The Refugee Curse by Daniel Pipes New York Post August 19, 2003 Here's a puzzle: How do Palestinian refugees differ from the other 135 million 20th-century refugees? Answer: In every other instance, the pain of dispossession, statelessness, and poverty has diminished over time. Refugees eventually either resettled, returned home or died. Their children - whether living in South Korea, Vietnam, Pakistan, Israel, Turkey, Germany or the United States - then shed the refugee status and joined the mainstream. Not so the Palestinians. For them, the refugee status continues from one generation to the next, creating an ever-larger pool of anguish and discontent. Several factors explain this anomaly but one key component - of all things - is the United Nations' bureaucratic structure. It contains two organizations focused on refugee affairs, each with its own definition of "refugee": The U.N. High Commission for Refugees applies this term worldwide to someone who, "owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted . . . is outside the country of his nationality." Being outside the country of his nationality implies that descendants of refugees are not refugees. Cubans who flee the Castro regime are refugees, but not so their Florida-born children who lack Cuban nationality. Afghans who flee their homeland are refugees, but not their Iranian-born children. And so on. The U.N. Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), an organization set up uniquely for Palestinian refugees in 1949, defines Palestinian refugees differently from all other refugees. They are persons who lived in Palestine "between June 1946 and May 1948, who lost both their homes and means of livelihood as a result of the 1948 Arab-Israeli conflict." Especially important is that UNRWA extends the refugee status to "the descendants of persons who became refugees in 1948." It even considers the children of just one Palestinian refugee parent to be refugees. The High Commission's definition causes refugee populations to vanish over time; UNRWA's causes them to expand without limit. Let's apply each definition to the Palestinian refugees of 1948, who by the U.N.'s (inflated) statistics numbered 726,000. (Scholarly estimates of the number range between 420,000 to 539,000.) The High Commission definition would restrict the refugee status to those of the 726,000 yet alive. According to a demographer, about 200,000 of those 1948 refugees remain living today. UNRWA includes the refugees' children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren, as well as Palestinians who left their homes in 1967, all of whom add up to 4.25 million refugees. The 200,000 refugees by the global definition make up less than 5 percent of the 4.25 million by the UNRWA definition. By international standards, those other 95 percent are not refugees at all. By falsely attaching a refugee status to these Palestinians who never fled anywhere, UNRWA condemns a creative and entrepreneurial people to lives of exclusion, self-pity and nihilism. The policies of Arab governments then make things worse by keeping Palestinians locked in an amber-like refugee status. In Lebanon, for instance, the 400,000 stateless Palestinians are not allowed to attend public school, own property or even improve their housing stock. It's high time to help these generations of non-refugees escape the refugee status so they can become citizens, assume self-responsibility and build for the future. Best for them would be for UNRWA to close its doors and the U.N. High Commission to absorb the dwindling number of true Palestinian refugees. That will only happen if the U.S. government recognizes UNRWA's role in perpetuating Palestinian misery. In a misguided spirit of "deep commitment to the welfare of Palestinian refugees," Washington currently provides 40 percent of UNRWA's $306 million annual budget; it should be zeroed out. Fortunately, the U.S. Congress is waking up. Chris Smith, a Republican on the House International Relations Committee, recently called for expanding the General Accounting Office's investigation into U.S. funding for UNRWA. Tom Lantos, the ranking Democratic member on that same committee, goes further. Criticizing the "privileged and prolonged manner" of dealing with Palestinian refugees, he calls for shuttering UNRWA and transferring its responsibilities to the High Commission. Other Western governments should join with Washington to solve the Palestinian refugee problem by withholding authorization for UNRWA when it next comes up for renewal in June 2005. Now is the time to lay the groundwork to eliminate this malign institution, its mischievous definition, and its monstrous works.
I have nothing enmity for the Arabs states that have kept the Palestinians third class non citizens, but used their cause to constantly b**** about. The need a home, and it can't be in Israel, which means it has to be somewhere else. we need to tell them to fix it, or we, in conjunction with Israel, will redraw the lines by force, and take down all the kings and the royal families in the process. I have long favored military action against Saudi, not Iraq. Take down Saudi, eliminate the royal family, carve up Saudi and put the Muslim holy cities in their own country. Control the oil through surrogates and puppets. We should be sitting in Riyadh now, not Baghdad. We could have attacked the country where 15 hijackers called home, the country whose diplomatic corps and intelligence were heavily involved in 9/11. We could have arrested all the clerics who teach their hate, treat them as the criminals they are, cart them off to Gitmo.
I've been saying that for two years on this board, well except the whole carving up of Saudi part. The problem with that region is the Wahabi radicalism being funded from Saudi Arabia that's even spreading to Africa now. Riyadh is where we should be right now. It might have been harder than what we're doing in Iraq but it would be getting to the root of the terrorism issue.
the idea behind that is to get Mecca and Medina out of the same country as parts we wish to control, so that no infidels will live in the country. And to create more easily controlled units. yeah, it's imperialism if we're going to get the rap, we might as well do the crime
Mecca and Medina, and Jerusalem, while we're at it, should be made into independent states, or at least the holy places in those cities should, just like Vatican City.
Saudi Arabia will never be attacked and the Saudi "Royal Family" will never be deposed as long as a member of the Bush family is President of the United States.
Tex, name one politician who wants to attack Saudi Arabia. I can name 435 congresspeople, and 100 Senators who don't want to attack Saudi Arabia. Are they part of this plot to protect the Saudi Royal family too?
You are correct, but it is not a "plot to protect the Saudi Royal family". It is a plot to protect the trough full of Saudi money that they are all lapping from. That is why the Saudis can and have been getting away with financing terrorism. American politicians on both sides of the aisle love money, and they plenty of it from Saudi Arabia. The war on terror is illegitimate until something is done about the sources of terror. One of the largest sources of terror is Saudi Arabia, and in particular the Saudi Royal family. Is it a mere coincidence that a great majority of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis? I think not.
I don't disagree with what you are saying, but this problem is not uniquely Republican, and we are doing a great deal to address the Saudi problem.
I agree. The problem cuts across party lines. No question about it. Please tell me what we are doing to address the Saudi problem.
EDITED VERSION We are moving our forces from Saudi Arabia to Iraq. Can you think of a bigger and more important change in policy? We are also demanding that the Saudi cooperate in the war on terror. For the first time, the Saudi Royal family is allowing their citizens to be interviewed by FBI and CIA personnel. This is another HUGE change. They are allowing us greater access to their banking records as well so we can follow the money trails better. I am sure there are countless other examples occurring behind the scenes that we can't know about.
LOL? C'mon man? You don't need to use those terms. Civil discourse is the name of the game. The reason I asked was that this is a subject I know little of. I know that we were moving our troops out of Saudi Arabia, but I didn't know of the other things you mentioned. Thanks for sharing. I hope it all works out.
Well Might is Obviously right and the Israeli's are strong because we are propping up their economy and have GIVEN them the best weapons in the world. So when we give a foreign power funding and military support and technology and they use it to opress, then lets not get upset when they blow themselves up. Obviously they don't want to give up the land. The occupied territories are occupied by Palestinians that don't want to leave. Forget telling them to go to other countries, that is their home. The consequences of Israeli action is the bloodshed you see today. I just hate the US's name and reputation globally being dragged through the dirt over a few million people in the desert. I agree with some of the aspects of the Iraq war, though I was dismayed in how it was portrayed, but the Israeli situation is a net negative for the US. Not only do we give them billions of dollars annually that could be used in the US, but we give them military technology and support their economy. I'll have to check recent figures, but the money given to Israel annually is equivalent to $15,000 per year per Israeli. I wish another country was giving me and all Americans that kind of money. So we pay Israel, we pay Jordan and Egypt to be nice to Israel and what do we get? - The rightful blame for Israeli Actions - The stigma of our support - The banning of our goods and services in many parts of the world - The Negative sentiment in Europe/the Middle East/Russia and to most of the 1 billion muslims in the world - We walked out of a Human Rights Conference in Africa for Israel - We lost our seat on the Human Rights Council for Israel We are at a net 'LOSS' in the Israeli Situation. The Iraq situation I can understand because lower oil prices will bring the costs of production down and allow companies to hire more and pay better wages. And for the No Blood for Oil! people, for every 1% the unemployment rises that accounts for over : - 20,000 Heart attacks - 5,000 more homicides - 500 more suicides And C'mon John Heath? Dan Pipes and Charles Krauthhammer?? There are many people in the US, like those two and I would add Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz who care more about Israeli soverignty and power rather than that of the US. You might as well be quoting Ariel Sharon.
