Don't Egypt and Israel hate each other though? Could UAE feasibly align with both?
So yes, the UAE could align with both.
It’s actually surprising it’s achievable for so long but in the long term doesn’t feel stable given the direction things are headed
As far as stability, I don't know. My view is that Arab democracies are unstable because they will elect Islamists. Dictatorship/monarchy has proven far more stable. Syria is trying to buck the trend; we'll see how it goes.
why does that imply instability?
ennahada (tunisia), pks (indonesia), jui (pakistan) are all examples of islamist parties that have compromised or reached across the aisle at various points just off the top of my head.
besides, isn't the point of democracy to allow people to be led by those who represent their principles? if they are in power, why should the majority expect their elected leaders to compromise those principles?
Would love to read more on this. Naïvely, I shared OP’s view of Islamist parties’ intransigence. (Note to third parties: Islamist != Islamic majority or even Islamic parties, and certainly separate from Arab parties.)
> isn't the point of democracy to allow people to be led by those who represent their principles?
Yes. But nothing says democracies are fundamentally stable. It absolutely follows that intolerant populations can systematically elect intolerant leaders who then cause instability.
Brookings Institute has a series of papers about Islamist movements around the world: https://www.brookings.edu/articles/rethinking-political-isla...
which includes both analyses from Western academics as well as responses from members of Islamist parties.
> It absolutely follows that intolerant populations can systematically elect intolerant leaders who then cause instability.
Intolerant of what, and what do you mean by "instability"? If the ideology of the political parties and institutions reflects that of the (vast) majority of the population, why would we expect "instability"?
Democracy can descend into demagoguery; I believe that occurs when the "people" feel like the state has been captured by an elite (oligarchy) that doesn't represent their interests (i.e. interests of the majority), "intolerant" or not - e.g. Gracchi brothers, Hugo Chavez, etc etc.
One reason I'm skeptical of Arab democracy is that Arab nationalism is weak. In the Arab world, Islam and hatred of Israel seem like the most powerful forces. Much stronger than nationalism. Would countries governed by those forces be stable? Would their policies be desirable from the perspective of the rest of the world?
There are Arab democracies that may prove that Islamists can be pragmatic. Tunisia like you said, Iraq, and possibly the new Syrian government. We'll see. The world is always changing.
and secular/socialist/monarchic dictatorships have arguably worse effects on their neighbors and citizens - e.g. Saddam, Assad, Nasser, MBZ in UAE, MBS
I think the broader point is that a democracy is unstable when the electorate just votes for their favourite warlord / cleric, who promptly ends / rigs any further elections.
In the Middle East, there appears to be a pattern of electorates voting for / staging a revolution in favour of Islamists, which either leads to a terrible Islamist regime, or leads to an elite coup, which of course destroys the democracy in the process. Worst case scenario all of this happens at once in different places, and you get a terrible civil war.
Democracy is great, but it requires an electorate that actually wants to sustain and retain a democracy. Those appear to be few and far in between.
that pattern is hardly unique to middle east/islamists though. look at central/south america. guatemala, chile, brazil etc all had democracies overthrown by "elite" coups.
like almost every instance in the middle east, there is actually a common denominator between these coups... resistance to the US-led order magically seems to invite instability.
> resistance to the US-led order magically seems to invite instability
Or perhaps 'resistance' is an awfully popular rallying cry for demagogues who bring instability, and the US is just the hegemon du jour. "It's the US' fault your crops are wilting! And international capital! And immigrants! And, oh, I don't know, the gays, why not. Rise up for El Generalissimo! Enlist your sons in the blood struggle, that will definitely improve things!" /s
Much sexier to be a revolutionary fighting shadowy foreign forces than to actually fix any of your own problems. No, no, tomorrow's problems will be America's fault too.
you said
> Arab democracies are unstable because they will elect Islamists.
whereas my claim is that governments (democracies or not) that run afoul of their local hegemon tend to have a short shelf life. this is not unique to US hegemony.
see: Brezhnev doctrine (USSR), or the canonical example of Athens and Melos from Peloponnesian war
> Rise up for El Generalissimo! Enlist your sons in the blood struggle, that will definitely improve things!" /s Much sexier to be a revolutionary fighting shadowy foreign forces than to actually fix any of your own problems. No, no, tomorrow's problems will be America's fault too.
I'm sorry, you seem triggered by this discussion, it doesn't seem productive to continue on my end.
Realism has more way explanatory power in geopolitics than idealism. Idealist explanations are typically incoherent (e.g. above thread).
I suppose shall have to make do without 101-level instruction in Chomskyian anti-Imperialism, woven through with whataboutism and international conspiracies.
> whereas my claim is that governments (democracies or not) that run afoul of their local hegemon tend to have a short shelf life. this is not unique to US hegemony.
Wow, big if true. Someone let Iran know.
How many trillions of dollars and gallons of blood did the US expend to make Afghanistan non-Taliban, or Vietnam non-Communist? And who rules Afghanistan and Vietnam today? You mention the Brezhnev doctrine, and yet literally not one of these countries is Russian-aligned today. The Russian invasion of Afghanistan failed just as hard as the British and American ones, all at the height of those respective countries' powers. Not very powerful, these alleged hegemons.
My overall point is that the Middle East (and Latin America, etc) has many local issues (e.g. corruption, misgovernance, sectarianism, organised crime), and an unhelpful habit of blaming some ill-defined global hegemony for misfortunes that are readily explicable as the consequences of these local phenomena. The US is no innocent lamb, but it does no service to the people of any of these regions to pretend that another hundred years of anti-Imperialist rhetoric will somehow bring benefits that the previous hundred years did not.
In these countries, this brand of tired anti-Imperialism is a figleaf for authoritarians. In the West, it is masturbatory politics for a certain type of narcissistic Westerner with a saviour complex, who fundamentally believes only Westerners have agency in the world, and everyone else are just motes of dust floating in the West's shadow. It's this confluence that results in absolute travesties like Chomsky supporting the Khmer Rouge, a far greater evil than all the worst allegations against America stacked together.
If you want to help the Middle East, get involved in civil society building efforts that help bridge the gap between sectarian communities; support charitable and poverty relief efforts that are not affiliated to the Muslim Brotherhood; get involved in civil rights advocacy on behalf of the oppressed in the Middle East (women, LGBT communities, religious and ethnic minorities, the list goes on); partake in initiatives aimed at tackling corruption, organised crime, etc. Or at the very least encourage and support the people who do these things, rather than regurgitating half-remembered anti-Imperialist tropes from your polsci 101 class, as though that were a contribution of any value whatsoever.
The one thing that will absolutely not help them, at all, is more meandering, false narratives about how they have no agency in the face of shadowy global hegemons, and how should just lie down and wait impassively for some sort of new, more just world to be given to them by their Western betters.
Chomsky never backed the Khmer rouge, he questioned some of the claims and western focus on the Khmer rouge, which was ignoring US culpability. He also never denied that the Khmer rouge were committing atrocities.
Was he wrong? Yes, at least in specific instances. But he was never outright supportive of the Khmer rouge. This is very old propaganda.
Chomsky was about as pro-Khmer Rouge as Tucker Carlson is pro-Russia; he's not out there waving flags and singing patriotic songs for them, but he's sure as hell doing a lot of very useful work "just asking questions" about biolabs in Ukraine / the extent to which the US may have "provoked" the Khmer Rouge to do what it did. If someone wrote equivalent things about the atrocities in Nazi Germany, we would not be mincing words about that person's sympathies. Chomsky ought to be treated with the same intellectual honesty.
Chomsky was a useful idiot for murderous tyrants. And a truly wonderful linguist. Ah, the duality of man.
But you should still not spread misinformation. Also, America _has_ been accused of worse things than the Cambodian genocide (as far as genocides can be compared, but I'm following your lead on comparing atrocities here): take the genocide of the indigenous American population for one.
But you're extrapolating quite a bit here. Could you please 1) provide the reference for this "provoke"-bit, so that we can evaluate it ourselves, and 2) explain exactly what the damning evidence is.
Show me the smoking gun, please.
Thus far we have your claim v. mine. Not sure why an absence of evidence would somehow make you right and me wrong, nor am I sure why I bear any burden of proof when you're the one who's shown up out of nowhere to bandy around accusations of bad faith and demand to be disproven.
For what it's worth, I don't consider your factually-deficient posts to be "misinformation"; I just think you're making a good faith error out of an unfamiliarity with the sum of Chomsky's work. You could read more of him if you think that would be of merit, though I don't consider a lot of the time I spent reading his political works time well spent, so make of that what you will. :)
Read his linguistics works instead! This would be a much better world if all the people who read Chomsky's politics had read his linguistics instead.
"The necessity of proof always lies with the person who lays charges"
If by "factually deficient" you mean false, then that is the definition of misinformation. Which is of course separate from disinformation, which is when you do that purposefully.
Considering the nuanced nature of the claim - a conclusion as to his sympathies borne of deep familiarly with his work - there's no reason for me to think you wouldn't find additional reasons to quibble over any specific citations and passages. I have no evidence that you're a good faith interlocutor, so I really see no reason to expend that effort. If you're actually interested, I do encourage you to read the original works. (If it wakes you up to Chomsky's sympathies and immunises you against some of his bad politics, perhaps not a total waste of time.)
Therefore, without further clarification, I must assume that when you say "Chomsky backed the Khmer rouge", this is what you meant.
The burden of proof is on you. And if you are (as you say) so familiar with Chomsky's work, and if his sympathies with the Khmer rouge are "pretty clear", you should have no issue actually producing the "pretty clear" statements to this effect.
If anyone is asking someone else to do their homework for them, it's you. You made the claim, not me.
"Therefore, without further clarification, I must assume" (what a mouthful!) that you are an argumentative teen with a "debate me bro" mindset.
One of the key problems of online exchange is that it is impossible to synthetise expertise without someone much less knowledgeable driving by, and demanding ELI5 level proof. They believe that they must be capable of reaching the same conclusion as someone who has spent years on the topic, and they must get it now, and they firmly believe that the onus is on the expert to give it to them (for some reason). The implication being that years of familiarity are irrelevant unless you replace your nuanced point with "pan in the face"-level direct evidence, such as would satisfy the "debate me bro" teenager who is demanding it. All expertise is invalid except that which an inexperienced Redditor can see with his own eyes (an obvious parallel exists here to conspiracists who "do their own research").
Consider that it would be relatively trivial for me to just type "Chomsky khmer rouge" into Google and throw some random refs at you, and that there may be some reason I haven't done so.
It is both (a) pointless - in that I truly do not care one jot if I have provided a satisfying level of evidence to you (and what about the next Redditor that comes along? and the next one? are we to be stuck at this level of discourse forever?), and (b) fairly deleterious to discussion that happens at a level more sophisticated than first principles.
Consider the implications for the progress of society of being forever stuck in ELI5 performative debate for the benefit of random lay people. The FOX News-ification of all of academia. The reduction of all human knowledge to that which is digestible to the average Redditor.
I note also your reference to right-wing propaganda, etc. From an academic perspective, this is just such an irrelevance. I am not a Marxist, for example, but I find Marxism to offer an occasionally useful lens on economic power relations. If you're still indulging in partisan "he says she says", then I respectfully do not think we're operating at the same level on this topic. That's not to diminish your intellect or knowledge in other fields. I'm sure there are many other skills you have that I do not.
You are entirely free to walk away completely confident you're right and I'm wrong, and this is something that will never matter to me in any way for the rest of my life (I will forget that this exchange ever happened within days). I suppose I engage only in the (probably vain) hope that I might plant a seed in you or someone reading this. I'd consider you going back to read Chomsky a win here, even if I disagree with a lot of his conclusions, because at least there's more to him than this "debate me bro" hellscape.
I won't reply again - this is not a good use of my time. Up to you whether you choose to interpret that as a win (epic Redditor destroys boring academic with facts and logic!) or an opportunity for contemplation.
I'm asking for one (1) source where he is "pretty clear" about his Khmer rouge sympathies. You are writing up a storm to make that seem like an unreasonable thing.
And you would start this exercise by googling "chomsky khmer rouge"? Implying you have no mental model about what Chomsky said and when. Strange, considering your posturing about your political science degree and familiarity with Chomsky's work.
I must assume you have a PhD (or that you're working towards one), because you call yourself an academic. Any decent researcher would be able to identify sources for something they claim to be an expert on. At least, that is my experience, having worked in academia for a while. But you can't tell me what Chomsky said or where, even in broad terms?
All of the Gulf monarchies as well as Jordan are essentially western creations that were created as states mostly by the British and then heavily reinforced by the US from the 70s onwards
This is true, but Emiratis are a notable exception. The UAE may be the only Arab country where Jews are not only allowed to live, but can do so safely without fearing either their neighbors or their government.
For example, last year when a rabbi was murdered, the Emirati government reacted forcefully and made a point to sentence the perpetrators to death. Note, the perpetrators were not Emiratis.
> The modern Egyptian state is oriented toward close partnership with the US, and a large part of that was peace with Israel post '73.
While also true, the relationship between Israel and Egypt has been tense lately.
They are at peace, and the border is stable. And economic integration is tightening, for example with the recent $35B gas deal [1]. So it's plausible that UAE could align with both, as you say.
But at the same time, it's just as plausible that this alignment will become increasingly complicated for geopolitical reasons. As Israel grows stronger in the region, Egypt seems to have adopted a strategy of indirectly undermining them.
For example, Egypt's handling of the Gaza war has indicated that they were playing a double game - openly containing Hamas, while covertly allowing them to grow stronger. When the IDF captured Rafah in 2024, they uncovered massive smuggling tunnels under the Egypt-Gaza border, which could not possibly have been unknown to Egypt.
Sisi is also known for having cracked down on the Muslim Brotherhood domestically, as they were his primary political rival. But externally, he has shown a willingness to support them as a tool to weaken his rivals, including Israel. This is a dangerous game which could easily backfire.
One more example: just this week Egypt is conducting a live fire military exercise 100m from the Israel border - a deliberate decision that is escalating tensions. [2]
[1] https://www.egyptindependent.com/all-you-need-to-know-about-...
[2] https://defencesecurityasia.com/en/egypt-live-fire-drills-is...
What about the military exercise though? Al-Jazeera is eagerly covering it, but it is in fact happening...
I'm thinking that two things can be true at once - Egypt sees Israel as a "soft rival" and will undermine it when it can, without risking the peace itself; and Qatar is actively trying to put a wedge between them. No?
(thanks for the thoughtful discussion).
That's not entirely true. Judaism is one of the legally recognised minority religions of Iran and Iran still retains an ancient Jewish community of 10,000 - 15,000 Iranian Jews that also have 30+ synagogues in Iran - Tehran’s embattled Jewish community endures despite Israeli bombing of synagogue - https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/apr/22/tehran-embattl...:
> By the time he got up the next morning to get ready for work, an Israeli airstrike had completely destroyed the synagogue ... “We condemn this attack. It disrespects our faith. Iran’s Jewish community doesn’t have good relations with the Zionist Israeli government,” he said. Iran’s Jewish community is the largest and oldest in the Middle East outside Israel, dating back about 2,500 years to when Jews were exiled eastwards by Assyrian and Babylonian rulers ... About two decades ago, Israel encouraged Iranian Jews to emigrate, offering cash incentives in an attempt to prompt a mass migration. At the time, the Society of Iranian Jews dismissed the offer as “immature political enticements” and said their national identity was not for sale.
1. As another commenter already pointed out, Iran is not an Arab country
2. It is very true that the Iranian people absolutely does not hate Jews. In most Arab capitals, simply to walk around while visibly Jewish is either risky or downright suicidal. The same is true in other Muslim countries such as Pakistan, and increasingly in majority Muslim neighborhoods in Western cities. Iran does not have this problem. In fact the Iranian and Jewish peoples share a deep bond that goes back to the time of Cyrus the great, who famously freed the Jews of Babylon in 538 BCE, and allowed them to return to their homeland and rebuild their temple. To this day, Iranians and Israelis tend to get along. For example, the Iranian diaspora is conspicuously absent from anti-Israel protests in the US, and you will often see Israeli and pre-revolutionary Iranian flags flying together in anti-IRGC "Free Iran" protests (to the dismay and confusion of pro-IRGC protesters).
3. The current islamic government of Iran - the IRGC - has historically persecuted and executed Iranian Jews, especially in the early days of the revolution. There is a reason so many Iranian Jews live in the US... It is true that they have not implemented a Nazi-style policy of total eradication of their Jewish population, even though their foreign policy is entirely built on total eradication of Jews abroad. But let's be clear: Jews in Iran live in a state of submission and fear. In theory the IRGC is "anti-zionist" and not "anti-Jewish"; in practice the difference is blurry and arbitrary: Jews are eternally suspected of duplicity and disloyalty, and must continuously prove that they are not secretly "zionists". When Iranian Jews make public statements criticizing Israel, they are doing so because of this pressure from a totalitarian regime, and their safety depends on it. A statement by the Jewish community in Iran only reflects what the IRGC wants them to say. A useful comparison is Soviet anti-zionism, which followed similar patterns: Soviet Jews often denounced zionism loudly and publicly, and from the outside it appeared that Jews were a "protected minority" living peacefully. But ask Jews who actually lived in the Soviet Union at the time, and you will hear a very different story...
> the Iranian diaspora is conspicuously absent from anti-Israel protests in the US
Iranians who migrated to the west are largely supporters of the Shah, who was overthrown by the revolutionaries, and thus they despise the revolutionary government. Israel hates the Iranian revolutionaries too and so the Iranian diaspora found themselves in favour of Israel because of this shared sentiment of hate against the current Iranian government. However, anti-Israeli sentiments in Iranian diaspora has increased now because of Netanyahu's foolish genocide in Gaza, and the supporters of Shah (and Israel) have now increasingly have resort to intimidation to suppress many of them from speaking out for Palestinains and against Israel. As this MEE article outlines - How pro-Israel Iranian Americans are silencing Palestine supporters - https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/war-gaza-how-pro-israel-i... :
> Several Iranian-American activists who spoke to Middle East Eye on condition of anonymity have said they fear speaking out in support of Palestine, saying that anyone who does so publicly has been faced with doxxing campaigns and even threats to their lives. "It's one of those things where it's caused a huge divide in the community," said one Iranian activist ... They say the reason that it appears that most Iranians in the diaspora are pro-Israel is because most of the ones who do support Palestine are afraid to speak up. "The vocal presence of Iranian Zionists online and at rallies might create a misleading perception. In reality, many Iranians are afraid to speak out and do not align with this viewpoint," said one Iranian activist who spoke to MEE on condition of anonymity. "The loudness on social media doesn't accurately represent the broader sentiment."
> But let's be clear: Jews in Iran live in a state of submission and fear ... jews are eternally suspected of duplicity and disloyalty, and must continuously prove that they are not secretly "zionists".
This is a common propaganda for fear mongering amongst the minorities. Interestingly, Pakistanis say the same thing about Muslims living in India. And yes, while there are isolated incidents of minority violence against Muslims in India too (just as there are against the Jews in Iran), it is not a common occurrence in society driven by hate against these minorities.
A few facts about MEE:
1. During the 2017 diplomatic crisis with Qatar over their support of terrorism, Saudi Arabia and the UAE issued a list of demands to Qatar. One of these demands was to shutdown their propaganda outlets - including MEE. Other demands included the severing of ties with Hamas and Hezbollah, and the handing over of internationally wanted terrorists harbored by Qatar. Another demand was to cut off collaboration with Iran's REvolutionary Guards... [1]
2. MEE is entirely controlled by a single individual, Jamal Awn Jamal Bessasso - formerly director of planning and human resources at Al Jazeera in Qatar [2]. Bessasso was also a director at Samalink TV, a company that broadcasts Al-Quds TV - a Hamas-controlled station. [3][4] He has a history of social media posts praising Hamas and advocating for violence against the enemies of Islam.
3. Several other MEE employees have previously worked at Al-Jazeera. At least one MEE employee has previously worked for a Hamas-funded nonprofit.
4. Over the years, MEE has often gained exclusive access to Hamas leadership, and acted as their de facto PR arm.
5. MEE does not disclose its sources of funding. It is a complete black box.
In short: you are uncritically quoting a known propaganda outlet of Qatar, that was explicitly designated by several countries as part of Qatar's terrorism support network, has several links to Hamas, does not disclose its sources of funding, and is controlled by a known supporter of Hamas.
So, I hope you'll forgive me for not taking any of your derived arguments seriously. I took the time to share this information to make sure that nobody reading this exchange takes them seriously, either. This uncritical amplification of obvious propaganda has got to stop.
[1] https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cdp-... [2] https://honestreporting.com/behind-middle-east-eyes-viral-re... [3] https://www.terrorism-info.org.il/en/18388/ [4] https://honestreporting.com/behind-middle-east-eyes-viral-re... [5] https://www.aei.org/foreign-and-defense-policy/middle-east/q...
May I ask what country that is?
It's true that they have not publicly criticized Qatar for harboring Hamas or supporting terrorist groups.
> “My sympathies are all with the Jews… They have been the untouchables of Christianity. The parallel between their treatment by Christians and the treatment of untouchables by Hindus is very close. Religious sanction has been invoked in both cases for the justification of the inhuman treatment meted out to them,” Gandhi wrote in the Harijan article ... “It is wrong and inhumane to impose the Jews on the Arabs…,” he wrote. “It would be a crime against humanity to reduce the proud Arabs so that Palestine can be restored to the Jews partly or wholly as their national home,” Gandhi said ... “A religious act [the act of Jews returning to Palestine] cannot be performed with the aid of the bayonet or the bomb,” he wrote ... “The Jews have a good cause. I told (British Zionist MP) Sidney Silverman that the Jews have a good case in Palestine. If the Arabs have a claim to Palestine, the Jews have a prior claim.” ... “But for their [the Jews’] heartless persecution, probably no question of return to Palestine would ever have arisen,” he wrote in “Jews And Palestine”. “They have erred grievously in seeking to impose themselves on Palestine with the aid of America and Britain and now with the aid of naked terrorism,” he wrote.
(Note that India's current one-sided bonhomie with Israel is an exception and based more on the rapport of shared political values between Modi, Netanayhu and their respective political parties - Sanghis, i.e. Hindu religious fundamentalists, in India, and religious fundamentalists Zionists in Israel share a common political ideology - https://youtu.be/mZhugTmSrMo?t=1696 ).
This is false. India does not have a list of named terrorist organizations, in the way that the US does for example. But there is zero indication anywhere that India specifically considers Hamas not to be a terrorist organization - you are making that up by projecting your own personal views.
You only speak for yourself, not for the Indian government or any other Indians. Your personal view is that Hamas is not a terrorist organization, and that they (and PLO before them) are justified in their use of violence. I strongly disagree with that view, and so do most people. Your view is a fringe view - and it better explains why you don't mind quoting propaganda outlets that openly align with Hamas - you yourself are aligned with Hamas.
The bottom line is that I believe Hamas is a terrorist organization, and you don't. So there's no valuable discussion to be had with you on this topic.
Here you go - Former Hamas chief addresses pro-Palestine rally in Kerala - https://www.theweek.in/news/india/2023/10/28/hamas-leader-ad... (and it's not the first time a Palestinian leader was invited to speak in India). No action has been taken, despite the noise Modi's political party made because legally no law was broken as neither the Hamas speaker nor Hamas is banned in India ... And here's another example, of an opposition leader, showing solidarity with Palestine and even public rebuking the Netanyahu government for the Gaza genocide - Priyanka Gandhi expresses solidarity by carrying bag emblazoned with 'Palestine' to Parliament - https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/priyanka-gandhi-expre... ...
As an Indian, I support both Israel and Palestine, but not their right-wing extremism often laced with religious fundamentalism. Unfortunately, the Netanyahu regime is the worst of Israel-right and I do feel sorry that he is dragging all of Israel down with him.
You are however probably right that we don't see eye to eye here on Israel-Palestine politics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rafah_Border_Crossing
> The Rafah crossing was opened by Israel after the 1979 peace treaty and remained under Israeli control until 2005...
> Under a 2007 agreement between Egypt and Israel, Egypt controls the crossing but imports through the Rafah crossing require Israeli approval.
Bottom line, Egyptians are not interested in supporting millions of refugees inside their border. So the border stays closed to mass immigration.
Also true: If Egypt opened the border and Israel objected, Israel would take swift military action.
But NONE of the Arab countries want to help Gaza people really.
This is directly contradicted by Israel's actions in the Gaza War. Egyptian control of the crossing was not enough, so they took it. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-05-07/israel-ra...
I do wonder if you all can hear yourself: a lot of subtle implications of genetic defects in Palestinians' character and selective understanding of geopolitics in the region, or just basic societal dynamics.
I invited another commenter to transpose their reasoning to groups it's less popular to openly discriminate, I'd suggest you do the same.
The fact remains; no Middle Eastern nation wants Palestinian refugees, not for their genes, but for their politics.
Most states (talking about decision-makers, not populations) don't want to take in large groups of refugees, not because of their genes or politics, but because it has a cost and risks (in terms of integration, gov perception, fuelling far right parties, etc.). Nothing to do with Middle-Eastern/Palestinian.
Even though there are examples of massive refugee intakes by states, everywhere, including in the Middle-East, including of Palestinians, including voluntary.
I'm saying shop owners think that gays steal.
thats not something israel would be excited about
The Palestinians didn't help their cause with Yasser Arafat's Black September uprising in Jordan. Then they topped that up with strong support for Saddam when he invaded Kuwait. Like the ones in Kuwait were literally betraying Kuwaitis to the Iraqi troops.
Oh, and did I forget Lebanon? They literally fomented the civil war.
https://www.thoughtco.com/black-september-jordanian-plo-civi...
https://www.historiascripta.org/post-ww2/the-palestinians-of...
Egypt said 'HELL NO', first, because they don't want to deal with Palestinians (both political and economic nightmare), and second because it would have been viewed as ceding to Israelis and helping them cleanse Gaza, which would be highly unpopular among their population.
Yeah, that's not "wide open". Israel would absolutely be happy with a one-way exit gate.
I strongly suspect the average American has absolutely zero sense of how much foreign aid we give Egypt. That's not to contradict your point directly, just that it isn't a very salient part of American politics (unlike Israeli foreign aid).
I feel like Israeli aid, while vastly more salient than it used to be, is still mostly salient as a left-of-center wedge issue, otherwise being about as salient as your average major foreign policy issue - ranking just under the least salient domestic policy issue, which ranks just under the most minor personal quality of any candidate, which ranks under the current state of the economy, which ranks under the current perceived state of the economy. Wow, that's way too many times to use "salient" in one sentence.
And for the record, I'm not arguing about how much people should care, just how much they do.
Some cultures go thousands of years without ever forming civilizations that escape barbarism. Slavs in particular seem especially unable to find their way out of tyranny, for literally thousands of years.
Sometimes you call a spade a spade. Essences exist. Copes against it like “intersectionality” have been thoroughly rejected by the body politic and that’s why you see zoomer and gen alpha talking like they’re all from 4chan - because 4chan was the only place where essentialism was not only accepted but encouraged.
This bodes well for the future, you say?
At some points people need to wonder why.
Could you imagine me making the same argument with other historically 'unwanted' groups, like for example Black people or Jews? If these populations keeep getting kicked out and marginalised through millennia, surely you have to start wondering why.
It’s probably more anti-Semitic to lie and say “jews don’t control Hollywood” rather than try to explain correctly why they do. Yet, most people don’t even want to try to explain historical factors.
(Husband and father of daughters).
Almost all of the complaints I heard while I was in Egypt were about corruption and lack of opportunity. It was more frustration with rampant nepotism/cronyism and less a desire for liberalism. From the ground, it appeared to be driven by economic forces and not political ideology.
In fact, many Egyptian men that I spoke to made the argument for the continued oppression of women (e.g. the full burqa and absence from work). In general, the populace was decidedly anti-liberal.
The election of the Muslim Brotherhood happened after I left the country, but it was no surprise to me at all. The fact that they attempted to change the constitution so quickly after their victory was unwise, and the subsequent coup by the West was just as unsurprising.
Remember that 20% of the Israeli population is Arab.
> Death to Arabs" or "Death to the Arabs" (Israeli Hebrew: מָוֶת לָעֲרָבִים, romanized: Mávet la'Aravím) is an anti-Arab slogan originating in Israel.