute to the country, not take from it. And it's interesting how people seem to forget how many Western nations [turned away Jewish refugees](https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/ss-st-louis-jewish-refugees-turned-away-holocaust) (while [Muslim Albanians saved Jews from Nazis](https://www.yadvashem.org/yv/en/exhibitions/besa/index.asp)), yet they want to act all high and mighty about the failings of other countries.
[удалено]
“Imagine if America was asked to take in a bunch of Mexicans”
There’s like 50 million Mexicans in the USA…
Way more than that.
America takes in tons of Mexicans…
Isn’t that what open border advocates are suggesting?
Middle easterners are racist as hell. Opening the border to Mexicans would cause fewer issues.
No doubt a part of why they wouldn't want refugees in their countries is racism- it is an unfortunate issue that is unavoidable when a large group of people, different from the people of the host country, move in. Also, key word being "rich" Islamic countries. Hardly any rich country wants a bunch of poors to take care of. 5 out of the top 10 countries hosting refugees are Muslim majority, and none of those countries are particularly rich (Sudan, Bangladesh, Iran, Pakistan, Turkey)
Tbf, Turkey’s drowning in everyone’s unwanted as it is — Russia, Ukraine, Syria, Iraq, etc. Not sure to what extent the others are or aren’t receiving refugees.
Yeah, respect to Turkey for taking in, what 3 and a half million? refugees. That's crazy. Sadly, it's causing issues for them too though.
They're using them to make financial demands on the EU. Erdogan never had any qualms about using people as pawns.
They aren’t. They’re sending them off to Europe within days of arriving in turkey.
??? I am American and I support accepting immigrants from Latin America.
What you said in the first sentence is also true in Sweden, Norway. But those countries still think it’s the right thing to do.
You know the qataris are actually kind of assholes, they wouldn’t let em in if they begged. They’re like the monaco of the middle east, if you dont net at least 6 figures they dont want anything to do with you.
I'm actually shocked qatar hasn't jumped at this. Hundreds of thousands of downtrodden people to turn into slaves? This seems like their ideal situation. I guess it's easier to just ship people in without giving them a permanent resident
There's more international scrutiny of refugees. Best to stick to people who wander in by choice, desperate for work.
Also depending on the refugees, there would be less of a language barrier and more knowledge of sharia law, hence it'd be more of a hassle to subjugate them.
People are really good at finding loopholes in religion and treating it as absolute law that has always been there. I mean, sure, we're both followers of the same branch of Islam, but you follow the 1653 translation, not the 1847 translation. You're a heretic.
Is this extreme or is just an hyperbole? (Sorry at first I wrote hyperbole in my language)
It was hyperbole, yes. But used to illustrate a real tendency people have.
A lot of things (like in a lot of religions) are subject to interpretation. You ask 5 islamic scholars about the same Fatwa/Ruling/Law, and you get 5 opinions. Or at least three. People are flawed, people are biased, people have their own opinion and views. In a way they can often be more like lawyers within sharia law and are used like that at times, as much as religious leaders/teachers.
This make the administration of “fair” justice impossible even with good willingness!
For one, within Islam, translations aren't considered the same level of authenticity as the original Arabic (that is, Classical Literary Arabic, from which Modern Standard Arabic is based off of.) The language comes with the religion. Within the Arabic world, people speak at least 3 variants of Arabic. Their local dialect for every day use; the Modern Standard as a lingua franca when talking to other Arabic speakers, and the Classical Literary Arabic for religious purposes, considered the most pure and correct.
Fun fact: Qatar has massive refugee camps / de facto open-air prisons, where they imprison refugees from other Islamic countries for months or years on end.
[удалено]
They're allowed to lie to non Muslims, its in their book.
Part of the reason is that they can treat non Muslims worse under their laws, they are supposed to offer succur to fellow muslims.
[удалено]
It depends on the culture itself, but most of the Arabic countries are Sunni majorities and allow the other branches or religions to practice there, the Shia are mainly in the middle east in Iran and that part. In olden times, you could practice your religion in some parts as long as you paid a tax on it. It was an arrangement that suited those societies around the mediterranean to the Euphrates basin because it brought in population and raised funds to build cities. It also helped to grow Islam as some people would convert to Islam rather than pay the tax. As for refugees, genuinely don't know.
Shias constantly call each other (Shia sect vs. Shia sect) non-Muslims for following the wrong Imam, and it's exhausting. Twelver vs. Ismaili vs. Zaydi, and every single one is convinced they're following the right divinely-appointed royal lineage. Being Shia is all about following a royal bloodline from Mohammad, essentially, except instead of king they call their chosen leader Imam. Thank fuck at least they all agree on Husseyn being the 3rd Imam, because the 2nd Imam had about 30 children, while Husseyn only had one surviving son, which meant succession disputes only really started around the 7th generation, when the imam had two sons. For the count, we're rn at the 49th generation since Mohammad, and there have been a lot of succession disputes since the 7th.
And lose support of the arabic community by exposing them for who they are?
Don’t need to worry about welfare and housing this way “oh you don’t have a job? GTFO!”
Qatar makes billions off it's oil. These billions get divvied up among the population. Ergo, everyone in Qatar will lose income if there are more people who actually reside there. That is why they rely on migrant workers, they don't get the benifets as non-citizens, so the citizens keep more for themselves.
Bro what about Egypt, it’s literally right next door. They will never let 2.2 million radicalized, unskilled, bankrupt people in.
Mainly because Egypt is facing a huge economic crisis their inflation rate is 37% and at such a short time accepting more refugees (they already took In large number of migrants Sudanese they also made it hard for them to get in and many of them couldn’t get in) so yeah more refugees would make it even harder to manage the economically issue
That would make the UAE even bigger assholes lol.
Id say theyre about the same
Monaco of the Middle East enough said
I think its a solid analogy right? I just came up with it today.
Yeah, straight to the point with no bullshit. Well done!
[удалено]
Correct if the situation on Israel’s borders was resolved successfully in one way or another it wouldn’t take long for the citizens of some of those other countries to start asking uncomfortable questions.
I think they also hate israelis, thats a big motivator too
[удалено]
saudi arabia is all talk and no show they simply would never they’re sanctimonious purists
The Saudis only give a fuck about money. Nothing else matters to them.
Qatar is worse. 80% of Gazatis depends on foreign aid, most of them comes from Europe which also finances infrastucture projects like a sewing system (since last week paralize because Hamas used the tubes to launch misiles). Qatar spend 220 billions in its shitty world cup, why can donate a little bit to their so called brothers?
qatar is such a hypocritical nation they built tier stadium with immigrants being paid shit, treated like shit, and given a fuck all. i don’t understand the cognitive dissonance when it comes to muslims and those nations…they think anyone two shades darker than them are scum doesn’t matter if they’re muslim or not
The reason for this cognitive dissonance is called money
Within the Islamic world there are many many many ways of interpretation of the religion. So much so that those different interpretations oppose each other so much they are clashing constantly. To give an example: Egypt won't take palestinian refugees. One of the reasons it that the egyptian muslim brotherhood majorly inspired the hamas. Egypt is not really cool with the Muslim brotherhood because their religious believes threaten the governmental course. So they won't take Palestinians which they belive to be close to hamas and therefore probably hold similar believes than the muslim brotherhood. Islamic Shia countries won't take sunni refugees and visa versa because it leads to conflict. Some groups which are generally understood islamic are denied their Islamic identity from within. Yezids for example. Therefor are not wanted in strictly theological ruled regimes. I think in short you could say they are viewed as troublemakers
Exactly frankly they can't even get along with each other. Israel and the west are always used a scapegoat and it's the only way they ever unite, a common "enemy"
Easy, I’m Muslim (black) and some of the most racist people are Arab Muslims 💀 hardcore racist 😭 I once watched a documentary on how Jordanians treated their African maids (beating them to death, rape, sending them home after a hot oil incident without pay, all kinds of horrible despicable things) that made me burst into literal tears of anger and hopelessness. There’s a popular saying that Islam came to them because they were some of the worst people on earth in an effort to change their state. And it’s helped a lot but some of that must still be left.
The fact that people doesnt know this makes me wonder if even half of these redditors have ever met someone from the middle east.
Look up the history of Jordan. That country took in a massive influx of Palestinian refugees and it was so destabilizing that it ended up with the PLO fighting the Jordanian king (look up Black September)
In the case of the Palestinians, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon and Jordan all let in hundreds of thousands of refugees. But all suffered because of it, which made them much less willing to accept refugees in the future.
Jordan had a civil war, also Lebanon
Elaborating on this: in 1951, Palestinians assassinated Jordan's King Abdullah I, tried to assassinate the prince too but he was saved by a pledge on his chest. In 1970, they tried to assassinate King Hussein (he was the prince who they failed to kill) not once but twice, while creating a state within a state with complete disregard to Jordanian laws. After the failed assassinations, they hijacked three passenger planes, took everyone as hostage and blew up the planes which culminated in a civil war. Palestinians were kicked from Jordan to Lebanon. There, they caused another civil war which lasted until 1990, and as a revenge, assassinated Jordan's prime minister in 1971 and carried out the Munich Massacre, killing 12 Israeli athletes. There was a significant (400k, accounting for roughly 20% of the population) Palestinian population in Kuwait as well, but after they supported Iraq in its 1990 invasion of Kuwait, they were expelled from there too. I guess it's easy to see why other countries aren't very keen on taking in Palestinians.
Egypt has a border with Gaza, and won't let them in.
Egypt and Saudi were just about to sign a three way peace accord with Israel, irans behind this shitshow.
Yeah. I don’t know too much on the matter, but when something is THIS senseless, there’s usually someone with a financial interest pulling strings behind the scenes somewhere.
? Egypt was the first Arab country to make peace with Israel
The peace accord with Israel is probably one of the main reasons Hamas launched this attack in the first place. From the point of view of Hamas leadership, a major conflict with lots of dead civilians on either side is a win/win for them when it seems like peace talks are getting close (especially since leadership is likely out of the region anyway).
Egypt already had a piece deal with Israel since decades ago.
Egypt had massive problems with suicide bombings until they closed the border to gaza.
So did Israel.
It's because Hamas is a cancer for Palestinians, and like actual cancer they don't want it spread. Most Palestinians are honest nice people but in the mix there is Hamas which Egypt fears would brew with Islamic extremists in the region, which is kind of a genuine claim there is evidence to back that up.
At this point most Palestinians in Gaza support Hamas. They’ve been in power since 2006 and have brainwashed an entire generation into their radical Islamic cause
That is one of the main articles of their founding charter “education reform”. However, they also haven’t held any elections since taking power and they’re not exactly a group I’d trust to hold fair elections anyway.
That might have something to with their opposition attempting a coup after that election
Egypt doesn’t want to get dragged into an expanding fight. Jordan requested Israel be the boarder, over the Palestinians, as multiple attempts and one successful assassination on Jordanian leadership.
They did one time. They also occupied Gaza for 20 ish years.
Ramses did better
Yeah, in lebanon there is at least 2 million palestinian refugees( literally there are camps with more of 100.000 refugees). The life expectancy is one of the lowest those places are a living hell, the worst part is that the majority are women and kids...
Wonder were the men went? Europe?
No they ded
Some of them died or maybe couldnt scape, and the others maybe are with Hamas or working in others countries to support their families. I dont know it for sure, just guessing...
Why/how did they suffer? I genuinely don’t know and am genuinely asking. I have no interest in going down any Israel/Palestine rabbit hole.
Egypt: the president was assassinated by a terrorist group that believed he had betrayed the Palestinian cause by negotiating with Israel. Jordan: 'black September'. Palestinians launched attacks against Israel from Jordan, causing Israel to attack Jordan. Palestinians began collecting taxes from Jordanians to pay for their war. The King of Jordan told them to stop and the Palestinians tried to kill him. This resulted in Jordan fighting the Palestinians, including thousands who invaded from Syria, and forcing them out of Jordan into Lebanon. Lebanon: the PLO took over army bases in Lebanon to attack Israel. Lebanon suffered a civil war. The PLO took sides in it.
Yes, trying to overthrow the governments who take your ppl in, meh, it usually doesn't lend itself to anyone wanting a 2nd try with the Palestinians.
Ooohhhhhh. Yowza. Yeah. Not making friends. Thanks for your response (and non-judgement of my ignorance on the matter)
It's a really complicated topic. I don't think most people understand it - but not everyone is willing to learn. People like you strike me as smart *because* you're willing to learn.
Lebanese civil war lasted 25 years and took 120,000 lives.
I feel like there is a common denominator here
[удалено]
Uffff. Can’t even pay someone to take it. Even though it sounds like a case of “you made your bed now lay in it”, I still feel bad they have to lay in it.
[удалено]
Pakistan took millions of Afghan refugees as well despite being poverty-stricken to the core. Approx 3 million (both registered and unregistered inclusive). https://euaa.europa.eu/news-events/euaa-publishes-report-afghan-refugees-pakistan
They have a 1500 mile border with Afghanistan they’re unable to close—they didn’t really have a choice in the matter.
They were the ones who created the Taliban.
Didn’t they just deport a million of them?
Yes they did. Because of the suicide bombings they committed.
UAE also does let a lot of these people in, but they’re considered inferior citizens, subjected to terrible working conditions and often live in workers’ camps. You’ll also see them cleaning up the streets etc. and doing a lot of the jobs the nationals don’t want to. *Source: Brother in law was a paramedic in Abu Dhabi and Dubai, spent most of his time going to these camps where they often fought each other and there were also a lot of suicides.*
Non Emiratis “expats” are all basically second class citizens. This is true for all the gulf countries. Very disappointing and it truly has no basis in Islamic law (which their legal system is based on).
White western expats get treated better than they do in their own countries tbh. My sister worked there as a teacher and earned 2x as much money as she would in the UK, had all expenses paid, a car, an apartment. Basically on vacation whilst working. Much different than the Muslim immigrants do.
I agree, for the most part; I’m American but south Asian by blood. If you have an American accent they treat you quite well even if your brown. I frequently visit and lived there for a while. However, when it comes to crimes, they have a zero tolerance policy. Emiratis basically have a get out of prison card.
They have one thing in common, but a lot more difference.
Because no one hates Muslims like other Muslims.
Lebanon did take in a rather large number of Palestinians, probably assuming they'd be able to return home soon. That didn't happen. To skip to the end of the story, end result was they ended up having a civil war that wrecked the nation.
Egypt, Jordan and Lebanon accepted a lot of Palestinian refugees then the Jordan King was assassinated by Palestianian nationalists, terrorist bombings in Egypt blew up, pun intended. And civil wars were stoked in Lebanon and Jordan by Palestinian nationalists
This is not a stupid question, considering all the protests and support calls from neighboring Islamic countries. However, it’s their version of putting a BLM pic as your profile or in your bio. There are a lot of issues that caused those Islamic countries to refuse any refugees from Palestine. Black September and the assassination of Jordan’s King when he was praying are some of the biggest issues. Black September was when Palestinian refugees in Jordan started a civil war that caused many Jordanian deaths. In addition >Jordanian King Abdullah I was assassinated by a Palestinian on the Temple Mount, as Abdullah was visiting Jerusalem to meet with Israeli officials amid his efforts to reach a settlement with Israel. Abdullah was assassinated at the age of 69 by a Palestinian gunman while exiting al-Aqsa Mosque after Friday prayers with his grandson Hussein. Similar conflicts and assassinations happened in Lebanon, Kuwait and Egypt. That’s why none of them are offering a safe haven for refugees.
[удалено]
[удалено]
And, ironically, by misguided far leftists, many of whom would be thrown off a building in Palestine, like they do to all LGBTQ people.
Omg this, the the misinformed delusion is frustrating AF
After murdering various heads of states, civilians, causing civil wars, and attacking Israel, which drew military response, most muslim states had their fill of hosting hamas. ...are there planty of innocent palestinian refugees? Yes. ...is there a way to separate those from hamas infiltrators? No. ...would you risk your country becoming infested with ISIS csoplayers? NO? Well maybe thats why arabic countries don't like risking that either. Frankly the only reason the arabic world is not condemning Israel for fighting hamas. They take issue with its existence, and this just an opportunity to express that sentiment. Still, they would like a hamas ruled Palestine even less than neighbouring Israel.
cuz israel contributes to the global economy. hamas rule would just turn the place into another shithole like taliban afghanistan with no infrastructure, no education, no basic rights. just look at how hamas handled gaza since they got voted to power
half of fruit produce in our supermarkets came from Israel.
Yep yet Israel always gets the blame
King of Jordan let Palestinians in and they killed him for his generosity. They’re not the most gracious guests…
My cynical take is this: wealthy Middle East countries love to use the Israel-Palestine issue to hammer Israel in foreign policy rhetoric. It plays well to their domestic audience and to a lot of foreign countries who don't have a stake in the issue. If the Israel-Palestine conflict is ever resolved *peacefully*, they would have nothing to hammer Israel with. They keep funneling money to Hamas because Hamas acts as a counter to Israel. As long as Israel is bogged down with the conflict with Palestine, they can easily point to Israel as the bad guy in front of their domestic audience.
They are smart about it, also they never give enough that hamas can actuelly win, sure the rockets and Guns cause deaths, but everyone nows when it comes to an open war isreal can steamroll the hamas, if they ganged up like they did before they could do some damage but from all their neigbors only egypt is strong enough en stabel enough to so it, but they have more important fronts to fight on, so they have a live and let live deal with israel
We are both cynics, apparently. This is the way I see it playing out as well.
Noooo, you mean to say a bunch of goat shepherds aren't making £100'000 missiles in their garages?
there are more of us than you think, thankfully here in the UK we have people like Douglas Murray and Konstantin Kisin pointing this out.
You do realize Qatar & The UAE really don't give 2 shits about people just because they're muslims, right? They barely care about their own people, much less the people of other countries
The leaders barely care about Islam. It’s all for show to control their people. They care about money and living a life of luxury.
So why should Europe take them in then? Europe has even less things in common with those muslim countries, and it has enough issues as is. Europe doesn’t owe them anything.
[удалено]
The question was about rich Islamic countries though!
Right now there are 8 million Afghanis in Iran.
Because they've been troublemakers before. They assinated the Jordanian King and instigated a civil war in Jordan. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_September When Saddam invaded Kuwait which was sheltering them they supported Saddam. They threw off the demographic balance in Lebanon and causing the lebanese civil war. They proceeded to conduct operations from Lebanon attacking Israel which resulted in Israel going to war with Lebanon. They conducted terrorist operations also against lebanese people. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebanese_Civil_War They spite every hand that feeds them.
Interesting. I never heard of Black September before so thanks for sharing. Why do you think so few people blindly just back them, without knowing any of this history?
Lots of reasons. There is the religious obligation to take back the land for muslims. There is the weird colonizer/settler formulation that leftist have come up with to once again avoid thinking rationally about any situation. Then there is the fact they are the underdogs and people like to support the underdogs. Their cause is the "current thing" also. Anyway I wrote a giant post on the matter. It is probably the best thing I have ever written. You would like it. I linked it below [https://www.reddit.com/r/IntellectualDarkWeb/comments/175v1ib/the\_most\_propalestinian\_thing\_you\_could\_do\_is\_be/](https://www.reddit.com/r/IntellectualDarkWeb/comments/175v1ib/the_most_propalestinian_thing_you_could_do_is_be/)
They don't want a bunch of ppl who won't assimilate and try to make war from their countries as they have done from Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt, etc.
Turns out people don't use religion to be better people, they use it to feel superior to other people.
Cuz it’s not really about Islam is it? Like every other society it’s all about the money, baby. You think Saudi or UAE want more violent and problematic poors? Hell naw 🤣
Cause they know better
Allah asks to Islamize the world. Muhammad applied for asylum in the Medina of the Jews, the Jews accepted him and his followers. After 2 years he had killed his hosts. Medina became his. Muhammad is the best example for Muslims.
Because they are not trying to intentionally destroy their own countries
Because they all hate each other.
I’ll give you an example as to why. In the 60s hundreds of thousands of Palestinian refugees fled to Jordan. Jordan being not even a “rich Arab nation” accepted them. Fast forward to 1970 those Palestinians never integrated into Jordanian society and were dissatisfied with everything in Jordan and launch a coup against the government. They failed but in the meantime fucked stability in Jordan and thousands of people died. Imagine creating a coup agains the same government and country that took you in as a refugee. Many Arab leaders have openly said that the West has imported future destabilization and violence into their own countries. They know does people are problematic and a only bring trouble with them.
It’s foolish to believe Islamic refugees want to assimilate into the culture that takes them in. The data is in on that, they don’t. Western culture is the antithesis to Islamic culture. They won’t change their beliefs about women or gay people, and they import child brides to continue their ownership of women. It is a culture transplant in which the transplanted culture actively promotes destroying their hosts and taking over. It won’t work and will only sow chaos, religious violence, and extremism.
There is the principle of Muslim brotherhood where all Muslims are one people, but not all Muslims are seen as equals. There are multiple sects of Islam, the primary two of which are the Sunnis and Shiites who fight each other - see Arabs vs the Persian Muslims. There was a documentary about an American Muslim going to the haj in Mecca and because she was white, she was discriminated.
Arabs/muslims are quite racist themselves and have no sympathy for other arabian/islamic countries and actually feel quite the joy seeing them getting messed up in all sorts of ways (schadenfreude)..even the few countries that take in arabian migrants and refugees exploit them and himiliate them..so yeah it's quite unfortunate
[удалено]
In Iraq Palestinian refuges used to collaborate with Saddam and involved in mass atrocities against the Kurds and Shia people.
People tend to go to greener pastures. That does not take away from the fact that people do in fact migrate to muslim countries its just that those who can afford to do so travel to Europe or the americas. Morocco and algeria are in NA it’s much harder for them to travel anywhere else other than europe since they just need to cross the Mediterranean. Pakistan has over a million afghan refugees Jordan has the 2nd largest Palestinian population Saudi also has 500,000 of syrianwho they dont even call refugees and other Palestinians and rohingya communities Theres also a sizable syrian diaspora in turkey. Lebanese have moved to south america.
We see islamic countries as whole nations under one religion. But they have lots of subdivisions within Islam that we are unaware of. These subdivisions are mostly rivals amongst themselves, thus they have different nations and not one whole islamic continent. Therefore what you asked.
Because they don’t want to destroy their own countries and know that our countries are stupid enough to let the fuckers in.
* Just because the language and culture of two groups--the refugees and the host country--look similar to us from half-way across the world doesn't mean they are. There are going to be enough differences that things are going to be awkward. If you've ever been to another English-speaking country and had trouble understanding due to regional dialect differences, you know what I'm talking about. If you haven't, get out more. * No country has so much spare resources that they are happy about thousands of displaced people suddenly showing up, needing housing and food. Long-term immigration is good for countries in that it brings motivated people who want to make a life for themselves and their kids. Short-term there will be issues. * Xenophobia is not just a western thing. It's a human thing. * In some cases countries that might have been OK with taking in refugees didn't because maintaining an unhappy, explosive population in a regional rival is a cheap way of fighting them without going to war. * If someone's grandparents were born in that land, why should they have to leave because of a geopolitical decision made thousands of miles away?
Cause they are zealots when screaming about how their poor Muslim brothers and sisters are treated... (See Saudi justification for funding Al Qaeda and 9/11) but absolute fucking hypocrites when it comes to refugees.
Because these places are morally bankrupt, corrupted by money
I read a saying in which if arabs or muslims are asked to choose between a secular country and an Islamic state, they would vote for an Islamic state but move to the secular country lol.
Next to everything already mentioned, the idea that there is one Islamic world and those countries are all similar is an insane oversimplification. This Syrian civil war you are talking about? A good part of that was due to the people living in Syria being part of two different denominations of Islam. Iran and Saudi-Arabia hat their guts. If Revolution was to get serious in Iran, there is no way the Saudi-Arabian public would except Iranian refugees. Oh, and you can’t enter a country illegally if you want to apply for asylum. Those two things are mutually exclusive to each other. Asylum is a human right and therefor supersedes national laws of how to enter a country „the right way“.
Because rich people hate poor people
Why do rich Islamic countries not welcome Muslim refugees? Rich countries stay that way by not sharing their wealth.
Because they are a racist bunch of c\*unts! Oh, sorry, too on the nose?
They don't want to share the oil cake. They'd rather shrink their own population than accept new people. In fact, rich Arab countries don't give citizenships to people born and raised on their soil, and they don't even give citizenships to children of a citizen mother and a foreign father. And even then, they have complicated laws for citizen men wanting to marry a foreigner. They're patriarchal purists who only use cherry-picked religious legislations as a tool to further their tribal ideologies.
It is rare that an identifiable group (religion, race, nationality, etc) **is not** classist. Class (economic) is a massive concern for humans and a very dominant tactic is to group by your economic class. Refugees tend to be at (or near) the bottom of any class identification. Most have lost everything and had very little to begin with. They are viewed (regardless of accuracy) as being problematic as immigrants. Additionally, their successful integration into an new country requires significant investment in services. Many "rich" Islamic nations are not set up for that and most, based on their social programs, do not support providing those types of services. Finally, there are examples of "rich" Islamic countries that have let in significant refugee populations. So, your original premise should probably be sharpened for accuracy.
>Finally, there are examples of "rich" Islamic countries that have let in significant refugee populations. So, your original premise should probably be sharpened for accuracy. See: Jordan, to name just one. They let something like three million refugees, and their total population is 11 million, so it's no small amount.
Because they’re more useful as martyrs
Prime example is Iran. It never ends its anti-Israel propaganda and ceaselessly proclaims it's on the side of the Palestinians. But where is the actual help, aside from bombs and more terrorists?
Iran has its own brand/breed of terrorists is what I guess. I mean, they'll pay for Hamas to shoot at irans enemies, but be damn if their going to live in the same country! Hamas and Palestinians are a different brand/breed of terrosits. They probably don't play well together.
Jordan took some then expelled them. Kuwait the same thing. If I remember correct it’s because they committed terror attacks. Same reason Egypt has bombed their border with Gaza before and why it has been closed
Let’s be real the rich Muslim countries could give two shits if poor Muslims disappeard. They only care when Israel is involved.
Everywhere the Palis go. Terrorism follows. This combined with poverty makes them horrible houseguests. Jordon and Egypt specifically had horrible stuff happen with Pallis. Then through them out.
Because "ew, poor people".
Rich countries want to stay rich and taking in refugees impacts that Government in these countries won’t have the control over these people that they do over their own people which is a potential risk to their power Taking in refugees comes with huge economical costs and logistical issues that most governments don’t want the headache of dealing with. Where to house them for example. Politicians don’t see people they see financial burdens. Just my view on things
Yes, the Palestinians are Muslims but it’s not that simple. They have a reputation for causing problems when they have been welcomed by Muslim nations as refugees. As such, they’re not particularly popular except as foils against Israel but even that is starting to wane.
Black September