Iraqi Palestinians going to Sweden (via India)

The Iraqi Palestinians are apparently favored by the United Nations which doesn’t seem to have the same passion for resettling the Iraqi Christians, at least not that we hear.    Now, here is news that the UNHCR has arranged for this group of Palestinians, driven out of Iraq and given a safe haven in India, to be resettled in Sweden.

In case you are wondering why Muslims should turn on other Muslims, articles like this one never tell you the full story of why the Iraqi Palestinians are persecuted in Iraq.  It was because they were favored by Saddam Hussein and when he met his end, those who had been persecuted by him turned their anger on his favorites.

NEW DELHI, India, November 11 (UNHCR) – More than 100 Palestinian refugees from Iraq are leaving India in the first large-scale resettlement of Palestinian refugees from outside the Middle East.

A total of 137 Palestinian refugees who fled Baghdad for India have been accepted for resettlement by Sweden. So far, 91 have left for Sweden; the rest are due to leave in the next six months. Another 10 left for Norway earlier this year.

Within the community, the mood today is noticeably different from before. Back in Iraq, like other Palestinians after the regime change of 2003, they had been targeted and persecuted. Kidnappings were routine, as were midnight knocks on the door in Palestinian homes. Their shops were torched, their homes looted and bombed. They fled terror and the first groups reached India in March 2006.

This group was lucky, they got to India.  Others are living in miserable camps on the border of Iraq and Syria.  Syria won’t let them in.  Neither will any other Muslim country.  Why?   Well, this article which I meant to post a few days ago, tells us why.

As we have seen in the past, the Iraqi refugees of Palestinian Arab origin are symbolic of the hatred that the Arab world has for Palestinian Arabs. The UNHCR has tried mightily for years to find permanent homes for these people, kicked out of Iraq, but no Arab country (save for a cynical Sudan) has offered to help.

The only countries that do help – Canada, Iceland, Chile and a few others – are vilified by Arabs who pretend to care about their Palestinian brethren, and the reason is clear: to them, “resettlement” means that the refugees will no longer be pawns in the gigantic game of pressuring Israel. Every Palestinian Arab who no longer sits in stateless misery is one less bullet against Israel. The very idea of Palestinian Arabs becoming full citizens of Arab countries is treated as blasphemy, an idea that the UNRWA tried to push in the 1950s but was so violently rebuffed that it became the largest perpetuator of PalArab pain in the guise of gigantic, ever growing “refugee camps.”

And the only people that get hurt are Palestinian Arabs themselves. The Arab world congratulates itself on maintaining “Palestinian unity” but it is just a code word for Palestinian Arab misery.

Frankly, there is no other reasonable explanation for why rich countries like Saudi Arabia won’t take in their fellow Arab Muslims, and no one seems to have the guts to tell them to do their duty.  Where is the famous Muslim charity we hear about?

Now, back to the Palestinians headed to Sweden.  I thought this was a revealing comment.  

What the Palestinians lacked in India was a sense of belonging. Perhaps more than any other community, they long for a homeland, a country to call their own. Resettlement gives them that opportunity. “We dream of Sweden…”

Sweden will be a country of their own?   A homeland?  Really?  Do they know something we don’t know?

Obama and refugees

Where does Obama stand on the question of refugees?   After a little searching around, I don’t have a definitive answer for you.   What got me thinking about this today (admittedly I should have already been looking into it) was a post at Gates of Vienna yesterday about Danes being inflamed by a 2007 report that Obama was going to insist that European allies in the Iraq War should step up to the plate and take more Iraqi refugees.   Denmark already has some experience with Iraqi refugees who were interpretors and turned out to be spys (here).

See the post about a Danish hubbub at GOV here first, then continue below:

The Europeans are already stressed by excessive Muslim immigration and don’t need Obama lecturing them about their supposed duty to bring more.

I am guessing that BHO will be in favor of increased refugee resettlement because it fits his Leftist (we love all of humanity) view of the world as we have been discussing in the category “community destablization.”  Professionals in the State Department are probably pretty excited about increased numbers and the Leftwing volags who hold all the government contracts are likely jumping for joy since they are paid by the head for each refugee resettled.

Only time will tell how the new Administration will tackle the issue at a time when unemployment is on the rise here and any sane person would see that bringing more people seeking employment to our country will only continue to sink the ship.   Already we have complaints across the country of refugees not finding work.

The Iraqi refugees now arriving by the thousands to America are complaining that they can’t find work.  Generally the Iraqis are more highly educated and skilled, unlike the Somalis who can be shipped off to the meatpacking plants.  The Iraqis want meaningful work and aren’t getting it.  See our recent post here and follow links to other unhappy Iraqi refugee stories.

One hint of how Obama feels about the subject is that he supported legislation passed into law last year to increase the number of Iraqi refugees to the US over what the Bush Administration was already doing.  See mention of that here.   That bill was pushed by Mr. Refugee himself, Ted Kennedy.  Kennedy is the chief sponsor of the Refugee Act of 1980 along with guess who, Senator Joe Biden—a law that set in motion the multimillion dollar government contract program to non-profit groups.

Although it would be nice to think that somehow we, at RRW, played some role (as suggested at GOV) in the slow trickle of Iraqi refugees to the US, all we have really been able to do is chronicle the situation (256 posts to date) from a distance.  There are all sorts of reasons given why the US was slow to start bringing Iraqis to America, I think a primary one was a rigorous screening process (365 “refugee” terrorists screened as of July) at Homeland Security.  I think the security people put brakes on the State Department for a long time.   But, all that is behind us now and the floodgates are open to Iraqi refugees.

Other than the truly persecuted Christians, we have been maintaining (in agreement with the Iraqi government) that Iraq needs its well-educated people to rebuild Iraq not cleaning motels in Baltimore.

I found a couple of things that might give us a slight hint at where things will be going with refugees in The One’s administration.

From the Obama/Biden website:

Barack Obama and Joe Biden believe that America has both a moral obligation and a responsibility for security that demands we confront Iraq’s humanitarian crisis—more than five million Iraqis are refugees or are displaced inside their own country. Obama and Biden will form an international working group to address this crisis. He will provide at least $2 billion to expand services to Iraqi refugees in neighboring countries, and ensure that Iraqis inside their own country can find sanctuary.

At least there is no mention of an airlift to your town!   But the last line in this issue statement was interesting, although slightly off topic:

They will reserve the right to intervene militarily, with our international partners, to suppress potential genocidal violence within Iraq.

So, I guess if we leave Iraq and a bloodbath follows we are going back in?

An indication of where the Obama Administration might go on the subject of refugees comes from the lobbying arm of the Refugee industry, Refugees International (Chairman of the Board is Farooq Kathwari).  Note this message to Obama suggests a more subtle approach and doesn’t mention the word “resettlement.”

This is getting way too long, but I wanted to comment that at GOV Japan was mentioned.  Until now Japan has resisted taking refugees, but they were finally beaten down by the guilt-tripping “radicals who love all humanity” at the UN to begin bringing third worlders (Somalis!) to Japan.   See my post here in September.

I have no doubt that the pressure is on Japan to bring in Iraqis too.

Alinskyism (Day 2)

If you are as old as I am, you remember Woodstock in 1969, the symbol still of the ‘let it all hang out’ generation—peace, free love, and no rules.   In fact, “radicals” ruled and the concepts that Alinsky esposed were being seeded, by the likes of Obama’s friend Bill Ayers, into a gullible generation.   Forty years later the battle over gay marriage for instance is a product of those seeds.

Here are a couple paragraphs from “Reveille for Radicals” that explain the thinking that has now arrived in the White House.

What does the radical want?  He wants a world in which the worth of the individual is recognized. He wants the creation of a kind of society where all of man’s potentialities could be realized; a world where man could live in dignity, security, happiness, and peace—a world based on a morality of mankind. [a Godless world]

To these ends radicals struggle to eradicate all those evils which anchor mankind in the mire of war, fears, misery, and demoralization.  The radical is concerned not only with the economic welfare of the bodies of mankind but also with the freedom of the minds of man.  It is for this that he attacks all those parts of the system that tend to make man a robot.  It is for this that he oposes all circumstances which destroy the souls of men and make them fearful, petty, worried, dull sheep in men’s clothing. The radical is dedicated to the destruction of the roots of all fears, frustrations, and insecurity of man, whether they be material or spiritual.  The radical wants to see man truly free.  Not just free economically and politically but also free socially.  When the radical says complete freedom he means just that.

So how on earth, if this view of the world continues to gain power in the United States will we be able to hold off and defeat the most repressive group of people on the earth—the Islamic fundamentalist.   These radicals love all humanity in a peaceful la-la land, but get a clue, the Islamists hate you.   They hate all the freedom you “radicals” say you embrace and they are using you to gain dominance because they are driven by something you can’t understand— a higher power than your “morality of mankind.”

I wonder if “radical in chief” Obama wet his pants when he had his first intelligence briefing.