Admitting Gazan refugees would be proof that Britain has a death wish

[Cantonet]

Camilla Tominey in the Telegraph today.
The sheer level of hatred in this article horrifies me. Am I wrong to feel so shocked by this?

Threads exist because people want to talk about something. If it’s not relevant or interesting they just fizzle out.

I’m interested in the no right to return though, why is that the case for Egypt?

I assume same would be for U.K.

Not sure who posted it earlier

@Limesodaagain Q. Why aren’t Egypt allowing Palestinians refugees into Egypt

A. https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/articles/2024-02-25/why-egypt-refuses-to-open-its-borders-to-palestinian-refugees

Thanks - that’s helpful.

I’m interested in the no right to return though, why is that the case for Egypt

I think it is to do with a fear that Palestinians will not be granted the right to return by Israel so are afraid to leave (in huge numbers) and take refuge elsewhere in case they are refused re-entry. I don't think it is specific to Egypt but anywhere. They have no state, so no passports so there is a huge risk with leaving

Actually that's a very well written article.
Concise and plain English.

Those that want more info about the passport issue can wade through this article ;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_Authority_passport

@Dulra

The article was about MPs advocating refugee resettlement, similar to what the US is considering. I put a counterpoint to the OP’s view that opposing this could only come from a place of hate.

As I am very pro-immigration and also pro-refugee, I felt I offered an alternative perspective.

Essentially:

• that the very high levels of support for terrorism in this population make safety concerns legitimate,
• that this is not typical for either immigration in general or refugees in general,
• that we should not be shy about making judgments that balance different legitimate priorities.

(Obviously, this being the internet, I can’t prove I’m either pro-immigration or unhateful! But I can share my thinking).

Risk to the UK of what?

The top risk I would be concerned about is attacks on Jews in Britain.

Data that worries me, from PCPSR, ARWAD and the ADL (two of these are Arab organisations):

• 71% support for the October attacks (March 2024, PSR)
• 5% of Gazans think Hamas committed war crimes on that date (PSR)
• rising to 17% of those who had watched the videos (PSR)
• 39% of Gazans think armed struggle is the best way forward (PSR)
• in a list of 22 groups/bodies/states, the most positively appraised were the Al Quassam Brigades (Hamas’s military wing) (89%), Islamic Jihad (84%), Al Aqsa Brigades (80%) and Hamas (76%). The Red Cross came in at 37%, the PA at 10%, UN at 9%. The lowest four were the UK (3%), UAE (2%), Israel and the US (0% each). (AWRAD, data is for Gaza+WB)
• “Jews are responsible for most of the world’s wars” 78% agree (ADL. Data for Gaza+WB)
• “People hate the Jews because of the way Jews behave” 87% agree (ADL. Gaza+WB).

The above is nothing like most refugee/immigrant scenarios.

This conflict is live and very raw now. The UK is visibly aligned with Israel. Antisemitic attacks increased post October. It’s not scaremongering to think immigration from this group creates additional risk. At some point that risk becomes too great.

Most supporters of terrorism commit no terrorist acts. But, the risk is clearly there, and 71% is a lot.

If the data above doesn’t persuade you, is there any level of terrorist support above which you would consider there to be an unacceptable risk? Or screening methods you would propose? Or do you think it is unfair for me to characterise the above as terrorism support? The polls would have to be massively out to represent a level of support I would be comfortable with.

I see the humanitarian arguments (I’m usually the one making them!). I can empathise to an extent with why Gazans feel the way they do. But ultimately, on this one, I don’t think that outweighs the risk.

@GeneralPeter Thank you for articulating so perfectly what I'd have liked to express if I had the intelligence and insights🤩 This is exactly how I feel: that it's all very well being ideologically in support of something, but in reality we must be more careful.

A PP (I daren't say who, I'll probably get it all wrong! 😜) said something about the really brainy people being left-wing academics, and everyone else being kinda too stupid to grasp the full picture. To some extent I understand this, in that racism is clearly pure ignorance and a liberal education does a good job of erasing it. Which is great, obvs.

But there are quite a lot of academics who have never left the world of educational institutions and have a very poor understanding of what we might call "the real world." They have gone from school to university to teaching, so have never really stopped being students. They live in a little bubble of their own ideas, which are published and cascaded down to the next generation without challenge. As I know from my own past experience, their influence on naive young idealists can be enormous.

Thank you for this balanced and painstaking post.

@ChickyBricky That is very kind of you.

Yes, one of the things I most value about MN is the breadth of opinion and life experience there is here, because parenthood cuts across all those things. It makes it harder for me to fall into group-think on any issue.

On academia, it's an easy mistake to slip from "I'm intelligent and I think X", to "I think X because I'm intelligent". In fact I think I recall reading that high-IQ people are less likely to update their beliefs when faced with new information. Humans are bad at this generally, but high-IQ people especially. I think the hypothesis was that smarter people are capable of coming up with more and more complex rationalisations for why they are nonetheless still correct.

(I'm not aiming that at anyone on this thread. It's a problem we all face. I try to think "what would change my mind on this?" to ensure I'm thinking for myself. I can't claim I have a better set of beliefs as a result, but I certainly have a less normal 'package' of beliefs.)

I really appreciate your posts. They make a nice change from this sort of thing* 😁

*with thanks to David Shrigley

Thanks @GeneralPeter for the well thought out post. To me you make some sensible points against accepting refugees from Gaza, while still holding compassion for their struggles.

It concerns me that there are many people in Gaza (including children) who pose no threat to security, with links to the UK, who will face further obstacles to peace and safety because of the actions of others.

I do understand the safety concerns for the UK and especially Jewish citizens, while we (as a country) are acting against the best interests of people in Gaza.

Is there some way that a vetting process could minimise the risk? You mention it to @dulra

Could it be beneficial to relations if we accept people from Gaza? While also taking other positive steps to help civilians caught up in this mess? Could it reduce the overall risk of terrorism if we are seen to help?

I don’t have any firm idea of what the answers are.

Absolutely agree- I have found your posts really interesting.
”one of the things I most value about MN is the breadth of opinion and life experience there is here, because parenthood cuts across all those things. It makes it harder for me to fall into group-think on any issue.”
I completely agree with this and that is probably the main reason I am on here. It’s one of the few places you get to hear a variety of views and ( most of the time) there is space for everyone ( unless they are being offensive)

@ChickyBricky I love the cartoon!

@PeasfullPerson I don't have any expertise on counter-terrorist vetting, but it must be extremely hard, especially if trying to vet people in Gaza itself. The UK's rep office in Gaza has closed. We would also need good sources of intelligence on who is an especially high risk, presumably from Israeli, Egyptian and Saudi intelligence. That has its own complications. For various reasons it would make sense to prioritise people with strong UK links, e.g. educated here or close family here. I would guess that itself reduces risk. Once you get beyond exclusions based on specific intelligence, there are rules about what types of profiling are permitted. I don't know what that permits in terms of only permitting people of non-fighting age or, say, profiling by sex. I would support a child refugee programme, especially children who can stay with extended family in the UK. As a general principle, supporting refugee resettlement in the affected region is often best (closer ties, and many more people can be helped for a given amount of funding), if of course any country in the region would host that. The UK has some leverage over Israel and Egypt (not much) which we could bring to bear to improve the humanitarian situation. The US has more chance of success on that front. Sadly, I really can't see many workable good options for Israel-Palestine. For the region, Israeli-Saudi rapprochement was a really good sign, and probably what led Iran to sabotage it.

Rapprochement between Saudi Arabia and Israel was a sign that the Saudis and 'Gulfies' had written off Palestine. A sign they would rather focus on crushing their Shia opponents both internally and externally in the form of Iran. A sign that Gaza would be the world's largest concentration camp forever.

Interesting article from last year;

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-66879342

Oh that is delicious from Ms Gotlieb. Imagine a right wing power with nuclear weapons - the horror.
Irony bypass material.

More background here;

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-66734638

👏👏👏

So it could be a small pool of people, mostly children with links to the UK, that are resettled here.

I wonder how many people without links would want to come here anyway!

This.

Culturally they have more in common with most of their neighbours. The neighbours don't appear in a rush to help out though.

This.

This popped up as I’d been quoted so I checked something out, though the thread may have moved on

Ukraine to uk is about 1,500 miles by road crossing 3 countries.

Gaza however is 2,300 miles straight line by air and crosses more than is easily counted- maybe 20? The map gets a bit small.

That’s ignoring at cultural similarities and differences.
38 million Ukrainians
800,000 in Gaza

So Ukrainians would have been both closer and more in need of being spread out among their neighbours than the people of Gaza.
Ukraine doesn’t have an active vigorous terrorist organisation based there, either.

It simply isn’t comparable on any level, and it’s disingenuous to say it’s a racism issue.

(as it happens I think the rush to accommodate Ukrainians was pretty naive, but that’s a separate issue).

There are Ukrainians all over Europe, and many more than in Britain that has taken a minimum number. Ukrainians don´t need visas in the EU for starters.

I think the moral point about taking on Gaza’s refugees is not that they are closer to us in both looks and culture and geography , but the fact we have created the refugee problem. We helped create a state within the place they lived which would eventually force them out of their homes and occupy them in ever dwindling land areas, we have not only supported this position politically but also supplied the occupier with weapons of mass destruction so they are now forced to live under attack in refugee camps. So it is a problem created by the west because they wanted to support their settler colony. It’s not up to neighbouring countries to sort out, many of which have already had to deal with the problems caused by America.