Palestinian refugee children UNRWA school

El ataque de Trump a los refugiados

Sep 7, 2018 Gordon Brown

LONDRES – La decisión del gobierno del presidente estadounidense Donald Trump de cortar la financiación al Organismo de Obras Públicas y Socorro de las Naciones Unidas para los Refugiados de Palestina en el Cercano Oriente (OOPS o UNRWA por la sigla en inglés) politiza la ayuda humanitaria, amenaza con echar más leña a uno de los conflictos más inflamables del mundo, y pone en riesgo el futuro de medio millón de niños y jóvenes palestinos.

El OOPS, creado para entregar asistencia básica a los refugiados desplazados durante la fundación del estado israelí, provee desde 1949 atención médica, empleo, alimentos y refugio a los desplazados palestinos. En la actualidad, casi dos millones de refugiados reciben de la organización ayuda de emergencia en la forma de alimentos y dinero en efectivo, y cada año millones de personas usan alguna de las 143 clínicas que administra.

Pero la mayor parte del presupuesto del OOPS se destina a la educación de niños y jóvenes, la mitad de ellos en el Líbano, Siria y Jordania, y el resto en Gaza y Cisjordania. El OOPS gestiona unas 700 escuelas, con más estudiantes que cualquier otro organismo de la ONU. Un 75% de la población de la Franja de Gaza recibe alguna forma de ayuda del OOPS, y el 60% de los niños de Gaza entre primer y noveno grado asisten a sus escuelas.

We hope you're enjoying Project Syndicate.

To continue reading, subscribe now.

Already have an account? Log in

Support High-Quality Commentary

For more than 25 years, Project Syndicate has been guided by a simple credo: All people deserve access to a broad range of views by the world's foremost leaders and thinkers on the issues, events, and forces shaping their lives. At a time of unprecedented uncertainty, that mission is more important than ever – and we remain committed to fulfilling it.

But there is no doubt that we, like so many other media organizations nowadays, are under growing strain. If you are in a position to support us, please subscribe now.

As a subscriber, you will enjoy unlimited access to our On Point suite of long reads and book reviews, Say More contributor interviews, The Year Ahead magazine, the full PS archive, and much more. You will also directly support our mission of delivering the highest-quality commentary on the world's most pressing issues to as wide an audience as possible.

By helping us to build a truly open world of ideas, every PS subscriber makes a real difference. Thank you.

Subscribe Now

new comment has been posted. new comments have been posted.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 29 Comments on this article

j. von Hettlingen Sep 9, 2018

Gordon Brown says Trump’s decision to cut off some $300 million in funding to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) will lead to the closure of facilities that provide health care, education and social services for Palestinian refugees. This will affect the most vulnerable segment of the population – children and young people – and expose them to the danger of being recruited by terrorists and falling victim to child marriage and child labour.
While focusing on the plight of the Palestinian refugees, the author fails to question Trump’s motive for his action. Nobody is so elated than Benjamin Netanyahu, who in the past had accused the UNRWA of not absorbing the refugees, but perpetuating a crisis that lies at the heart of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Yet he refuses to admit that the failure of political leaders, like him, to resolve the conflict has caused the refugee crisis to drag on for 70 years.
UNRWA was founded in December, 1948 after the war fought between the newly declared State of Israel and a military coalition of Arab states over the control of former British Palestine. The agency aimed to serve some 700,000 Palestinians who fled or were uprooted from their homes. Today the agency grapples with helping some five million refugees across the Middle East. The US has been the “most generous and reliable” donor, funding almost 30% of its operations. Both Republican and Democratic administrations had recognised the agency’s value.
In the past, Netanyahu insisted the US funds should have been used to "genuinely help rehabilitate" the refugees. He claimed the number of refugees were much lower than the figures presented by UNRWA. The agency rejected the Israeli accusations, saying it operates under a strict mandate outlined by the UN. It maintained that the refugee issue should be resolved as part of a broader peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians, blaming political leaders' failure to reach a peace deal.
The Palestinians have condemned the US, saying Trump was seeking to "dismantle" UNRWA at Israel's behest and to force neighbouring countries to absorb refugees and remove the sensitive issue from future negotiations. Israel rejects any large-scale return of Palestinians to lost homes in what is now Israel, fearing it would destroy the country's Jewish character. Trump had threatened to cut aid to the Palestinians over what he called their unwillingness to negotiate with Israel.
The head of UNRWA, Pierre Krähenbühl, warned that the agency was "now confronted with the most dramatic financial crisis" in its soon 70-year history. He criticised Trump’s decision, which has been made for “political reasons,” and defended the agency’s fiscal discipline and management, dismissing calls for reform. The State Department spokeswoman, Heather Nauert explained that the US would "like to see some revisions made in how UNRWA operates", to ensure that the money was "best spent" so that people got the services they needed.
It is unclear, whether US bilateral aid to the Palestinians is also at risk. That amounted to $260m in 2016, with much of the money going towards projects administered by USAid. By contrast, Israel receives more than $3bn in military aid per year from the US, helping Netanyahu to “perpetuate” the settlers’ presence in the occupied Palestinian territory.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
nigel southway Sep 8, 2018

First... Brown is a failed politico… and is a confirmed globalist and mis placed humanitarian…

Next …. the plight of these so called refugees is plainly timed out… almost 70 years... and self induced, and we are enabling them with our hard earned funds... Trump is 100% correct in his decision.
- Kien Choong Sep 9, 2018
  
  You are a hard man, Nigel! I hope one day, with reflection, you will have reason to change your views. Even if the Palestinian refugees (and their descendants) were somehow responsible for their present plight, that cannot be the end of our inquiry.
  
  Europeans have long benefited from migration which in many cases entailed the forcible dispossession of indigenous peoples in North America, Latin America, Australia, and more recently (with the establishment of modern Israel by European Jews) in Palestine. Surely Western countries ought to reflect on their responsibility to mitigate the harms done to the Palestinian people!
  - P. Kamath Sep 15, 2018
    
    Kien: If you believe you can change Trump-surrogates, Psychophants, minions to reason, you are wasting your time. Have you come across , the statement of Marie Antoinette who said " ..if they dont have bread, why don't they eat cake?..". She was looking at the hungry crowds who were shouting for bread before the French revolution .
    - Kien Choong Oct 10, 2018
      
      Hi, sorry for the delay in replying.
      
      Democracy works best through public discussion and good reasoning.
      
      There are at least two reasons for engaging in public reasoning: (i) to understand the reason(s) for alternative points of view, and (ii) it is an opportunity for me to articulate the reasons for my own views and ensure that my own reasons survive reasoned scrutiny.
      
      I have changed my mind in the past, and I owe this to other people who have taken time to articulate the reasons for their views.
      
      Economists stress the power of incentives, and political scientists emphasise the centrality of interests. But we often neglect the long-term potential of good reasoning and public discussion to make the world a better place. Good reasoning allows us to: (i) change our views, and (ii) give appropriate regard to the rights of the minority. Good reasoning does not guarantee unanimous agreement on all matters, but it can help us identify and reject bad choices.
      
      Best wishes!
      A new reply to this comment has been posted.
    A new reply to this comment has been posted.
  - nigel southway Sep 9, 2018
    
    Look… my conscience is very clear… I will speak plainly.
    
    The problem is these guys won’t integrate and time has shown we are making it worse by giving it focus.
    
    In general, … I like many, are tired with the liberal rhetoric that we should have shame and a conscience as western people for our past sins as we oppressed these other countries and cultures....
    
    If we did oppress them it was mainly with free education, technology, medicine and in some cases physical protection that we provided at great cost to our own people. In some cases we have provided this support for generations… enough. Its past time to stop this nonsense... If others want to be equal to us, then stand on their own feet and/or integrate… stop the pity party.
    
    Another thing… immigration in the past worked because it was hard working qualified people who were involved in the transaction who joined a legal que and added value where they went, but now it’s a bunch of que jumpers and spongers who also refuse to integrate… In fact, due to our past political nonsense they are encouraged to be lazy and diverse. so very stupid….
    
    Also, multiculturalism through immigration and migration is NOT working …so we need to improve our borders before we are over ran. Plenty of facts and examples…. Just look at Europe.
    
    Please don’t give me the shame game. It's way past that point…let’s face facts and react…. with our first priority our own citizens....
    - Kien Choong Sep 10, 2018
      
      Hi, Nigel. Nice to read about your views and insights. Let me think about them. I'm sure there will be future occasions for us to discuss our respective views further.
      
      Let me just add here that it's not my intention to make anyone feel guilty. I suspect making people feel guilty often does very little good. We each need to reflect on our own values, and decide for ourselves which of our values are good or bad, right or wrong.
      
      I would argue that this type of moral reflection requires a long-term perspective of humanity.
      - nigel southway Sep 10, 2018
        
        Any time on a debate on our views that’s why we subscribe to this site to learn and argue and learn some more
        but the prime objective is not morality it is to do what is best for the nation first and humankind 2nd that’s why we will fight for our country and kill if needed it has to be this way
        
        Kien Choong Sep 11, 2018
        
        While I often find your views to be rather "tough", I admire your willingness to discuss and argue, and doing so without putting down your opponent!
        
        I'm not sure if it is possible to separate out moral issues ("what ought we do?") from the any idea of "what is best for the nation first". Even if one takes the narrow (but perhaps not unreasonable) view of prioritising our own nation first, this in itself does not negate consideration of the claims of other nations, and on this, moral reflection seems inescapable.
        
        It is not "moral guilt" that I want to inspire, but a willingness to imagine a better world, not just for our own nation, but for all nations, not just for our generation, but for future generations.
        
        nigel southway Sep 11, 2018
        
        Fine words... but...Some of us don't see the world better with this multilateral approach as their are cultural differences and seperations that should have been maintained.... For example Christianity and islam are not just compatible.
        
        Kien Choong Sep 11, 2018
        
        I'm not sure I understand. Making the world a better place surely entails making it better for all, not just for some. Correct?
        
        Our social identities have a very powerful hold on how we view the world, but we ought to bear in mind that our identities (especially those that are very narrow) are transient and arbitrary. For example, there was a time in the US (as I understand it) when being "white" means being of British descent. But over time, "white identity" has been broadened to include Irish, Italians, and Eastern Europeans.
        
        And from the perspective of a Hindu, Muslims, Jews and Christians have a lot in common. They are each monotheistic faiths, and they each have similar ethical values (e.g., being neighbourly, being kind to strangers, helping the poor, looking after widows).
        
        Our common humanity does not negate our social identities, nor does our commonality negate our differences. But we have only one world - we must resist the tendency to focus only on our differences, and neglect the many opportunities we have to cooperate.
        
        If there is something special about being human, it is (I would argue) altruism. No other animal species are altruistic in the way that humans are. We are not exclusively self-regarding creatures, we also have commitments and goals that transcend our self-wellbeing!
        
        nigel southway Sep 12, 2018
        
        Sorry, but you need to understand human sociology far more, and not over simplify what you hope it can be.
        
        My response is that you live in a perfect world…. And good luck to you if you can… but many of us have had these high values you mentioned tested with reality and have modified our beliefs based on fact.
        
        At this time we have many who want our western wealth but are not prepared to work for it and assume we will give it to them for free… we have others such as those that practice Islamic religions who have demonstrated by actions that they cannot be trusted to live and let live. And certainly, will not integrate into our western value system… this is the 2nd time this has happened and it took a crusade to fix it last time…For this reason they are not welcome as much as others.
        
        Further, we have grown tired of being multilateral… especially with the population explosion in those sectors of society…. We are by our DNA naturally tribal and this comes to the fore when our security and well-being is being threated which globalization has by situation and facts sensitized many ….
        
        You can talk up the perfect world liberal views all you want, and we may in principal agree on a good day, but in practical terms we will follow a more judicious route as that is how the world is evolving…. Many see no value in further integration but only pain… so they cannot be blamed as this protective nationalism is a reaction to external threats that are real and transcend the altruism you talk about… At the very worst…we are talking about walled communities …. It has happened before…
        
        Kien Choong Sep 14, 2018
        
        Hi, thank you (again!) for engaging with my arguments (vs putting down your opponent). I really appreciate the decency in how you engage in public discussion.
        
        ("personal responsibility and freedoms") You reasonably raise a legitimate issue about personal responsibility (and incentives) which ought to be address. If the goal of social policy is to protect people from all adverse consequences, including consequences that result from their own choices, then we do have reason to be concerned about personal responsibility. On the other hand, if the goal of social policy is to foster people's freedoms to make choices, then such a social policy would be enhancing personal responsibility. Freedom is both a necessary and sufficient condition for personal responsibility.
        
        Freedom is not simply about having legal rights and being free from legal constraints. Freedom is about being able to live lives and pursue goals that we each have reason to value.
        
        ("freedoms and public policy") What often seems under-appreciated is that our substantive freedoms depend public policies (and often with public funding), including on universal education, public health, social attitudes (e.g., gender equality, LGBT rights), safety (e.g., from violence including both police violence and gang violence), employment (e.g., freedom to work, to find employment, to start a business), and migration (e.g., freedom to move from a depressed region to another region with more jobs, etc) - i.e., the full range of social, political and economic freedoms.
        
        ("personal responsibility and chance") We also often overlook the role of randomness (colloquially, "luck") in our lives. Our achievements are not exclusively the function of our efforts. Random events, both good (e.g., being born male in a patriarchal society) and bad (e.g., graduating from college during a recession) affect the outcomes we achieve, despite our best efforts. We typically benchmark CEO performance against other firms, to filter out the effect of randomness on achieved outcomes.
        
        ("safety nets") By so benchmarking, we effectively insure the CEO's remuneration against random events beyond the CEO's control (e.g., economic recessions, financial crises). Similarly, public policies on education, healthcare, social security, etc help buffer individuals from random factors that are beyond their control, so protecting them from catastrophic loss and giving people a chance to "live and fight another day". More generally, when social order deteriorates in a country due to rebellion (as in Syria), foreign intervention (as in Yemen), famine (as in 19th century Ireland), or climate change, migration to a safe country is a type of insurance, giving refugees a chance to start afresh.
        
        ("freedom and equality") Suppose we both agree that freedom is essential to personal responsibility, and the goal of public policy is to maximise our collective freedoms. Does it matter how that freedom is distributed? We sometimes hear arguments to the effect that some income/wealth inequality is needed to incentivise economic growth. Even if this claim is true for income/wealth inequality, it is not necessarily true for freedom inequality. If our goal is equality of freedoms, vs equality of income/wealth, there is no reason to suppose that this goal would inhibit economic growth. On the contrary, having freedom distributed equally (or at least broadly equally) should, in principle, foster personal responsibility and incentives. Furthermore, I understand as an empirical matter, there is no evidence to showing that high levels of wealth/income inequality contributes to greater growth. The empirical evidence is that broad equality, even in income/wealth, is neither good nor bad for economic growth. In fact, America experienced strong periods of economic growth in the decades following WW2 when income/wealth inequality was lower than current levels.
        
        ("plurality and variety") I hope we can both agree that responsibility depends on freedoms, and freedoms depend on good public policies. Having said that, there is of course plenty of room for reasonable disagreement on what government policies would maximise our collective freedoms, and ensure that those freedoms are shared equally by each of us (vs freedoms that favour the rich & powerful). I don't think there is a single formulaic approach for fostering our collective freedoms and their equal distribution. There are likely many different paths we could take. (On the other hand, there are some paths we clearly ought not take, like leaving refugees stranded, not mitigating climate change, or fostering unequal economic growth.)
        
        ("incentives - tough, but fair") If there is a need for "toughness", I suspect it lies with an intelligent structuring of incentives that is sensitive to empirical relations between those incentives and freedoms that we want to foster in society. There is no role for "blind toughness", regardless of the outcome; nor do we want to be needlessly tough. We must be "tough, but fair".
        
        ("moral vision") I do not aspire to a world in which everyone have equal income and equal wealth. But I do look forward to a world where each of us are (broadly) equally free to live lives and pursue goals that we each have reason to value. "Market forces" do not automatically ensure this outcome. We need good public policies. [note 1]
        
        ("multigenerational project") Working for a just world is a multi-generational project. Each generation ought to do what it can towards making the world "less unjust", especially by taking steps to eliminate patent and needless injustice.
        
        Kind regards,
        Kien
        
        [Note 1] The key (I argue) is to foster long-term growth that is inclusive - i.e., higher rates of growth should accrue to those who are less well off. This will ordinarily entail a progressive tax system, but I don't think we need to go so far as to seek zero (or even negative) growth for the rich. Growth should accrue to everyone, but as long as the less well-off experience higher rates of growth, eventually broad equality can be achieved.
        
        nigel southway Sep 14, 2018
        
        kien-choong
        A long one.... but you mixed the theory of freedom with some of your own examples of “freedom” with rights…. which to others may not be either important or create disagreement… for example many disagree that we have man made climate change, and others still worry about how much freedom and exposure we are giving to LGBT rights… also others maintain we should not react as we do in allowing migration and the definition of a refugee and what action to take…
        
        Others may say they want to be free of LBGT, refugees and the nonsense of climate change effecting their economy….
        
        So, who is right? … its more who gets to choose. …..now that’s freedom.
        
        Let’s agree we only need one thing… we need an environment where we can vote to live a certain way in a controlled national society and our "freedom" is to collectively chose the direction that society takes…
        What I object too.. are politically correct pious liberalists defining their beliefs as the deffinition of freedom…
        
        Kien Choong Oct 11, 2018
        
        Hi, sorry for the late reply. I have been busy and travelling.
        
        It is true (as you flag) that there can be reasonable differences in views about what types of freedoms are more important than other types. For example, many authoritarian governments take the view that economic freedoms (e.g., freedom from poverty) is more important than a free media, or even a right to vote, and so they prioritise economic freedoms. On the other hand, Western advocates of human rights seem to prioritise procedural freedoms (like free press, freedom of speech, etc) over substantive freedoms to (for example) be employed and earn a living, be educated, have access to public health, etc.
        
        So how do we proceed when there are different views on which freedoms are more important than others?
        
        (A - common ground) First, we can note that while we can reasonably have different views on a matter, there are many matters on which we can all agree on. For example, we might all agree that people ought to be free from starvation (if not from poverty), or we can all agree that children should be free from poverty and mortality, and should be afforded an opportunity to be educated.
        
        (B - ends vs means) Second, we can distinguish between end goals and the ways to reach those goals. There are often many different reasonable ways for society to achieve a goal, and people can reasonably have different views about which way is the "best way". But this does not mean we do not agree on the end goals. In this regard, I hope we can all agree that the end goal of development is to foster human freedoms and wellbeing, even if we disagree about the most effective way to achieve that end goal.
        
        (C - public reasoning) Third, public discussion and good reasoning can help us find common ground and reduce the areas of disagreement. I would resist simply taking the procedural route and letting the majority (let alone the elite) decide. As a society (even at the global level, not just the country level), we have good reason to make collective decisions through public discussion and good reasoning. There are at least two reasons for this: (a) public reasoning has the potential to change our minds over a matter (e.g., by drawing our attention to alternatives that we may not have previously considered); and (b) even if we end up making decisions based on majority voting, public reasoning allows the majority to take account of the rights of the minority, even the rights of foreigners. The idea that foreigners have rights goes all the way back to the Old Testament (e.g., Deuteronomy 24, Exodus 23).
        
        (In praise of reasoning) For these reasons, I welcome the opportunity to have a reasoned discussion with you. I am interested in understanding the reasons for the views you hold. First, it may lead me to re-examine my own views and perhaps change them. Second, even if it does not, at least I understand your reasons, and there is certainly value in that. We cannot understand a man (woman) simply by looking at the choices he (she) makes and the views he (she) expresses. To understand a man (woman), we need to also understand the reasons for his (her) choices and views.
        
        (Roots of unreason) However, we must each be willing to be reasonable. There is unfortunately plenty of unreason in the world, especially when we don't take time to listen to each other, and be open to changing our minds. Psychologists tell us that our unreason is often due to powerful behavioural forces - e.g., parochialism, familiarity bias, availability bias, our social identities (especially narrow identities), our fear of loss, etc.
        
        (equal freedoms as a long-term goal) I propose that, as a long-term goal (which I hope we can all agree on) is to foster human freedoms and wellbeing so that everyone of us (regardless of ethnicity, nationality, race, religion, gender, age, sexual preference, etc) are equally free to live lives and pursue goals that we each have reason to value. We may reasonably disagree on how best to reach that goal, but with public discussion and good reasoning, we can broadly agree on a set of complementary means (e.g., universal education, public health, freedom from child poverty, inclusive economic growth) that can achieve that long-term goal.
        
        (freedoms vs outcomes) Notice that the long-term goal relates to freedoms, capabilities and opportunities, not to outcomes in terms of income, wealth, happiness, etc. Each person is responsible for the outcomes that they aspire to achieve, but ideally, we should all be equally free (both procedural and substantive freedoms) to make reasoned choices in light of our respective aspirations.
        
        Kind regards!
        
        nigel southway Oct 12, 2018
        
        I am ok with any debate as you have seen…..but I don't see much need on this subject.,.
        Here is the model for freedom..
        The planet is divided into countries or nations with their own individual rules and social norms… each has citizens that must either follow those rules or strive through a social program of change to make them different.
        The process can be a range of activities from war to votes.. they must choose….
        The job of the other nations is to interferer as less as possible…. Many still don’t get this…
        Their cannot and should not be a planet wide police force.. or we enable bias and advantage or dilution of such a process.. … each nation must fight its own battles.
        Multilateralism and globalization as well as liberal righteousness and in the past religious righteousness has always destroyed this balance..
        The opportunity to short circuit such a process of internal change has made those in developing nations want the easy way out to migrate rather than fight for the land or nation they occupy..
        So, I would say the sacred freedom is the right to be a citizen and effect its nations journey…. Nothing else matters. … In a modern society so called individual freedom is limited and must always be traded.
        Also, within society there is a huge difference between “tolerance” and “Acceptance “.. many national cultures are only in “tolerance mode” about things like immigration, homosexuality, multiculturalism, mixed marriages and religious biases. If such a choice were theirs many citizens would not accept and reject with extreme action. The problem with our current levels of liberalized governments certainly in the west is that we have over extended this balance between tolerance and acceptance and have stopped listening to our populations….. it will manifest itself in so called freedom discussions but its more the breaking of social norms in a very dangerous manner…
        
        nigel southway Oct 12, 2018
        
        So one more thing.. under this logic the concept of a refugee does not need to exist!
        
        Kien Choong Oct 18, 2018
        
        Hi, I like your "model for freedom", although it seems more accurate to call it a model for national autonomy. However, there are a number of issues on which I am curious to know your views (and the reasons for those views):
        
        (a) First, in practice powerful countries do intervene in the affairs of weaker countries, whether out of self-interest, out of concern for human rights, or both. Western countries have had a long tradition of forcing their own preferences on other countries. An egregious example is the UK forcing China to allow the import of opium; a more recent example is the establishment of modern Israel on Palestinian lands. Both these interventions have long-term consequences that affect later generations. However much we proclaim the priority of national autonomy, how do we prevent powerful countries from intervening anyway? Any thoughts??
        
        (b) Second, some weak states do fail, and some fail completely. Afghanistan is an example of a failed state (arguably rooted in Cold War rivalry between, and interventions by, the US and USSR). More recently, Syria is a state that has partially failed; while Yemen seems to have completely failed. Ireland used to be a failed state, and a solution to its failure was migration. In fact, I would argue that migration has historically been a solution to failed states throughout history. When a state fails, might refugees not have a human right to seek refuge in other countries? It puzzles me that countries such as the US, Canada and Australia, essentially founded by migrants fleeing deprivations in the Old World, would think that they are entitled to keep later migrants out.
        
        (c) Third, there is interdependence among nations. We are collectively better off when we work together to address the harms of the world - e.g., climate change, money laundering, tax havens, and terrorism. It seems likely (and reasonable) that to gain from collective action, countries would voluntarily accept limits to their national autonomy. In fact, it is likely the case that our collective freedoms are enhanced when we do voluntarily accept reasonable constraints on our national autonomy. Arguably the European Union is an example of this. That said, not all constraints are justified and legitimate, and I would defend the right of a nation to critique previously accepted norms, and seek to change them.
        
        Let's suppose that: (i) there is a way to guarantee that powerful countries do not violate national autonomy, (ii) states do not fail, and (iii) the gains from collective action can somehow be equitably shared without reducing any country's national autonomy to pursue policies only in the national interest. Even in this idealised world, is a country's "national interest" limited only the wellbeing of its citizens/residents?
        
        Might the citizens/residents of a country have commitments that go beyond just their own wellbeing? It strikes me that human societies have long reflected that we have good reason to care about our neighbours, not just ourselves. And further, our "neighbours" need not be limited to fellow citizens; they include anyone to whom we are in a position to render aid (as discussed in the Parable of the Good Samaritan).
        
        If we live only to serve our own material needs and if we have no goals and commitments that go beyond that, are we truly free?? Isn't it an example of agency (and freedom) to pursue goals and commitments that go beyond our own wellbeing?
        
        So I would like to argue that helping out refugees (in Palestine and elsewhere) is no violation of the principle of national autonomy. In fact, it would be an admirable example of exercising our national autonomy and our freedoms to pursue goals and commitments that we have reason to value.
        
        Having said that, I do support the model of national autonomy - each nation or society must ultimately decide for themselves what values, goals and commitments they have reason to value. Ideally, collective choices ought to be made democratically, through public discussion and good reasoning. As far as possible, we should subject our values, goals and commitments to reasoned scrutiny vs unreflective prejudice. Only then, are we truly "free agents".
        
        nigel southway Oct 19, 2018
        
        KC I don’t mind responding to explain my position… but I thought I was clear already, so I will be very direct and pragmatic as I respond to your questions… If I missed a response let me know.
        Your views on how society should work are not mine…. You are a modern multilateralist and I am a traditional nationalist.
        You visualize a perfect world.. …..I live in a real one.
        Look at it this way…this is the important point…Below the surface we are tribal beings and the largest model of a tribe we can cope with is the nation model.. break that down too much and you get the global anarchy we now see happening..
        Yes, national autonomy as you call it is the key requirement.. nothing else comes close to being as important.. we must swear allegiance to one national flag and that’s it… I would ban the use of dual citizenship.. it’s a contradiction in terms.. It also breeds multiculturalism which does not work.
        On your question on the intervention responsibility of mature nation onto less powerful nations… we need to get out of that business of providing so called protection and getting involved in other nations business or assisting with their fights as much as practical and then we are forced to take sides… it’s just not working…. When we try to help their young men run away to be refugees and take our boys jobs and our boys go in as peace keepers and get killed or maimed for life by the same people they are trying to peace keep.... this picture is wrong… It is better we provide the weapons and not much else and let them fight it out.. If they want our military muscle as protection they must pay for it… but it won’t be our boots on the ground .. that will be their own citizens job.
        You talk about Human rights…. There are no rights unless you are prepared to directly fight for them….
        The concept of war and human rights don’t mix.. In war there is no human rights and there is no such thing as refugees….. just winners and losers.
        We don’t have the ability to outlaw war… so we don’t have the ability to enforce human rights as many believe we do… so the correct equation is that war settles the human rights.
        The assumption that we as so called mature nations have a responsibility to protect and shelter others is profoundly wrong.. each nation and its citizens must themselves fight for what they want, or it has no value and we are enabling less than firm commitment for that nation by their citizens. Everyone must be prepared to die for their nation or they have no value as citizens. ….so, by this definition there is no such thing as a refugee…
        I don’t accept that a citizen from a so called failed state has any right to migrate to my nation… If my nation needs the immigration and the immigrant has the skills then that might work, but it’s my nations right to decide and not the opposite. The test will always be is it the best decision for that nation’s citizens.
        Aid to another nation can best be given local to the problem. And that must be the direction to take.. this will halt most migration.. But quite frankly most of the Arab and African failed states are self-induced and most of these so called migrants are either running away or economic opportunity migrants who have got a view of over-entitlement due to globalization. They need to be contained within their home nation state and either rebuild it or fight for it.. So, I would only give them 2 things… a shovel or a gun just before I send them back. Any other course of action does not fix the problem but further spreads the issue. Quite frankly most of the Arab states with problems don’t deserve much more than this, and we need to stand back until they learn how to become nations.. we cannot build that for them..
        Another point is we through artificial aid enable over population which is at crisis point.. most of the new born are now born into poverty and cannot support themselves.. mandatory birth control cannot be far off in the future if we are to manage this better.
        Sure ..we can help other nations but not at the expense of our own, and that is the issue that has crossed the line with our current over liberalized leadership and why new more nationalistic leadership is emerging.
        I disagree with your point about global teamwork being a solution.. … it does not solve anything it just makes it worse. Globalization and multilateralism has aided climate change, money laundering, tax havens and such.. we need water tight compartments called nations to better manage the poor system of globalization and all the things it has brought..
        Many of the Institutions of Global Multilateralism are being stressed tested right now, and it looks like we will see many of these so called rules reversed if they don’t fit the nationalistic model.
        I hope this helps explain my views…
        
        Kien Choong Oct 30, 2018
        
        Hi, I did wonder if you might have a somewhat narrow, even "tribal", view of your social identity.
        
        Our social identities, especially when they are narrowly based, makes it very difficult for us to have any sympathy for those who we do not identify with, let alone form goals and commitments that go beyond our own (narrow) understanding of our self-interest. I would argue that many of our social identities are ultimately arbitrary, but it is difficult to see this unless you are willing to take a long-term view of humanity, our history and how human societies have evolved over time.
        
        Just to give an example of how arbitrary our social identities are: Australian identity used to be "English" and "Anglican"; to the point of excluding the "Irish" and "Catholics". I understand this narrow identity survived as late as the early 20th century, but 21st century Australia today has a much broader understanding of its identity. The point is that our social identities are not fixed, they are ultimately based on fashions and fads. This is not to deny the strong hold that our social identities have on us, even to the point of fostering violence towards people who we don't identify with.
        
        I also notice that if we hold on too tightly to narrow social identities, we become vulnerable to exploitation by other people for their own ends. Let me give some anecdotes. For a long time, Muslims and Hindus lived peacefully in pre-independence India. But the separation of Pakistan from India was marred by violence between Muslims and Hindus. Why? Because their Muslim and Hindu identities were exploited by politicians for their own ends. More recently, the Christian governor of Jakarta was brought down by allegations that he had blasphemed against God. Again, the kind people of Jakarta's faithfulness to Islam was exploited by others for political ends. In the United States, evangelical Christians, sincerely committed to their faith, are readily exploited by politicians to win power for their own ends. European elites exploited their people's national identities to lead their respective nations into the Great War, which by all accounts was ultimately a senseless conflict.
        
        We often forget that each of us have many identities. We not only have national identities, we also have religious identities, ethnic identities, genders, professional occupations, ... and our common humanity. Many of us even have multiple ethnic identities (e.g., Irish Italian). There is no good reason to focus on one particular social identity (e.g., "English") and neglect other identities (e.g., "British") that we have equal reason to value.
        
        Our social identities are an important part of our lives, and we do have good reason to value our social identities. They help us identify with other people, and foster altruistic behaviour among people sharing the same social identity. However, they also divide us, and can be used for ill, not good, for violence, not peace, for division, not solidarity.
        
        I would like to argue that our social identities, like fire, gives us comfort and security, but only if we control our social identities rather than let our social identities control us. We need to be able to look at the world objectively, and not just from the perspective of a single social identity that we happen to have. As far as feasible, looking at the world objectively entails transcending our narrow social identities. However, parochialism is not easy to overcome.
        
        Human societies have been subject to forces of exclusion vs inclusion throughout our history. We were once literally tribal societies. But we have long become tribe-transcending nations, and it is likely that one day in future, we will both celebrate our diverse identities, while holding on to our common humanity.
        
        Anyway, I hope that one day, you will come to see that even people who we do not identify with have value, and we have good reason to care for their wellbeing (in addition to the wellbeing of those we identify with). I've often thought that the thing that makes humans special (as opposed to other intelligent animals) is our altruism in caring for individuals who are not our immediate relations. (There may be exceptional cases of intelligent non-human animals caring for unrelated individuals, but not to the same extent as humans.)
        
        I propose we end this conversation. Please feel free to respond to this reply (if you wish), but I will not follow up with another reply. I am sure we will have an opportunity to start another conversation later on. Thank you for explaining your views; I feel sure there is a lot more I can learn about your views and - importantly - your reasons for those views. I look forward to future conversations.
        
        nigel southway Nov 1, 2018
        
        Well it’s a shame you have terminated the discussion….
        
        As always I will respectfully disagree with your position and it’s clear you have given up the conversation because you find my real world logic in conflict with your perfect world fantasy of how you would like the human race to act.
        
        I travel extensively and work on a global basis and have many friends from different cultures and would rate myself as a caring and balanced member of the human race, but I still maintain that a large degree of separation must exist between the races, and this due to the realization that so far the social melting pot experiments have got mainly very poor reviews.
        
        We may be ready for this current extreme high rate of globalized integration sometime in the future, but this will only be after certain conditions are met.....
        
        1.Slow down the process of immigration and migration it’s uncontrolled and moving far too fast with crime and social norms being destroyed with well-structured western countries turning into 3rd world ghetto with little show of integration by the free loading and ungrateful newcomers
        
        2.End religion, as it’s a strong disruptor for social integration ... the Chinese lead in following this path and they put their citizen majority first. It must be nation first and any religion a far second, but we see the reverse…. dual citizenship (which must end) and dogmatic religious rhetoric calling for even more rights. it’s all backward as to qualify for integration we need single commitment to a state and maybe affiliation to a religion that must not compete with the social norms of the nation that person is joining. This places the Muslim religion completely offside to qualify for any inclusion into the western world as its anti-inclusion and can only operate in a small bandwidth within a separate society, hence why we had a crusade in the 12th century and we probably will gave another in the 21st. Religion is a danger to social harmony and it’s tolerated at best, but only just, so it must be eliminated and replaced with nationalism
        
        3.Achieve sustainability in both economic and environmental terms…. We are far from this and the uncontrolled birth rate in the undeveloped world unless controlled will make this impossible and why we need trade blocs and strong borders, and we must end aid which just enables the problem.
        
        4.Better manage the wealth creation process …. Globalization has upset the delicate balance between capital and labor and this must be restored by calling a halt to uncontrolled globalism
        
        At best and I think you do agree we are hard wired tribal, and this can only be subjugated when such above conditions are met
        
        As I have said, I am a realist, and quite frankly don’t see the point in all this rush for diversity, but if we must have it, let’s do it for a reason and do it with care
        
        I hope this helps settle your perfect world mindset, but I would also say that below the politically correct veneer people are forced to display they feel mainly as I do.
        
        A new reply to this comment has been posted.
        
        A new reply to this comment has been posted.
        
        A new reply to this comment has been posted.
        
        A new reply to this comment has been posted.
        
        A new reply to this comment has been posted.
        
        A new reply to this comment has been posted.
        
        A new reply to this comment has been posted.
        
        A new reply to this comment has been posted.
        
        A new reply to this comment has been posted.
        
        A new reply to this comment has been posted.
        
        A new reply to this comment has been posted.
        
        A new reply to this comment has been posted.
        
        A new reply to this comment has been posted.
        
        A new reply to this comment has been posted.
      A new reply to this comment has been posted.
    A new reply to this comment has been posted.
  - stephan Edwards Sep 9, 2018
    
    So we should support them for all eternity?? They lost a war a war their leaders chose. Mitigate the harm how by supporting a parasite class forever? If they would get up and do something besides blow themselves up and fire rockets at a country whose support they need to accomplish anything. I might be slightly sympathetic but it is......counterproductive? And giving rewards to suicide bombers????? Hardly the mark of people who want to do or accomplish anything. There are better things do with the US's money then fund suicide bombers and fools who refuse to face reality. They lost the war. Has for moral responsibility ?? If you see a politician or a country that lets morals or ethics sway their decisions one iota let me know because I have never seen such a thing.
    - Kien Choong Sep 10, 2018
      
      Hi, Stephan. Thank you for your reply. On your question, "should we support them for eternity?", there seem to be two separate issues: (i) efficacy, and (ii) values.
      
      On efficacy, the US government apparently gives allies like Israel (and Egypt) large amounts of aid, including military aid, and seems to do so indefinitely! While there may be good reasons for military aid, there is also a role for humanitarian aid. In fact, I would argue that a dollar of humanitarian aid does far more (in the long run) to bring about peace and security than a dollar of military aid. In general, there are complementarities between humanitarian programs and security programs. One is not necessarily a complete substitute for the other, but they both complement each other. So as a matter of efficacy, I would argue that it is right that the US provides humanitarian assistance (as well as military aid), even on an indefinite basis!
      
      On values, it can be hard to appreciate the value of humanitarian programs without taking a long-term perspective of human history. Humans today enjoy a standard of living that I suspect our forbears would consider to be some kind of paradise, with many in Western societies achieving extraordinary levels of life expectancy, health, literacy and freedoms that would seem to be a dream to most humans even as late as the 15th century. I like to think that ideas about neighborhood and of a compassionate God that "sends rain to the righteous and wicked alike" discussed by Jesus, Buddha and other remarkable teachers throughout human history laid the ground for us to overcome our narrow tribal/ethnic/social identities, which were foundational in helping modern humans achieve the levels of prosperity we enjoy today.
      
      I feel sure that if we continue to hold on to ideas of neighborhood and our collective responsibilities to our neighbors, the freedoms that many of us enjoy today will one day be enjoyed by everyone on earth. It might take a few more generations to achieve, but our own generation can contribute to this outcome.
      
      Don't be discouraged when you see self-centered politicians. We always have them around. But we should each reflect on our own values and goals. While it is right and reasonable that we prioritise our own freedoms and opportunities, we have good reason to seek a world where every one has the same freedoms and opportunities to live lives and pursue goals that they have reason to value.
      - stephan Edwards Sep 11, 2018
        
        It might surprise you but I'm no fan of supporting Egypt or Israel either. The Palestinians have had 70 years to make peace they have chosen NOT to. So any aid to them isn't furthering the cause of peace one iota. All aid is doing is indirectly funding suicide bombers and payments to families of terrorists. I'll pass I don't believe its a good or logical thing to support. Frankly the US, the west in general is entering a twilight, by that I mean the equivalent of Rome calling the troops home from Britain. The US the West in general have to many problems at home to waste their money funding a bunch of terrorists who have the delusion they will be given a country someday. That money is better spent at home taking care of our own people not a bunch nihilistic terrorists. A wise man reserves compassion for those who deserve it not those who spit in his face. The Palestinians have made their choices and I freely agree they were theirs to make but I feel no constraint to pay for their stupidity for all of eternity. They have 70 years to choose something besides a pointless terrorism campaign. They have chosen not to. That was their choice and they made it. We don't have to fund their terrorism and delusions of grandeur that's the US's choices. And in the end it is always about freedom of choice. Funding the Palestinians accomplishes nothing and never will. And supporting peoples delusions is not good for them. Maybe they will finally face reality. They survive on other peoples sufferance and charity and those are not infinite. They have bitten the hand that feeds them once to often.
        
        A new reply to this comment has been posted.
      A new reply to this comment has been posted.
    A new reply to this comment has been posted.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Bernhard Kopp Sep 7, 2018

When all Arab neighbors went to war against the newly founded Israel in 1948 they told the Arab population living in Palestine that the Jews/Israelis would slaughter them if they do not flee. Some 750,000 Arabs believed this unfounded and absurd fear-mongering. The Arab rulers of the time where vehemently opposed to the idea that there was an ethnicity like 'Palestinians'. For them they were just Arabs, whom they wanted to use against the unwanted new Jewish state. There were hoping for recruits for the military, and they forced all others into refugee camps. Obviously, it would have been relatively easy for the Arab neighbors to integrate the Arabs from Palestine into their societies. This was however never wanted. The poor people were used as pawns against the West. 70 years later, the so-called Palestinian refugees are the sole responsibility of the Arab countries. Several Arab countries have 'imported' millions of workers and specialists from Asia and from everywhere, but they have deliberately not integrated the 'Palestinians'. For decades, and definitely since the war against Israel in 1967, it has been a wrong-headed political concession to the Arabs that the world-community should pay for them.
- Kien Choong Sep 9, 2018
  
  Hi, I would offer an alternative narrative.
  
  For centuries, Europeans have benefited from migration which in many cases entailed the forcible dispossession of indigenous peoples in North America, Latin America, Australia. The establishment of modern Israel by European Jews in Palestine, towards the end of the European colonial adventure, can reasonably be seen as the last "colony" established by Europeans, this time in Palestinian lands.
  
  Surely Western countries ought to reflect on their responsibility to mitigate the harms done to the Palestinian people! Had Europeans not been so anti-Semitic, perhaps there would never had been a need for a Jewish state in Palestine.
  
  Nothing in these comments are intended to question the legitimacy of the modern state of Israel. The legitimacy of the state of Israel is no worse than the legitimacy of Australia, which was founded on the pretext that Australia was "terra nullis" (i.e., uninhabited). On the other hand, the the legitimacy of Australia (and Israel) does not negate the pre-existing rights of Australian Aborigines (and Arab Palestinians). It is simply wrong to argue that Palestinian refugees ought to find homes in other Arab countries.
  
  BTW, I am neither Arab, nor Muslim. I'm Asian (and a Christian). So I hope the perspective I offer here can be accepted as impartial.
  - Bernhard Kopp Sep 9, 2018
    
    I would suggest staying in the ME-context after the end of the Ottoman Empire. A number of countries were created artificially and, unfortunately, the Balfour-Declaration of 1917 did not lead to a Jewish state then.
    A new reply to this comment has been posted.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
stephan Edwards Sep 7, 2018

When is enough ? 70 years? They aren't refugees anymore they're parasites. The US, the West in general, is entering a twilight. There isn't enough funding to take care their own people. Much less people who refuse to face reality AKA the Palestinians. Return? Not Going to happen a fact that has been self evident since the 70's. The US is no longer in a position to pay for their delusions. I suggest they do what they have conspicuously avoided for 70 years cut a deal. They lost period. All they have is the losers choice cut the best deal they can. Losers don't get to name terms. That's the reality of the situation. You can talk morality, UN resolutions, International law all you want it's IRRELEVANT. A saying going back to Rome is "Enter Arms Silence Laws" a reality that has not changed. The US has no obligation or interests in supporting the Palestinians for all of eternity. The US has its own people to take care of and a deficit that would choke a horse. The Palestinians have a set of choices: 1) Take the losers option and cut the best deal they can. 2) Accept absorption into the local population where they are at. 3) Continue their current course which has accomplished nothing in 70 years and the rest of the world is tired of paying for.

If they choose to reject reality what is or isn't possible. Well that's their choice. But the US and the rest of the world have no obligation to support their delusions. And the US has chosen to stop supporting their delusions. A choice the US is eminently entitled to make. We are bound by no treaty, no law, to support these people forever.
- P. Kamath Sep 15, 2018
  
  Stephen Edwards: You say,"..They aren't refugees anymore they're parasites.." Oh really? If one were to equip one self with a bit of knowledge of genetics, biology etc and human history, we would acknowledge that birth is the resultof biological statistical accident. You or I could have been born among Palestinians, Arab Bedounians, Eskimos or say Germans! There is still a place to show a bit of understanding and compassion in civilized societies. So let us not call any one parasites or vermin.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.

https://prosyn.org/oYvpWYxes

Cookies and Privacy

El ataque de Trump a los refugiados

To continue reading, subscribe now.

Support High-Quality Commentary

New Comment

Email this piece to a friend

Contact us

Log in/Register

Cookies and Privacy

El ataque de Trump a los refugiados

To continue reading, subscribe now.

Support High-Quality Commentary

Edit Newsletter Preferences

Set up Notification