Palestinians aren't starving, after all

"Aid to Palestinians Rose Despite an Embargo" - NYTimes 21 March 07
After all the caterwauling about the poor Palestinians and the "embargo", it seems that they are being taken care of in the same old way, as the world's oldest and most dependent charity case. If anything, they are becoming more dependent than ever. It seems that, whether in Greater Israel (AKA the West Bank and Gaza) or in the camps in other Arab countries, the Palestinians have come to expect that the world (but definitely not their "fraternal" Arabs) will support them. They can just sit back and breed: they have one of the world's highest birth rates. Of all the misdirected charitable instincts, the West's financial support of the Palestinians is the greatest blunder.

By taking on this responsibility since 1948, at virtually NO COST to the Muslim world (whatever happened to Al Umma Al Arabiyya?), the West has guaranteed that the Palestinian people and their thuggish leaders can be intransigent without any real penalty to their survival. Just think what would have happened if, starting in 1948, the Arabs were obliged to take care of the Palestinian refugees in their countries and in "occupied" Gaza (occupied by the Egyptians) and the West Bank (occupied by Jordan). It would have been much more likely that they would have been willing to compromise with Israel and get to a final settlement; otherwise, the Arab countries would have had revolutions on their hands. Instead, the West (through the UN) took on the support and sustenance of these ignorant people, with essentially no requirement that they behave or do anything to better their lot. The only incentive they have is to BREED.

In contrast, Israel took in Jewish refugees from Europe (with compensation money from Germany, over time) and from the Arab countries, with no compensation or assistance from any international organizations; the only help was from charity contributions by Jews from around the World. Israel worked very diligently, under very hard circumstances (including lots of complaining by the Middle Eastern Jewish refugees), to integrate the refugees within one generation.

The consequence of all this, of course, is that there is now a Palestinian refugee problem but no Jewish refugee problem. The Palestinians were encouraged to sit there and fester, to be held up as victims by the people who had victimized them the most, their "brother" Arabs. The goal - and it has been wildly successful - is to hold them up in Israel's face (with the loud assistance of the Left in the West) to ensure that Israel can never exist in peace. One can only wonder at the cynicism of the Left (or is it just plain anti-semitism?) in their current obsession with the "Palestinian People" and their victimhood. In the years immediately following World War II and the de-colonization struggles thereafter, many millions of people were made refugees: in Eastern Europe; in India/Pakistan; Vietnam; all over Africa. Yet the "Palestinian Cause" is the only one that the Left seems to have cottoned on to. If the Left's concern is genuine (if naive), it only goes to show that it is better to be cynical and cruel (like the Arabs) rather than caring and responsible, like Germany, Israel and all the Western countries that have taken in refugees from around the world.

Cruelty and cynicism work.

"Diversity and Tolerance" -- even if it kills us

"Between Black and Immigrant Muslims, an Uneasy Alliance"; "In Tragedy, Glimpsing Oft-Overlooked Newcomers’ Lives"

Two recent headlines in NY Times continues that paper's and the rest of the "progressive" establishment's infatuation with Muslims in America. The motto is: "Diversity and Tolerance" even if it kills us.

The 1st article is a celebration of the emerging alliance between immigrant Muslims and Black American converts. The Times is pleased that these groups have overcome their wariness of each other and are joining forces: finance from the rich Asians and practical advice from the natives on how to work the civil rights racket for the benefit of Islam (not quite how the Times put it, but that is the real consequence of what the article reports). Naturally, the article did not discuss what is going to happen when the Muslim population reaches critical mass in the US (6,000,000 and counting). The demands ("civil rights") will come soon enough: Sharia Law for Muslims? Why not? Multiculturalism in all its glory; changes in US foreign policy? Of course; Enhanced civil rights protection for an "oppressed" minority? At least.

The other story about the Mali families in the tragic fire: 22 people in a single family home (too bad they didn't have a white landlord, it would have made the Times so pleased to rant about that); polygamy; illegal aliens. No criticism of any kind (judgementalism, indeed). Already, the politicians and the simple folk are falling all over themselves to give benefits (Damn The Law, anyway) and succor, instead of asking the hard and embarrassing about what these people were doing here and why are they, with their benighted ways, a benefit to this country? Heaven forbid that we should question or Judge.