Start A Petition

Al Shabaka: The Arguments Against Palestine Giving Its Refugees Citizenship

World  (tags: middle-east, Palestine, politics, Refugees & Relief, statelessness, round table, Al Shabaka, Randa Farah, Ingrid Jaradat Gassner, Anis Kassim, Mouin Rabbani, Samah Sabawi, Jaber Suleiman, Fateh Azzam )

- 1476 days ago -
In A Bold Proposal: Palestine Should Give Its Refugees Citizenship, Azzam argued that Palestine should confer citizenship on its stateless refugees & enter into bilateral agreements.Here, the pros & cons are debated & more problems than solutions found.


We hate spam. We do not sell or share the email addresses you provide.


Evelyn B (63)
Tuesday June 2, 2015, 2:16 pm
Azzam's article Al Shabaka: A Bold Proposal: Palestine Should Give Its Refugees Citizenship led to some interesting discussion last month: this gives the other side of the picture.

Interesting, worth thinking about ....

Past Member (0)
Tuesday June 2, 2015, 2:26 pm
It is because of weird and impractical ideas like that some Arabs living in Arab countries are still called "refugees" just because their great-grandfather happen to be work for Zionists between June 1946 and May 1948.

History does not come back, Evelyn, learn to deal with it.

Maggie D (69)
Tuesday June 2, 2015, 3:03 pm
It's interesting isn't it that the Palestinians living in Israel have no intention of leaving. Why would a person give up the freedom of a democracy to live with people who won't even take care of their own? Remember when Hamas had a 3 year old girl who had been seriously injured in a car accident and Hamas didn't know how to treat her? They reluctantly asked Israel to help. (The negative press if they didn't would have been very damaging.) The little girl was handed over to Israel and in three months she was healed. Hamas however, did not allow her parents to accompany her. I would think that such a young child would be comforted by her parents presence. Why wouldn't Hamas let her parents go with her? Because they knew if they saw the freedom they could have in Israel they wouldn't return and Israel would not have thrown them out.

Evelyn B (63)
Tuesday June 2, 2015, 3:06 pm
History does not change because one tries to present a narrative unsupported by historical archival records. The "Holy Land" has been populated for millenia.

Israel Zangwill was the Zionist (British) who started promoting the idea that there was a land without a people - but he revised his position (see Wikipedia:
"In 1902, Zangwill wrote that Palestine "remains at this moment an almost uninhabited, forsaken and ruined Turkish territory". However, within a few years, Zangwill had "become fully aware of the Arab peril", telling an audience in New York, "Palestine proper has already its inhabitants. The pashalik of Jerusalem is already twice as thickly populated as the United States" leaving Zionists the choice of driving the Arabs out or dealing with a "large alien population".[19] He moved his support to the Uganda scheme, leading to a break with the mainstream Zionist movement by 1905. In 1908, Zangwill told a London court that he had been naive when he made his 1901 speech and had since "realized what is the density of the Arab population", namely twice that of the United States. In 1913 he went even further, attacking those who insisted on repeating that Palestine was "empty and derelict" and who called him a traitor for reporting otherwise." "

As long as Palestinians remain displaced from the land of their ancestors, and stateless, they are refugees. Only people totally lacking in any human compassion could dismiss the reality that these are people whose stateless status creates many problems & hardships.

Discriminatory practices allowed most Christian Palestinians in Lebanon to receive Lebanese nationaility - numbers not being so great, and it suited the Christian section of the oopulation to inflate demographic numbers of Christians in order to maintain political dominance ... but none of the neighbouring countries could afford to absorb the relatively huge numbers of refugees. Jordan is already challenged by the numbers of Palestinians holding Jordanian nationality ..... NO country is "a country without a people" .... There are therefore refugee families who will remain refugee families until they are allowed to return to their own land ... They don't deserve this destiny any more than the Jews deserved the concentration camps ...

Evelyn B (63)
Tuesday June 2, 2015, 3:20 pm
Maggie - it is no more surprising than the fact that Palestinians in the Occupied Territories hang on despite the oppression. They love their land more than they hate the treatment meted out to Palestinians. Given half a chance, the refugees would return also.

I suspect that in the US, only the Native Americans can understand the importance of the land itself to Arabs in the Middle East. This applies to Lebanese and Syrians also - they have a strong tie to the land worked by their ancestors, to the family home ... Lebanese migrants live happily in Africa, South America, North America .... but they return to their family villages, and often seek their brides from the village. Generation after generation. This tie is different from that of the Jews who continued, century after century, to drink to "Next Year in Jerusalem" ... without particular land of their own being part of this toast. For a Palestinian refugee, "Next year in Jerusalem" is often tied to a door key ... to the family home. Hard, if not impossible, for a modern westerner to grasp this.

Angelika R (143)
Wednesday June 3, 2015, 3:34 am
Perfect comments Evelyn! ********* thanks! Will this education bear fruit? no, not with them i guess

Evelyn B (63)
Wednesday June 3, 2015, 3:52 am
Thanks Angie - but what's that saying about casting pearls???

There are none so blind as those who will not see .. They simply hate anyone who lifts a slither of their chosen blindfold, because it is so much more comfortable to live in a self-righteous "poor us, we are the victims" coccoon.

Darren Woolsey (218)
Wednesday June 3, 2015, 3:11 pm
History DOES repeat itself; learn to live with it.

John De Avalon (36)
Thursday June 4, 2015, 7:43 am
Evelyn do you support the dissolution of Pakistan and Bangladesh? Because I'm sure the millions of displaced Hindus and Sikhs would like their ancestral lands back.
The Muslims of India demanded and got their independent homeland at the same time as the Jews demanded and got their independent homeland. There is no difference at all, save the faith of the individuals concerned.

What about the millions of Germans displaced after WW2 from what it now north and west Poland. Do they get their land back?

Half the world could play musical chairs under the same criteria.

John De Avalon (36)
Thursday June 4, 2015, 7:46 am
And you are forgetting the reason there are so many ethnic Palestinians with a Jordanian passport/nationality is because Jordan occupied the West Bank in 1948 and fully annexed it in 1950.

Carol R (11)
Thursday June 4, 2015, 7:47 am
Thanks Evelyn.

Tomek Malinowski (17)
Thursday June 4, 2015, 8:17 am

Evelyn B (63)
Thursday June 4, 2015, 10:34 am
John - your comment is a non sequitor -
Jordan has a large population of Palestinian background - almost half - because of the inclusion of the West Bank as part of Jordan in 1948. And those who fled from the West Bank to East Bank in 1967 have had to be integrated in Jordan - as they have Jordanian passports based on proof of being from the West Bank ... As the Palestinians tended to be more educated and more commercially minded than the Bedou, there is a certain socio-economic divide in Jordan that roughly parallels Palestinian/ non-Palestinian sections of the population. This creates stresses ...

BUT there are also Palestinian refugees in camps in Jordan, stateless people, those who fled in '46-'48 from parts of Palestine that did not form part of Jordan when Israel was formed. And there are also refugees from 1967 who were not Jordanian Palestinian citizens under the 1948 arrangements. (i.e. Not from E. Jerusalem & West Bank). UNRWA is the international agencies created with the mandate of relief for the Palestinian refugees who are victims of the 1946-48 events ... and by extension, their descendents on the male side. (Jordanian Palestinians are not considered "refugees" in the context of UNRWA's mandate ... although those displaced because of the 1967 war and the occupation by Israel have to prove that they had homes in the former Jordanian part of Palestine. And Israel does very little to facilitate procuring necessary documentation ... so quite a number of West Bankers & Jerusalemites find themselves stateless ... yet not eligible for UNRWA assistance. Joining the many stateless Palestinian refugees who are not eligible for support from any agency ... neither UNRWA nor UNHCR)

Incidentally - this is also the category of Palestinian refugees who are suffering the most in the waves of refugees from Syria now .... because they can't claim aid from UNHCR since Palestinians are not part of UNHCR's mandate, nor from UNRWA because they are not UNRWA ID refugees .... They therefore depend on individual, NGO and specialised UN agency (WFP, UNICEF, WHO, UNFPA etc) aid.

Being stateless carries many disadvantages. IF you took the time to read the two articles - effectively debating two sides of a proposal - you might understand the reasons why Azzam came up with the proposal of providing Palestinian citizenship to the Palestinian refugees ... and the implications Azzam identified ... and the reasons why others consider that such a proposal is unrealistic.

THAT's what this article is about - a follow up to an earlier posting.

Your comments suggest that you haven't read the debate.

Evelyn B (63)
Thursday June 4, 2015, 11:02 am
Comparing India's break up into 2 countries at the time of Independence (later splitting into 2 countries the distinctly different east & western separate parts) to what happened with the creation of Israel is like comparing apples and kiwis. (Serves to deturn attention, not faclitate debate.)

The refugee situation of the Palestinians reflects massive immigration from outside the land ... Europe etc ... and intention to take over land from a population residing there from ancient times. It was not a two-way flow. The flow of Jews from Arab countries was only a fraction of the immigrants ...

The refugee situation in the Indian sub-continent was a two way flow. Largely due to the insane political decision to define the frontiers in function of ethno-religious majority (technically - giving the border areas their right to choose India or Pakistan). Thank you Stafford Cripps & Mountbatten.
As a result, in many places Muslims slaughtered Hindus, & Hindus slaughtered Muslims, both seeking to gain numeric dominance so their homes could be the country affiliated with their religious category. Cross-country trains rolled into stations with almost no passengers living ... Stations had walls of dead bodies. In some areas - such as Patiala - the Maharajahs rode out with the Muslims, ensuring their protection from Hindu & Sikh mobs as they travelled across to Muslim majority areas where they hoped to find safety ... or the Muslim ruler travelled with the Hindus to see them safely over into lands that would be part of India. In other areas, mutual slaughter took place. Criminal irresponsibility on the part of the British, to make ethno-religious demographics the determinant of the frontier lines. Even today one finds minority population communities who share a religion with their "country" - but whose culture & lifestyle is so different that they have still not been integrated.

But this did not leave huge numbers of stateless refugees .... Although it certainly changed socio-econmic status of the refugees, and both India and Pakistan faced major challenges in integrating the incoming flow of refugees & voluntary migrants ...

Very different from the Palestine/ Israel situation

Past Member (0)
Thursday June 4, 2015, 12:52 pm
John, you are right on, again!

The only reason the Arabs from Palestine are stateless is that Arab countries where they live want to keep them that way to serve as a cannon fodder for a Jihad with Israel.

India accommodated the Hindu refugees, Pakistan accommodated the Muslim refugees.

Israel accommodated Jewish refugees from everywhere, yet Arab states do not want to accommodate their brothers for a dirty goal. That's why the conflict is not resolved yet.

When Arab League will be told to give citizenship to all Arabs living in Arab countries and obligated to cover UNWRA expenses, the issue of Arab refugees will be solved in one day.

John De Avalon (36)
Thursday June 4, 2015, 1:03 pm
Nonsense! It is no different at all. Greater India was going to be granted its independence, but the Muslims didn't want to be part of an independent Greater India and they demanded their own Muslim states (West and East Pakistan) This set in motion the great upheaval of peoples, which resulted in 17 million people being displaced, a million people murdered, hundreds of thousands of rapes and abductions of girls/young women.

The only 'difference' is that it was far, far worse than anything that happened in Palestine.

John De Avalon (36)
Thursday June 4, 2015, 1:07 pm
Your statement about Jordan is nonsense too. Jordan's 'Arab Legion' invaded and occupied the West Bank in 1948.
Jordan fully annexed the West Bank, from the Palestinians, in 1950. a move the Arab League, no less, declared to be "illegal" and "void".

John De Avalon (36)
Thursday June 4, 2015, 1:15 pm
After the war (WW2) Britain, who held the UN Mandate over Palestine, severely restricted Jewish emigration to Palestine.

There were long-standing Jewish communities in the Palestine Protectorate already resident. This is why the state of Israel, as granted by the UN Mandate, was a peculiar shape, because it reflected areas that were exclusively or predominantly Jewish. And vice versa with Arab communities

John De Avalon (36)
Thursday June 4, 2015, 1:17 pm
Nyack: Do you blame the Jews for wanting their own state?

Janet B (0)
Thursday June 4, 2015, 1:22 pm

Alexa R (319)
Thursday June 4, 2015, 1:35 pm
I agree with John and Bob. Keep posting the truth, and please ignore their insults, which tells us more about them than about you ..

Evelyn B (63)
Thursday June 4, 2015, 2:04 pm
John - try looking at a map of where there were Jewish villages - including where very recent immigrants settled - and Arab settlements in 1947-48 - and even the area attributed to Israel was largely Arab villages (despite destruction of more than 400 villages). There were very few Jewish villages, although there were a number of villages in which Jewish, Christian & Muslim Palestinians lived together prior to the early Zionist migration waves.

The "logic" of comparing the Indian sub-continent to Palestine/Israel would mean that the Palestinians be absorbed into Germany & European countries to replace the Jews who left.

There is absolutely no reason why the Lebanon, Syria, Jordan should absorb the Palestinian refugees ... That is like saying that the allies at the end of WWII should have absorbed the European Jews displaced ... because they were Europeans. There are marked differences between peoples in the Arab world - even the "Arab Nationalist" movement never really managed to integrate the different peoples arounf the Middle East.

But it suits the pro-Zionists to claim that the rest of the Arab World should foot the bill for the exodus of Jews to the land they chose as a homeland. (Remember - other options had been put forward - in Argentina, & Uganda.)

What caused the upset in the Sub-continent was British leaders who listened to a handful of Muslims (who felt they were not treated equally with Hindus) - led by Jinnah .... who had a cancer of the brain, which almost certainly impacted on his judgement. (Cripps said afterwards that he would never have encouraged Jinnah had he known about his brain cancer.)

As for the usual game of trying to make everything "fine" for Israel by comparing with other atrocities .... since when does one atrocity justify another, or make it more tolerable because the numbers are lesser (in a far smaller geographic area)?

The atrocities around India's Independence are a huge shame - and both Cripps & Mountbatten, criminally responsible for closing their eyes to the inevitable outcome of their decisions. British political officers serving in India tried to warn them - it was blatantly obvious, the price that was going to be paid in human lives for their decisions.

Which does not justify the price in human lives of the actions of the Zionist militia, the proportionately massive displacement of Palestinians as a result of the creation of Israel ... And the British share a large part of responsibility for their decision to support allocating land that was not theirs to allocate. Balfour especially, but other politicians and administrators also.

There is no wiping out of shame by pointing out other cases that are shameful.

But perhaps there is a comparison that might be considered valid: it would be between the Zionist leadership deciding to create a Jewish homeland in a land which was already quite densely populated in the productive parts of the land .... and Jinnah's party's call to create a Muslim State since they considered that the Muslims were not treated justly by the Hindus ... to which, of course, one adds those extremists that then try to drive out those who do not share their religion ... in order to ensure a demographic majority.

Evelyn B (63)
Thursday June 4, 2015, 2:36 pm
Jana - man evolved in Africa, and migrated out some 60,000 years ago -
But Nyack was talking about "civilisations", not presence of Homo Erectus or Homo Sapiens ...

Civilisation implies more complex social / societal political structures, with communication, rulers etc depending on a form of agriculture and human collective habitation ("cities", "city states") .

The first "civilisations" were: Sumerian; Ancient Egypt; Indus Valley.
So - Nyack is absolutely correct: India was the location of one of the earliest great civilisations. (The Indus valley is in the Indian Sub-continent.)

Past Member (0)
Thursday June 4, 2015, 3:11 pm
The states of Arab League must resettle all Arab refugees, and this is the only realistic option on the table.

These Arab states have to do it because their military aggression against Israel in 48 and 67 created Arab refugees from Palestine and because a basic decency requires Arab Nation to help its people in need.

The "logic" of comparing the Indian sub-continent to Palestine/Israel would mean that the Palestinians be absorbed into Iraq, Egypt, Lebanon, Iran, Syria and other Arab countries to replace the Jews who left.

800,000 Jews left Arab states, and 600,000 Arabs left Palestine. The balance still benefits Arabs.

History does not go back, Evelyn.

Arabs will have to live with choices they made. Nobody is going to give them second, third and other chances.


Evelyn B (63)
Thursday June 4, 2015, 11:37 pm
As usual, your history is twisted, and you make inaccurate assumptions about "Arab".
Canadians and Texans are all North Americans - but don't share all that much in the way of culture and tradition. The Inuits, M├ętis and First Nations of Canada have little in common with the Sioux, the Cheyenne, the Iroquois - although they are all the indigenous people of North America. Nobody expected Tanzania to be able to absorb the refugees from Rwanda & Burundi ... although all were Africans, many travelling less than 100km.
Palestinians are a different population group - they have a language in common with other Arabs (hence the broad grouping), and have a majority who share a religion in common with the majority of others who speak Arabic ... but the Arabic they use is not identical across the Arab World. Vocabulary & pronunciation varies considerably.

Many of the Arab Jews who moved to Israel did so not because their homes had been destroyed but because they responded to the call to go to a Jewish Homeland.

Palestinians fled even before the 1948 War - because militia were spreading fear, destroying their homes and villages. Terrorist militia (also recognised as such by Ben Gurion).

Absorbing refugees who flee with just what they can carry places huge burdens on a country. Look how Israel handled it - with huge funding from abroad (both from individuals and from governments) - by destroying & flattening villages, then by building settlements - including on land grabbed that is not even in Israel but in Occupied Territories. And neither the Palestinians nor the other Arabs were the cause of the Holocaust - nor of the other discrimination that led the early Zionists to propose the creation of a Jewish homeland. Western guilt - but the Palestinians pay ... and supporters of expansionist Zionism avoid recognition of their responsibility for the situation by trying to place it on the shoulders of neighbouring countries. While the stateless Palestinians continue to pay a high price.

Alexa R (319)
Friday June 5, 2015, 12:22 am
Excellent and historically accurate post, Bob. Thanks for sharing ..

It is INDEED a choice the Arabs have to make, Whether they choose the one way or the other ..

fly bird (26)
Friday June 5, 2015, 2:25 am
Zionists will not be able to push out the people of Palestine from their lands no matter how they try.
Palestinians will return and that is only a matter of time, IMO.

Roslyn McBride (26)
Friday June 5, 2015, 3:25 am
Noted - think it would be excellent if the refugees receive citizenship, help that is badly needed. Of course there have to be arguments over it.

Tomek Malinowski (17)
Friday June 5, 2015, 3:49 am

Past Member (0)
Friday June 5, 2015, 5:01 am
Evelyn, it is you who try to twist the history to absolve Arab states from paying for the damage they caused and push this obligation on us, American, Canadian and European taxpayers.

Chinese living in 22 provinces are different between each others. Indians from different India states are different. And so Arabs can be different between different sects and places.

However, the concept of One Arab Nation is alive. One Arab Language. One Arab League. United Arab war against Israel. That's why helping Arab refugees now is a problem of Arab League countries - it is a duty of each country to take care of its own.

"Many of the Arab Jews who moved to Israel did so not because their homes had been destroyed but because they responded to the call to go to a Jewish Homeland. " What you forgot to add, that this call originated by Arab rulers as well as from Zionists, coupled with murders and robbery of Jews in Arab countries in big numbers.

You choose to ignore Penny's article on Arab atrocities on Jews in Iraq and Palestine, but it doesn't meant that they did not exist.

"bsorbing refugees who flee with just what they can carry places huge burdens on a country. Look how Israel handled it - with huge funding from abroad (both from individuals and from governments)"???

Wow, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and a few other can't fetch a few bucks for their brothers, because they need to buy golden and platinum BWW, right? Because for the princes having gold BMW is more important than helping some Arabs from Palestine.


Evelyn B (63)
Friday June 5, 2015, 6:04 am
In 1948, Saudi and the Gulf States were not as wealthy as now. And You still give no excuse except belonging to a large category of "Arab" as to why countries struggling to take first step of independence should also shoulder the burden of total strangers and absorb them all - just because the Zionist movement won support for the idea of a homeland for the Jews.

I said "many of", not "all". Yes, there were atrocities in Palestine - many although not all caused by those militia. Yes, there were Palestinians who saw these strangers coming in and imposing themselves, and reacted with violence. It was far from all Palestinians who were involved - just as it was far from all Jews who join the Stern Gang, Irgun, etc ..... And violence breeds violence, it never breeds peace.

There are many Palestinians who now hold other nationalities, Arab & other (although, like the Jews or even perhaps more so, their sense of tie to the land of Palestine remains strong ... whatever that land might be called. )

But this article is talking particularly of those who are stateless, citizens of nowhere. Worse off than that "people without a land" who have moved and continue to move to Israel .... many of whom have a second passport, remain owners of homes & businesses in their other country.

The original proposal was that these stateless people be accorded Palestinian citizenship, Palestinian passports - albeit without the automatic right to live in Palestine. But they would at least have a passport, have the right to call on support of the Palestinian Embassy wherever they live, be able to travel out of their country of residence without the hassles faced in trying to get a laissez passer, etc. Those covered by UNRWA are very slightly better off than those many who do not come under UNRWA's mandate.

Article 15 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

(1) Everyone has the right to a nationality.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality

The refugees have the right to their Palestinian identity - Nobody has the right to force them to change their nationality. Their stateless condition is contrary to the Universal Declaration - and Azam's proposal would address this.

However, this article that you have not addressed consists of a panel discussion with experts who do not think Azzam's proposal would be viable.

Past Member (0)
Friday June 5, 2015, 6:30 am

Saudi and the Gulf States are wealthy now, so money for resettling refugees should not be a problem.

Arab states have 10,000 times more land, than Israel - so land for resettling refugees should not be a problem. Mind you, Israel let in 800,000 Jews leaving Arab countries, while 600,000 Arabs went in the opposite direction.

I am not opposing to what Azam is proposing - let the Arabs from Palestine get a citizenship from this new State of Palestine.

What I am saying, is that Arabs living in Arab countries can demand citizenship of their hosting countries due to all the points you listed above.

Azam seems to recognize the issue of human rights violation committed by Arab states towards Arabs from Palestine, yet calls for widening of those rights instead of getting the whole citizenship.

The new State of Palestine offers its citizenship to Arabs who lived in Israel between June 1946 and May 1948, which is TWO years. Other Arab states do NOT give their citizenship to Arabs who lived their for TENS of years and whole lives. This treatment can hardly be called fair.

Azam tries to speak on behalf of Arabs from Palestine without claiming full human rights and full citizenship for them to avoid "offending" hosting Arab states and for the sake of Ummah unity.

This approach never worked, and never will.

Evelyn B (63)
Friday June 5, 2015, 8:19 am
When using a foreign language, it pays to get interpretation correct - or one can talk nonsense. Equally - there is an awful lot of comment on a couple of related articles here - by people who haven't really read either this article or Azzam's original proposal, or have skimmed without thinking carefully. Probably because they don't care, they've already fixed ideas ....

Attributing to Azzam (or to the PA) "The new State of Palestine offers its citizenship to Arabs who lived in Israel between June 1946 and May 1948" is totally erroneous.

Israel did not exist during most of that period - so NOBODY would be eligible.
UNRWA's mandate extends to those Palestinians who fled Palestine during the period 1946-1948 cited. Those are the official original refugees ... extended automatically to their families ... requiring proof that their home was in Palestine at that time. There is some flexibility accorded to Palestinians displaced due to the 1967 war. There are, however, many refugees who either could not produced required documentation or had been abroad at the defined period and have never been able to return home. There are also trickles of Palestinians who flee because life in unliveable. Israel would be very happy if such trickles were huge waves - but Palestinians are very attached to the land of their roots.

These articles are exchanging ideas, not speaking for the refugees per se ... and presenting different perspectives, not necessarily agreeing with each other. DEBATE -

John De Avalon (36)
Friday June 5, 2015, 8:44 am
Evelyn: I can't help feeling you are being disingenuous in your answers here. You make it sound like a load of Jewish refugees turned up on boats after the war and took over a whole country.

As I already mentioned, the British - who did not vote for the creation of the state of Israel in the UN vote - severely restricted Jewish emigration after WW2.
About 40% of the population of the Palestine Protectorate were non-Arab, in long established communities. i.e. they were already there and had been for years.

There was a substantial Jewish population and they did have their own specific areas of habitation. The Jews have traditionally gathered together wherever they have settled.

As for making a claim to support the creation of a Muslim state, separately from Greater India, on the grounds that Muslims felt unfairly treated by Hindus. You seem to be forgetting that the Jews had suffered a pogrom at the hands of the Arabs in the late 1920s and the Grand Mufti fully supported Hitler, and indeed met him, and agreed with his policies of extermination. Had he had his way, all Jews in Palestine would have been exterminated. So to say the Muslims had a case, but the Jews didn't ...

Past Member (0)
Friday June 5, 2015, 9:55 am
John, of course Evelyn is disingenuous in her answers here.

She was asked about responsibilities of Arab states toward Arab refugees from Palestine, and she tries to get off the question.

The problem is, that both Evelyn and "Azam tries to speak on behalf of Arabs from Palestine without claiming full human rights and full citizenship for them to avoid "offending" hosting Arab states and for the sake of Ummah unity."

I think her animosity towards Israel is based on a simple jealousy. Netaniyahu invited all Jews living in troubled places to come to live in Israel. Even though Israel has 10,000 times less land, than Arab states, and no OIL $$$.

No Arab leaders invited Arabs living in troubled placed to come to live to their countries.

All Arab leaders are perfectly find with Palestinian Arabs living in concentration "refugee" camps in Lebanon and Syria, and do not want to offer any material support to them, leave alone offering citizenship and resettlement. Palestinian Arabs take such attitude for granted, and do not protest that miserable treatment by other Arab countries.

Evelyn, Israel is not the only country that accepts its people. Germany, Japan, Serbia, Armenia, Cyprus and many other countries take in their people.

It is a shame and disgrace that Arab states behave that way towards their own.

fly bird (26)
Friday June 5, 2015, 10:54 pm
Should we talk about your 'animosity'?
Enough second rate 'analysis' - projection, already... lol

le pauvre!

Elizabeth Brawn (25)
Sunday July 12, 2015, 8:25 pm
thank you Evelyn
Or, log in with your
Facebook account:
Please add your comment: (plain text only please. Allowable HTML: <a>)

Track Comments: Notify me with a personal message when other people comment on this story

Loading Noted By...Please Wait


butterfly credits on the news network

  • credits for vetting a newly submitted story
  • credits for vetting any other story
  • credits for leaving a comment
learn more

Most Active Today in World

Content and comments expressed here are the opinions of Care2 users and not necessarily that of or its affiliates.

New to Care2? Start Here.