Should two million people be removed from their homes in Gaza?

[Continential]

Many on this forum have advocated for this to happen as a “reasonable” situation.

[FT-02 Senator A.F.E. 🇵🇸🤝🇺🇸🤝🇺🇦]

Absolutely not

[Vosem]

The Gazan regime should be removed from power whatever that takes, unless they agree to an unconditional surrender where its elements agree to act in good faith as tools of Israeli state power. A measure like this would only be practical after it has fallen, at which point it should not be necessary.

In an ideal world nobody would stop refugees from fleeing a warzone, but in principle neither Israel nor Egypt will accept them and you can't really blame either of them.

[Indy Texas]

Removed to where, exactly?

Going to Israel would obviously not work. Egypt would not accept 2M Palestinians from Gaza and lacks the resources to support them even if they would. All of the remaining "culturally compatible" states (i.e. Arabic-speaking Sunni Muslim ones) are likewise either unable to provide for their own people adequately as it is, or are rentier states where granting nationality to a bunch of foreigners and allowing them to share in the bounty of their natural resource wealth would set a precedent that would lead to insolvency if taken to its logical conclusion (a pathway to citizenship for the foreign workers who constitute a sizable minority and in some cases an overwhelming majority of those countries' populations).

Western Europe's political establishment is fracturing under the weight of resentment over immigration rates much of the public regard as excessive. Eastern Europe largely has never even pretended to be a place welcoming to immigrants.

Looking farther afield, South America is largely an economic basketcase, Central America is in the throes of its own humanitarian crisis, and the United States is already in an anti-migrant mood.

[It’s so Joever]

I want to see GMac on here

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

The current mood really is reminiscent of the months after 9/11, when Reasonable Liberals in the opinion columns were advocating for invasion and occupation of everything from Casablanca to Lahore. Things will shift, eventually, but I'll be keeping receipts.

[It’s so Joever]

The current mood really is reminiscent of the months after 9/11, when Reasonable Liberals in the opinion columns were advocating for invasion and occupation of everything from Casablanca to Lahore. Things will shift, eventually, but I'll be keeping receipts.

This is a great way to find out the moderate Dems here who are unable to process nuance, basically the inverse of what Russia Ukraine was with the progressive/socialist Dems.

[Libertas Vel Mors]

The current mood really is reminiscent of the months after 9/11, when Reasonable Liberals in the opinion columns were advocating for invasion and occupation of everything from Casablanca to Lahore. Things will shift, eventually, but I'll be keeping receipts.

I am not commenting on the proposal being discussed in this thread, but given the two decades of continued Islamic terrorism since 9/11 can anyone really claim that our 9/11 response really worked?

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

The current mood really is reminiscent of the months after 9/11, when Reasonable Liberals in the opinion columns were advocating for invasion and occupation of everything from Casablanca to Lahore. Things will shift, eventually, but I'll be keeping receipts.

I am not commenting on the proposal being discussed in this thread, but given the two decades of continued Islamic terrorism since 9/11 can anyone really claim that our 9/11 response really worked?

Al-Qaeda had specific issues with the West--stationing of American troops in Saudi Arabia and unqualified support for Israel--that could have easily been resolved. If we did that and paid off the Taliban to hand us Bin Laden and his surviving co-conspirators to face trial (as they offered), that would have been the end of it.

[Storr]

Removed to where, exactly?

Going to Israel would obviously not work. Egypt would not accept 2M Palestinians from Gaza and lacks the resources to support them even if they would. All of the remaining "culturally compatible" states (i.e. Arabic-speaking Sunni Muslim ones) are likewise either unable to provide for their own people adequately as it is, or are rentier states where granting nationality to a bunch of foreigners and allowing them to share in the bounty of their natural resource wealth would set a precedent that would lead to insolvency if taken to its logical conclusion (a pathway to citizenship for the foreign workers who constitute a sizable minority and in some cases an overwhelming majority of those countries' populations).

Western Europe's political establishment is fracturing under the weight of resentment over immigration rates much of the public regard as excessive. Eastern Europe largely has never even pretended to be a place welcoming to immigrants.

Looking farther afield, South America is largely an economic basketcase, Central America is in the throes of its own humanitarian crisis, and the United States is already in an anti-migrant mood.

1) Nobody should be removed from their homes anywhere.

2) But it would be interesting to see how much of Gaza's population would choose to move to the US, if they were offered the option to do so.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Removed to where, exactly?

Going to Israel would obviously not work. Egypt would not accept 2M Palestinians from Gaza and lacks the resources to support them even if they would. All of the remaining "culturally compatible" states (i.e. Arabic-speaking Sunni Muslim ones) are likewise either unable to provide for their own people adequately as it is, or are rentier states where granting nationality to a bunch of foreigners and allowing them to share in the bounty of their natural resource wealth would set a precedent that would lead to insolvency if taken to its logical conclusion (a pathway to citizenship for the foreign workers who constitute a sizable minority and in some cases an overwhelming majority of those countries' populations).

Western Europe's political establishment is fracturing under the weight of resentment over immigration rates much of the public regard as excessive. Eastern Europe largely has never even pretended to be a place welcoming to immigrants.

Looking farther afield, South America is largely an economic basketcase, Central America is in the throes of its own humanitarian crisis, and the United States is already in an anti-migrant mood.

1) Nobody should be removed from their homes anywhere.

2) But it would be interesting to see how much of Gaza's population would choose to move to the US, if they were offered the option to do so.

As many as possible should be let into Ritchie Torres's district.

[kwabbit]

The current mood really is reminiscent of the months after 9/11, when Reasonable Liberals in the opinion columns were advocating for invasion and occupation of everything from Casablanca to Lahore. Things will shift, eventually, but I'll be keeping receipts.

I am not commenting on the proposal being discussed in this thread, but given the two decades of continued Islamic terrorism since 9/11 can anyone really claim that our 9/11 response really worked?

Al-Qaeda had specific issues with the West--stationing of American troops in Saudi Arabia and unqualified support for Israel--that could have easily been resolved. If we did that and paid off the Taliban to hand us Bin Laden and his surviving co-conspirators to face trial (as they offered), that would have been the end of it.

I don’t think I’ve ever seen anybody say that we should’ve negotiated with Bin Laden and Al Qaeda before.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

The current mood really is reminiscent of the months after 9/11, when Reasonable Liberals in the opinion columns were advocating for invasion and occupation of everything from Casablanca to Lahore. Things will shift, eventually, but I'll be keeping receipts.

I am not commenting on the proposal being discussed in this thread, but given the two decades of continued Islamic terrorism since 9/11 can anyone really claim that our 9/11 response really worked?

Al-Qaeda had specific issues with the West--stationing of American troops in Saudi Arabia and unqualified support for Israel--that could have easily been resolved. If we did that and paid off the Taliban to hand us Bin Laden and his surviving co-conspirators to face trial (as they offered), that would have been the end of it.

I don’t think I’ve ever seen anybody say that we should’ve negotiated with Bin Laden and Al Qaeda before.

With the Taliban, to hand over Bin Laden, which was something they offered in exchange for ending the bombing of Afghanistan. The Saudi and Israeli issues were the issues that Islamists overall had with us, and resolving them would have prevented much of the violence of the 22 years since.

[Vosem]

The current mood really is reminiscent of the months after 9/11, when Reasonable Liberals in the opinion columns were advocating for invasion and occupation of everything from Casablanca to Lahore. Things will shift, eventually, but I'll be keeping receipts.

I am not commenting on the proposal being discussed in this thread, but given the two decades of continued Islamic terrorism since 9/11 can anyone really claim that our 9/11 response really worked?

Maybe. There has never been another attack with the magnitude of 9/11, and the Afghan government was actually deposed. No government (with the interesting possible exception of that of Gaza, I think) has openly permitted al-Qaeda to use their territory since, though for Pakistan this is apparently wink-and-nod stuff. Al-Qaeda itself really was crippled.

Virtually everything after the loya jirga in 2002 was various degrees of unnecessary failures, but the immediate response to 9/11 was decently good and successful. It was the nation-building after that, the barely-justifiable intervention in Iraq and the non-justifiable intervention in Libya and the decision to spend a decade propping up a pedophile network in Afghanistan, which went wrong. The mood of "the months after 9/11" were basically the only reasonable period, though; returning to that would be good.

[Libertas Vel Mors]

The current mood really is reminiscent of the months after 9/11, when Reasonable Liberals in the opinion columns were advocating for invasion and occupation of everything from Casablanca to Lahore. Things will shift, eventually, but I'll be keeping receipts.

I am not commenting on the proposal being discussed in this thread, but given the two decades of continued Islamic terrorism since 9/11 can anyone really claim that our 9/11 response really worked?

Al-Qaeda had specific issues with the West--stationing of American troops in Saudi Arabia and unqualified support for Israel--that could have easily been resolved. If we did that and paid off the Taliban to hand us Bin Laden and his surviving co-conspirators to face trial (as they offered), that would have been the end of it.

I don’t think I’ve ever seen anybody say that we should’ve negotiated with Bin Laden and Al Qaeda before.

With the Taliban, to hand over Bin Laden, which was something they offered in exchange for ending the bombing of Afghanistan. The Saudi and Israeli issues were the issues that Islamists overall had with us, and resolving them would have prevented much of the violence of the 22 years since.

So you think that if we pulled out of Saudi Arabia we wouldn't have had any further terrorist attacks against the West? You take Bin Laden at face value?

If so, can you answer why Bin Laden never chose to direct any major terrorist attacks at Russia, given that Russia was the power that had historically been opposed to religious Islam and that had actively killed thousands of Muslims in the years before, while the United States had historically been an ally of Muslim countries, as actually demonstrated by the Saudi government wanting a US troop presence there?

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

He spent a decade waging war against the Soviet Union. You are a child.

[Alben Barkley]

The current mood really is reminiscent of the months after 9/11, when Reasonable Liberals in the opinion columns were advocating for invasion and occupation of everything from Casablanca to Lahore. Things will shift, eventually, but I'll be keeping receipts.

This is a great way to find out the moderate Dems here who are unable to process nuance, basically the inverse of what Russia Ukraine was with the progressive/socialist Dems.

I'm sorry: What is the "nuance" exactly of sending a terrorist group to massacre, rape, and take hostage upwards of thousands of civilians, Lurker? Remind me again? What part of this am I supposed to think is "nuanced" exactly?

Honestly the comparison to Russia/Ukraine is merely confirming that the usual suspects are as pro-aggression/terrorism/fascism/Russia/Iran/frankly, Axis of Evil, as ever. While the people who actually care about liberalism and democracy and human rights and Western values stand as resolute in defense of these things as ever.

Frankly, it's about as black and white as issues get nowadays. Not much "nuance" to speak of.

[Horus]

The current mood really is reminiscent of the months after 9/11, when Reasonable Liberals in the opinion columns were advocating for invasion and occupation of everything from Casablanca to Lahore. Things will shift, eventually, but I'll be keeping receipts.

This is a great way to find out the moderate Dems here who are unable to process nuance, basically the inverse of what Russia Ukraine was with the progressive/socialist Dems.

I'm sorry: What is the "nuance" exactly of sending a terrorist group to massacre, rape, and take hostage upwards of thousands of civilians, Lurker? Remind me again? What part of this am I supposed to think is "nuanced" exactly?

Honestly the comparison to Russia/Ukraine is merely confirming that the usual suspects are as pro-aggression/terrorism/fascism/Russia/Iran/frankly, Axis of Evil, as ever. While the people who actually care about liberalism and democracy and human rights and Western values stand as resolute in defense of these things as ever.

Frankly, it's about as black and white as issues get nowadays. Not much "nuance" to speak of.

Did you vote yes or no here?

[Alben Barkley]

The current mood really is reminiscent of the months after 9/11, when Reasonable Liberals in the opinion columns were advocating for invasion and occupation of everything from Casablanca to Lahore. Things will shift, eventually, but I'll be keeping receipts.

This is a great way to find out the moderate Dems here who are unable to process nuance, basically the inverse of what Russia Ukraine was with the progressive/socialist Dems.

I'm sorry: What is the "nuance" exactly of sending a terrorist group to massacre, rape, and take hostage upwards of thousands of civilians, Lurker? Remind me again? What part of this am I supposed to think is "nuanced" exactly?

Honestly the comparison to Russia/Ukraine is merely confirming that the usual suspects are as pro-aggression/terrorism/fascism/Russia/Iran/frankly, Axis of Evil, as ever. While the people who actually care about liberalism and democracy and human rights and Western values stand as resolute in defense of these things as ever.

Frankly, it's about as black and white as issues get nowadays. Not much "nuance" to speak of.

Did you vote yes or no here?

No; I already said in the main thread about this that ethnic cleansing is completely unacceptable.

[Libertas Vel Mors]

The current mood really is reminiscent of the months after 9/11, when Reasonable Liberals in the opinion columns were advocating for invasion and occupation of everything from Casablanca to Lahore. Things will shift, eventually, but I'll be keeping receipts.

I am not commenting on the proposal being discussed in this thread, but given the two decades of continued Islamic terrorism since 9/11 can anyone really claim that our 9/11 response really worked?

Maybe. There has never been another attack with the magnitude of 9/11, and the Afghan government was actually deposed. No government (with the interesting possible exception of that of Gaza, I think) has openly permitted al-Qaeda to use their territory since, though for Pakistan this is apparently wink-and-nod stuff. Al-Qaeda itself really was crippled.

Virtually everything after the loya jirga in 2002 was various degrees of unnecessary failures, but the immediate response to 9/11 was decently good and successful. It was the nation-building after that, the barely-justifiable intervention in Iraq and the non-justifiable intervention in Libya and the decision to spend a decade propping up a pedophile network in Afghanistan, which went wrong. The mood of "the months after 9/11" were basically the only reasonable period, though; returning to that would be good.

This is a fair point. And to offer a bit of a mea culpa, it is easy to over-extrapolate the events of the past couple of days to the West at large, but that doesn't mean that over-extrapolation is correct.

I normally pride myself on trying to separate my ordinary emotions from my broader view of politics and understanding of the world around me, which oftentimes (somewhat unusually) leads me to a relative optimism.

The past few days have made it hard to maintain that. I've always been strongly pro-Israel, and by the standards of this forum probably a rather strong skeptic of some elements of non-Western immigration (believing that all cultures and peoples can be integrated into a Western cultural environment, but that there are obviously tradeoffs in terms of who we admit). But I've also been broadly supportive of a two state solution (even if that second state is only in Gaza) and a believer that -- even if only in the very long term -- Western cultural influence and the impact of rising wealth levels will result in a bridging in some of the worst cultural differences. For instance, as has happened in Saudi Arabia for the latter, and as can be seen with many historical immigrant groups for the former.

But seeing perhaps the worst slaughter in my lifetime -- I would argue substantially worse, crueler, and more evil than either Paris 2015, which I also remember well, or Bucha* -- has made me question many of those assumptions. Obviously, the visuals of a crazed terrorist group overrunning one of the best fortified borders in the world and murdering and raping in a first world country are shocking in any circumstance. Even alone, that would be enough to kill my belief in the possibility of any two state solution, and to be substantially more concerned about the impact that even small groups of relatively poorly armed harmful actors can have.

But the apathy or even support for their actions from institutions and individuals I would not have expected to hold that attitude towards -- ranging from the KSA, given its anti-Houthism, pretty open secret peace talks with Israel, and antipathy towards its own similar problem, to the Governor of Michigan -- has shocked me. And the pretty widespread support from Muslim communities in the West for the attacks -- CAIR even put out a statement in favor of them!** -- has, while not shocking me, made me grow even more concerned about the prospects and consequences of the non-Western immigration mentioned above.

On further review, I think you're right that the 9/11 response did succeed in at least its most important aims. Yes, this is awful -- but it is notably contained to Israel and was perpetrated by a group specifically dedicated to Israel's destruction rather than being an attack on the West writ large or, worst of all, the United States in particular.

But I truly don't know what else to think about how this is supposed to change ones worldview of the prospects of Western-Islamic cooperation, the consequences of non-Western immigration, or the reality of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. For all of those, it does seem like a really brutal wake-up call after a period of several years with relatively sparse terror attacks, rapproachment between the Arab Sunni powers and the West (or at least what matters in the West, the United States) and relative quiet in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict

*I'm aware of many other events that are also quite horrific and of often far larger scale not mentioned here, of course: the genocide of the Yazidis, the Rohingya genocide, etc. But in terms of mountain peak understanding, it is unexceptional in the course of human history for evil things to be perpetrated by governments and warlords in poor and non-liberal countries, from the Vikings to the Aztecs -- I found both of those less shockingly horrific than I do the events of the 7th.

**Admittedly, I hadn't been aware that CAIR also opposed the US invasion of Afghanistan, so perhaps my understanding of CAIR as "mums the word sympathetic to terrorism" was wrong in the first place. But while that reduces my "have things gotten worse since 2001?" meter (never a perfect comparison to begin with given that CAIR is obviously a US centric organization), it if anything raises my "concern over non-Western immigration" meter if such a (relatively) mainstream organization was taking such an extreme stance as far back as 2001.

[Libertas Vel Mors]

He spent a decade waging war against the Soviet Union. You are a child.

And then didn't do anything when Russia bombed Chechnya, and instead decided to fly planes into skyscrapers in a country that had been an ally of peaceful Islam in the Middle East throughout the cold war. Trust me, I am well aware that Osama Bin Laden was a jihadist before 9/11.

[It’s so Joever]

The current mood really is reminiscent of the months after 9/11, when Reasonable Liberals in the opinion columns were advocating for invasion and occupation of everything from Casablanca to Lahore. Things will shift, eventually, but I'll be keeping receipts.

This is a great way to find out the moderate Dems here who are unable to process nuance, basically the inverse of what Russia Ukraine was with the progressive/socialist Dems.

I'm sorry: What is the "nuance" exactly of sending a terrorist group to massacre, rape, and take hostage upwards of thousands of civilians, Lurker? Remind me again? What part of this am I supposed to think is "nuanced" exactly?

Honestly the comparison to Russia/Ukraine is merely confirming that the usual suspects are as pro-aggression/terrorism/fascism/Russia/Iran/frankly, Axis of Evil, as ever. While the people who actually care about liberalism and democracy and human rights and Western values stand as resolute in defense of these things as ever.

Frankly, it's about as black and white as issues get nowadays. Not much "nuance" to speak of.

Literally the entire context prior to this.
You know what I’m talking about, the invasion of West Bank and the siege of Gaza creating the worlds largest humanitarian crisis for years with nobody doing anything. This didn’t come from nowhere. I condemn Hamas strongly, I refuse to pretend this was not an inevitable and logical outcome and yet y’all kept calling everyone who dared question the recent pro-settler, pro siege policies “anti semitic”, well guess what now y’all got the result you want I suppose. Have fun cheering on the destruction of Gaza and the likely forced relocation of millions of people, or more likely just ignoring it.

I say we support Israel anyways for geopolitical reasons and so we have a chance to possibly prevent the worst of what will come, but I’m not going to pretend this is some moral crusade because it’s not, it’s a nasty brutish war exacerbated by cynical politicians on both sides for personal gain at the expense of their own people.

Stop carrying water for this anti-liberal government in Jerusalem, this isn’t the Israel of even ten years ago and certainly not the one that existed pre-Bibi.

And no this is not like Ukraine, tell me where the f**k the Ukrainians were building illegal settlements in Russia and blocking at millions of Russians from basic human necessities?

[Libertas Vel Mors]

Separately, I will remark that I have been convinced that removal/resettlement would be the wrong option, although perhaps not for reasons that many here would prefer. As has been discussed, I think it would be completely unjustifiable and perhaps in the long term counterproductive to shove two million Palestinian refugees on to the government of Egypt -- I think that whatever solution will be found should not leave Israel/Gaza.

[Vosem]

This is a fair point. And to offer a bit of a mea culpa, it is easy to over-extrapolate the events of the past couple of days to the West at large, but that doesn't mean that over-extrapolation is correct.

I normally pride myself on trying to separate my ordinary emotions from my broader view of politics and understanding of the world around me, which oftentimes (somewhat unusually) leads me to a relative optimism.

The past few days have made it hard to maintain that. I've always been strongly pro-Israel, and by the standards of this forum probably a rather strong skeptic of some elements of non-Western immigration (believing that all cultures and peoples can be integrated into a Western cultural environment, but that there are obviously tradeoffs in terms of who we admit). But I've also been broadly supportive of a two state solution (even if that second state is only in Gaza) and a believer that -- even if only in the very long term -- Western cultural influence and the impact of rising wealth levels will result in a bridging in some of the worst cultural differences. For instance, as has happened in Saudi Arabia for the latter, and as can be seen with many historical immigrant groups for the former.

But seeing perhaps the worst slaughter in my lifetime -- I would argue substantially worse, crueler, and more evil than either Paris 2015, which I also remember well, or Bucha* -- has made me question many of those assumptions. Obviously, the visuals of a crazed terrorist group overrunning one of the best fortified borders in the world and murdering and raping in a first world country are shocking in any circumstance. Even alone, that would be enough to kill my belief in the possibility of any two state solution, and to be substantially more concerned about the impact that even small groups of relatively poorly armed harmful actors can have.

Very well said. There's a cliché that goes around pretty often, I think originally from the West Wing, which goes, "Never doubt that a small group of committed people can change the world, because it's the only thing that ever has." Unfortunately small groups of committed people are often deeply evil.

It should have become clear to reasonable people after the Camp David Summit in 2000 that the two-state solution was only possible if there were a radical change to Palestinian political leadership. Wise people already understood this before 2000. After the Gaza withdrawal it seemed like without major eruptions there was a gradual slouching towards the two-state solution happening, but that was always dependent on Hamas moderating, which never seemed likely. (On AAD my prediction was that Gaza would eventually behave in a way provocative enough that an international coalition would occupy the territory -- since they do provide cover to terrorist groups which are active far away from the Levant, and my guess was that at some point one of these would be too successful for its own good. I didn't call the failure-of-Israeli-border-security scenario, though; I think no one did, which is interesting).

But the apathy or even support for their actions from institutions and individuals I would not have expected to hold that attitude towards -- ranging from the KSA, given its anti-Houthism, pretty open secret peace talks with Israel, and antipathy towards its own similar problem, to the Governor of Michigan -- has shocked me. And the pretty widespread support from Muslim communities in the West for the attacks -- CAIR even put out a statement in favor of them!** -- has, while not shocking me, made me grow even more concerned about the prospects and consequences of the non-Western immigration mentioned above.

Well, CAIR has always sucked, and the KSA is a theocracy whose religion is easy to interpret as saying Israel should not exist. There exists a deeply evil way of seeing the world, dividing it quasi-arbitrarily into oppressors and oppressed on the grounds that the former are richer (or, oftentimes, merely belong to ethnicities which are richer on average), which has become more common in print on the left over the past decade or so, but it also existed prior to that and, if it is any consolation, it shows up in opinion polling only rarely and inconsistently.

On the Israel issue, the size of the opinion shift on the right is such that America is far more pro-Israel now than it was even in the GWB years (throwing out an outlier during the Gulf War, "positive opinion of the Israeli state" in the US increased from 47% of Americans in 1993 to an all-time high of 75% in 2021). Depending on the wording of the question pro-Israel sentiment maybe peaked during the Trump term, but we are far ahead of where we were even in the actual immediate post-9/11 period.

On further review, I think you're right that the 9/11 response did succeed in at least its most important aims. Yes, this is awful -- but it is notably contained to Israel and was perpetrated by a group specifically dedicated to Israel's destruction rather than being an attack on the West writ large or, worst of all, the United States in particular.

A large part of why there has been such a global condemnation this time around (and you are right that it is nowhere near the levels it 'should' be at, but still) is that Hamas accidentally did carry out an attack against the world at large. Germany and China, neither of which are really that favorable to Israel, have protested mistreatment of German and Chinese dual citizens that took place during the attack. In a connected world a serious attack in a First World country really is an attack on the West, and also the civilized world beyond the West.

But I truly don't know what else to think about how this is supposed to change ones worldview of the prospects of Western-Islamic cooperation, the consequences of non-Western immigration, or the reality of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. For all of those, it does seem like a really brutal wake-up call after a period of several years with relatively sparse terror attacks, rapproachment between the Arab Sunni powers and the West (or at least what matters in the West, the United States) and relative quiet in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict

*I'm aware of many other events that are also quite horrific and of often far larger scale not mentioned here, of course: the genocide of the Yazidis, the Rohingya genocide, etc. But in terms of mountain peak understanding, it is unexceptional in the course of human history for evil things to be perpetrated by governments and warlords in poor and non-liberal countries, from the Vikings to the Aztecs -- I found both of those less shockingly horrific than I do the events of the 7th.

**Admittedly, I hadn't been aware that CAIR also opposed the US invasion of Afghanistan, so perhaps my understanding of CAIR as "mums the word sympathetic to terrorism" was wrong in the first place. But while that reduces my "have things gotten worse since 2001?" meter (never a perfect comparison to begin with given that CAIR is obviously a US centric organization), it if anything raises my "concern over non-Western immigration" meter if such a (relatively) mainstream organization was taking such an extreme stance as far back as 2001.

I pretty much agree with this, yeah. (Not that rapprochement is impossible, or not a worthy goal, or that it is fair to judge a particular man by the society he comes from; but in practice it tends to be fair to judge a particular crowd by the society they come from). One of America's greatest blessings is to be north of Latin America and not the Middle East; I have enormous sympathies for Venezuelans and Nicaraguans fleeing actual socialism at the moment.

Of course part of what is concerning about Biden's border crisis is that dangerous people who are crossing really are coming from all over the world. My understanding is that in its current magnitude this is basically a new phenomenon which didn't happen before the 2020s, and we're likely to suffer its consequences for decades to come. (But it shouldn't be lost on us that among them are people really fleeing horrible places honestly looking for a better life, and that they are mixed in with random unvetted criminals is an enormous iniquity. Bolivia is the poorest country I have ever visited, by far, and it left a strong impression that people migrate there from Venezuela to beg on the streets, or from particular parts of China to do manual labor. Given that the gap between even the poorest parts of America and Bolivia is an insane chasm, the imagination boggles at the existence of places miserable enough that it is worth undertaking heroic efforts to abandon them to go live in Bolivia and beg.)

[Meclazine for Israel]

..... it would be interesting to see how much of Gaza's population would choose to move to the US, if they were offered the option to do so.

I am not sure that the USA would necessarily want 2 million Palestinian refugees.

Putting Gazan's in Arizona

https://youtu.be/5I2dhXdwfX0