A big difference is that in 2022, an estimated five million Ukrainian refugees fled to other parts of Europe - which is more than twice as large as Gaza's entire population. Similarly, many Syrians fled the war there.
We could ask why there aren't more Palestinian refugees who fled to other countries? As far as I can tell, leaving Gaza is very difficult, and nobody really talks about making it easier.
it's not that it's hard to leave gaza. it's just nobody willing to accept gazans. and trumps plan that talks about voluntary migration out of gaza is been described as genocide and ethnic cleansing (btw, 75% of them actually registered as refugees by unrwa for past many decades)
i never saw anybody been against migration of population out of war zone to safety. in case of ukrainian refugees it was widely discussed that people need to get to safety and entire europe helped.
> it's not that it's hard to leave gaza. it's just nobody willing to accept gazans.
Isn't it both? I'm not an expert on this by any means, but it seems like anyone who's born on that land will find it almost impossible to leave. Both countries that have land borders with Gaza will usually not admit locals, except in very few exceptions. Even someone trying to transit through Israel to other countries would probably not be able to. Their sea and airspace, things that are seen in other countries as open windows to the rest of the world, are controlled by Israel. And their own government sometimes acts to prevent people from leaving. So, even if some countries accepted their refugees, I don't see how an average Gazan would be able to get there. It's not quite North Korea-level of difficulty, but it's up there.
around 100k gazans left through egypt in last 2 years. they needed to pay bribes to egyptian officials.
when israel after trump announcement said that idf will help people (who want to leave) to leave through israel, everybody screamed that it's literally proof that israel executes genocide and ethnic cleansing
typically to be refugee you need to get to country and request this status. you can't get refugee status remotely.
he wasn't talking about forced migration. he was talking about giving people housing/etc in other countries while gaza been rebuild, and later if they want they can come back.
at no point he was saying that gazans will be rounded up and moved out.
the way that conversation is going now is (and i am not trump fan):
- everybody: gaza is destroyed and nobody can live there. conditions are inhumane
- trump: lets allow to people move out to different countries, provide them with housing/jobs/etc while gaza is rebuild
- israel: we will help to people who want to leave - to leave
- everybody: this is literal genocide and ethnic cleansing. gazans should stay in gaza
I don't know any details about what the Trump administration proposed. Is there more to it than a few tweets?
A US administration that was serious about this would propose a deal to take some refugees from Gaza as a sign of good will. Something like "we will take 25% if other countries agree to take 75%." To say that other countries should take all the refugees, when they've shown no interest in it, is deeply cynical. So I didn't bother to look further.
Of course we'd never see that from the Trump administration. Unfortunately the Biden administration wasn't imaginative enough to suggest such a thing.
what i typed is pretty much as much as was said. forced expulsion was never mention. only facilitating relocation for those who want better life/new opportunities. as I posted below, 50% are interested in this.
i saw some interviews with gazans that said, that in case EU/USA/Canada will accept refugees, Gaza will become empty overnight.
i never saw anybody been against migration of population out of war zone to safety.
I can't think of any comparable historical example of declaring a people's entire territory a war zone and migrating a substantial/majority of the entire population out. Can you? The reality is they'd be unlikely to ever be able/allowed to return, and as such the actual purpose of such a project would be ethnically cleansing the territory.
My guess is that many people wouldn't want to leave, but helping some people to leave also helps those who stay: fewer mouths to feed, less work for very strained medical facilities, and so on.
Look at the demographics of Palestine. They are very young. Most of them weren't even born when most of those supposed things supposedly happened. Are you implying that parent's sins transfer to their children?
> Are you implying that parent's sins transfer to their children?
OP isn't making a moral argument. They're making a practical one. It's practical for a potential host to be wary about accepting refugees given the positions of their predecessors. Particularly when the current popuations are engaged in decades (centuries?) old disputes based on ancestral rights.
It's not that many people if divided up among many countries. These don't seem like reasons not to accept women and children from a war zone as refugees. Perhaps with some limits.
Exactly. It's not that many people and they still get into a ton of trouble. That seems like an excellent reason to either not accept them, or to enforce that they need to be dispersed widely enough to prevent forming a community and conducting violence in its name until they're back in palestine.
Like we can even blame the way things are on the israelis, or at least majorly on them, but that doesn't change the calculus for other arab states.
european countries run as fast as possible to acknowledge new syrian government in order to declare that syria is safe/stable so all syrian refugees will leave
We could ask why there aren't more Palestinian refugees who fled to other countries? As far as I can tell, leaving Gaza is very difficult, and nobody really talks about making it easier.