Why aren’t fellow Arab countries welcoming Syrian refugees?

11 Dec


Above is a map of the Arab world (I’ve recoloured the disputed Iraq/Syria/ISIL and Palestine territories red and light green respectively).

The 16 dark green countries above are all Arabic-speaking, mostly Muslim lands; apart from the Kurds and the Assyrians, the rest of those fleeing Syria and/or Iraq would likely be a lot more at home in those countries than in the West.

So, why aren’t such countries, esp. the rich Gulf states and Saudi Arabia, inviting refugees to come to them; why are the refugees themselves mostly hell-bent on going to the West; and why are Western leaders not encouraging the Syrians’ / Iraqis’ fellow Arab states to accept them instead?

The leaders of the rest of the Arab world are simply no more generous towards the Syrian refugees than they have been to Palestinians; they are selfish, and further, they also prefer to use their own cousins as weapons against the West.

Many of those fleeing are not actual political refugees, and are simply more concerned about bettering themselves economically than they are inclined to continuing living amongst their own kind of people, hence their drive to the West. Some are bent on wreaking havoc in the West, and so are also heading to the West to do so from within.

Our leaders are traitors and haters of their own kind, who don’t mind flooding our societies with culturally unassimilable newcomers.

But all of them would instead rather excoriate Donald Trump than encourage such a natural solution.

That’s all there is to it.


17 responses to “Why aren’t fellow Arab countries welcoming Syrian refugees?

  1. realgaryseven

    December 11, 2015 at 12:52 am

    Q. Why aren’t fellow Arab countries welcoming Syrian refugees?

    A. Because their governments know better.

  2. superslaviswife

    December 11, 2015 at 4:41 am

    I have a theory on this. Purely speculation, but I may be right on a point or two.

    After every great age, the minimum human unit grew. Tribes, supertribes, villages, cities, provinces, countries, kingdoms, empires. This happens every cycle of civilization until we hit the empires, at which point we collapse and only a few countries remain. I used to think that we are living in the decline of the Victorian imperial age, that we were let down softly… But now I suspect that we never hit peak imperialism. We are actually heading towards a new size of empire, many empires across the world, similar to that situation in 1000BC or 6000BC.

    The obvious imperial divides are: Europe, East Asia, BRICS and relatives, USA and remaining United Nations, and the Muslim world. The problem is that of these, only the Muslim world is managed by religion and in a stagnant, third world state. They also have a monopoly on Eurasian trade routes, vast quantities of valuable resources (fuels, gems, money) and no interest in sharing. They would never join another empire. Quite simply, they would be the thorn in the side of the next age of empires.

    The constant, seemingly meaningless, destabilization that the West has been provoking in the Muslim world is actually a calculated delay. Currently, only the Saudi peninsula has the power and wealth to persuade the other Muslim nations to form an imperial bond. If they did, an Arabic empire would form very swiftly and be a dangerously unstable force in a world where empires are the ruling units.

    Attacking Saudi-Arabia directly would be meaningless. We would provoke war, enrage the Muslim world, waste resources and restrict trade. And probably come out of it with the Muslim world more united than before.

    By keeping Saudi-friendly nations uneducated, unstable, poor and anxious, we stop this from happening. But the Saudi peninsula is starting to catch on. And they are attempting to destabilize OUR nations. In the past, wealthy Muslim nations kept quiet at the UN and welcomed migrating Muslims and asylum seekers. Now they are acting strategically. By allowing radicalism to brew, by not accepting asylum seekers and by demonizing the West they are directing a force against us without openly declaring war. By becoming increasingly present and vocal at the UN table they are infiltrating our ranks and attempting to watch and control us.

    They want to form their own alliance like Europe, BRICS and the UN, like America and East Asia are developing. We don’t want them to. But the battle can’t go physical yet because everyone has too much to lose. However, once all the cards are in play, we may “out of the blue” declare war with the Saudi peninsula and attempt to remove all power from the Muslim world once and for all. Or they may “out of the blue” attack us and attempt to form forced alliances with the Muslim populations behind the walls.

  3. Cecil Henry

    December 11, 2015 at 7:41 am

    Because its NOT in their ethnic interests. ITS not in ours either.

    But #WhiteGenocide is a real agenda.

  4. Will S.

    December 11, 2015 at 7:41 am

    @ RG7: 🙂

    @ SSW: Interesting theory.

    I’m generally anti-war, but it seems to me, if we want to go to war with Islam, nuking not only their economic powerhouses in the Arabian peninsula, and their major cities throughout the Arab world (e.g. Cairo, Algiers, Tangier, Beirut, Damascus) as well as the Saudi capital Riyadh, AND their holy cities Mecca and Medina, would be the way to do it. At once, we’d cripple their economies AND show how powerless their false god Allah is, by destroying the cities and temples specially dedicated to him. True, we’d probably earn their everlasting hate, but then we’d also have a reason to deport those in our midst, en masse, which we may one day have to do, anyway.

  5. Will S.

    December 11, 2015 at 7:44 am

    @ CH: It’s not in their governments’ interests, sure. But wouldn’t it be in ours to encourage them to stay in their part of the world? Of course, our rulers would rather swamp us with such unassimilable foreigners, and have increased internal strife, etc.

  6. Carnivore

    December 11, 2015 at 8:09 am

    They don’t want the riffraff.

  7. Will S.

    December 11, 2015 at 9:46 am

    Chronicles nails it:

    For much of American history, it was understood that no one had a right to immigrate to America, that Americans had the unfettered right to decide who should come to America, and that immigration should be judged on whether it benefited America and Americans, not on whether it was good for immigrants. Applying these principles, the United States effectively ended Chinese immigration in 1882 and drastically curtailed immigration from Eastern and Southern Europe in 1924. As I noted in my December 2014 piece on an immigration moratorium, “Coolidge’s America recognized that the only legitimate criterion for assessing immigration was whether it was beneficial for America and Americans.” One need not wonder too long about how the Congresses that passed the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 and the Immigration Act of 1924 would have acted if Islamic gunmen were then killing innocents around the globe, including in America.

    The outcry over Donald Trump’s proposal to end Islamic immigration, at least for a time, is a reminder of how far we have moved from those principles. Ben Rhodes, the Deputy National Security Adviser, told CNN that ending Islamic immigration is “totally contrary to our values as Americans. You know, we have in our Bill of Rights respect for freedom of religion.” Not to be outdone, Dick Cheney told Hugh Hewitt that, “Well, I think the whole notion that somehow we need to say no more Muslims and just ban a whole religion goes against everything we stand for and believe in. I mean religious freedom’s been a very important part of our history.” (Cheney does, however, find bombing and invading Moslem countries to be perfectly acceptable).

    The apparent belief of Rhodes and Cheney that the Constitution somehow gives Moslems the right to immigrate to America is too much even for the Washington Post, which noted, in a piece highly critical of Trump, that “Barring Muslims who are not U. S. citizens from entering the country may not violate U. S. law in the same way, the experts said, because the Constitution’s protections generally do not apply to people outside the nation’s borders.” (One also wonders what Rhodes and Cheney would make of Justice Joseph Story, the leading commentator on the Constitution in the first half of the nineteenth century, who wrote that “The real object of the [First] amendment was not to countenance, much less to advance, Mahommetanism, or Judaism, or infidelity, by prostrating Christianity, but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects, and to prevent any national ecclesiastical establishment which should give to a hierarchy the exclusive patronage of the national government.”)

    The recent terrorist attacks in Paris and San Bernardino are reminders that Islamic immigration carries a significant cost. After all, the attackers were either Islamic immigrants themselves or the children of Islamic immigrants, and the Paris attackers planned their attack in one Moslem immigrant enclave and fled to another Moslem immigrant enclave after the attack. Curtailing Islamic immigration is something the American people should be allowed to consider in the wake of those attacks. Considering such an option is not “contrary to everything we stand for and believe in.” If you want to see what is “contrary to everything we stand for and believe in,” it was on full display last week in San Bernardino.

  8. feeriker

    December 11, 2015 at 11:31 am

    Why aren’t fellow Arab countries welcoming Syrian refugees?

    For the same reason that they refused entry to Palestinian refugees after the Israeli War of Independence and through the ensuing five-plus decades since: it’s not in their political best interests to do so.

    Admitting refugees from other Arab states would serve only to destabilize these countries, nearly all of which are ruled by tyrannical oligarchs whose grasp on power is always tenuous at best. In the same vein, unrest in other Arab states not only deflects international criticism and attention from the crimes and problems of individual Arab autocrats, but also feeds the narrative that the Arab world’s problems are caused not by any domestic corruption repression, or longstanding cultural, religious, and socioeconomic discord, but by western interference in the Arab world’s affairs. In no respect does absorbing refugees or solving the Arab world’s problems internally benefit any of today’s regimes in that region.

    Oh, and contrary to what is no doubt accepted as gospel among pig-ignorant westerners (i.e., the vast majority when it comes to all things Middle Eastern), the Arabs are the farthest thing from a “united” people as can be. Indeed, many of them despise each other far more than they will ever despise either Israel or the West – and always have.

  9. Chillingworth

    December 11, 2015 at 6:50 pm

    Superslaviswife, interesting theory, and overall I don’t think I’m qualified to evaluate it one way or the other, but this caught my attention:

    “But the Saudi peninsula is starting to catch on. . . . In the past, wealthy Muslim nations kept quiet at the UN and welcomed migrating Muslims and asylum seekers.”

    Is that true? My (limited) memory is that, as Will S. and Feeriker alluded to above, their general attitude to refugees has been the same for half a century—at least, that they really shut the door on Palestinian refugees from the beginning (possibly as part of a deliberate strategy to stoke their resentment for the long term, as a cudgel against Israel).

  10. Chillingworth

    December 11, 2015 at 6:55 pm

    Re original post, for whatever it’s worth, here’s Mark Krikorian at his think tank that I mentioned, arguing the same thing—that we should assist the refugees close to where they already are, not bring them here—a month ago:

    “Resettling Syrian refugees in the United States fails on both counts.

    “1. Security

    There are two parts to the security challenge posed by refugee resettlement.

    “A) Screening cannot be done adequately
    . . .
    “B) The sea within which terrorist fish swim

    “The broader security problem created by refugee admissions – or by large-scale immigration of any kind from societies with large numbers of terrorists – is that they establish and constantly refresh insular communities that serve as cover and incubators for terrorism.”

    Great reframing of the debate, for those Americans open to being persuaded:

    Bringing refugees into our country makes us feel good about ourselves. Newspapers run heart-warming stories of overcoming adversity; churches embrace the objects of their charity; politicians wax nostalgic about their grandparents.

    But the goal of refugee assistance is not to make us feel good. It is to assist as many people as possible with the resources available. And resettling a relative handful of them here to help us bask in our own righteousness means we are sacrificing the much larger number who could have been helped with the same resources.

    The difference in cost is enormous. The Center for Immigration Studies has calculated that it costs 12 times as much to resettle a refugee in the United States as it does to care for the same refugee in the neighboring countries of first asylum, namely Turkey, Jordan, and Lebanon.11 The five-year cost to American taxpayers of resettling a single Middle Eastern refugee in the United States is conservatively estimated to be more than $64,000, compared with U.N. figures that indicate it costs about $5,300 to provide for that same refugee for five years in his native region.

    In other words, each refugee we bring to the United States means that 11 others are not being helped with that money. Faced with 12 drowning people, only a monster would send them a luxurious one-man boat rather than 12 life jackets. And yet, with the best of intentions, that is exactly what we are doing when we choose one lucky winner to resettle here.

  11. Will S.

    December 11, 2015 at 8:33 pm

    @ feeriker: That’s how I see it, too; hence my albeit more limited comment in line with yours re: their non-admission of Palestinians.

    Now, to be fair, I have heard that Sudan has admitted some Syrians, because of their previously having been united in the United Arab Republic (according to one source I read, can’t find now); here are a couple related news pieces:

    Notice how they seem to be considered ‘guests’ rather than refugees, with the hope expressed that one day they will leave.

    @ Chillingworth: Ah. Well, good on him, here; I find myself more in agreement with him here.

  12. weak stream

    December 12, 2015 at 12:25 am

    Syrians aren’t going there anyway. Reports of able bodied working men making their way to Germany says something completely different. They just want to move for the same reasons that Mexicans want to move to the US. People don’t realize that in order to form a more perfect union you must have a bloody civil war. The US did it twice.

  13. Will S.

    December 12, 2015 at 1:43 am

    Yes, Germany or the U.K. are the main intended destinations.

  14. Will S.

    January 18, 2016 at 12:49 pm


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s