Syrian Refugees- 2 Million Already Into Jordan, Turkey, Lebanon.

[KittyWampus]

And using chemical warfare and attacking large numbers of civilians could potentially cause even larger numbers to flood into neighboring countries. Which are semi-democratic/allies of the USA.

But then, the USA intervening could also cause waves of refugees too.

And Assad is striking some of those refugee camps, btw.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/03/world/meast/syria-lebanon-airstrike

UN website has a map I can't figure out how to link to but the numbers are:

Jordan- 515,000 refugees
Turkey- 459,000 refugees
Lebanon- 716,000 refugees


More than 1.9 million Syrians are hosted in the region, placing unprecedented strain on communities, infrastructure and services in host countries.

There has been a massive escalation of arrivals in 2013. Over one million Syrian refugees have registered as refugees since the beginning of 2013.

Women and children make up three-quarters of the refugee population.
The vast majority of refugees are dependent on aid, arriving with little more than the clothes on their backs.
http://data.unhcr.org/syrianrefugees/syria.php

[lumpy]

1. Seems to be a lot of people who don't really care about those who are suffering. Terribly sad.

n

[The Straight Story]

2. There are quite a few in Iraq as well (over 50,000 in one region)

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/09/01/321553/more-syrian-refugees-arrive-in-iraqs-kurdistan/

And:
More than 2.5 million Syrians have fled their homes since the outbreak of civil war in March 2011, taking refuge in neighbouring countries or within Syria itself. According to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), over 600,000 have fled to immediate neighbours Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan and Iraq. Yet the real number of Syrians refugees in these countries is much higher – perhaps double UNHCR statistics, which only record those officially registered as refugees.

This website offers a snapshot of the repercussions of this refugee crisis for both Syria’s neighbours and the European Union. It is a project of the Migration Policy Centre at the European University Institute, based on a series of studies conducted by local researchers on behalf of the MPC at the end of 2012. This website is the result of close collaboration between a team of journalists and these local researchers, under the auspices of the MPC, to paint a broad picture of the worst refugee crisis to affect the region in years.

http://syrianrefugees.eu/

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

3. How many have been let into Israel?

[Spider Jerusalem]

4. Anyone trying to cross the Golan Heights would be shot by the IDF

I think the answer to that is "none".

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

7. "shot by the IDF."

Not a very welcoming image from the only Democracy in the mid east.

Imagine if the USA were shooting Mexican refugees from the drug wars.


No, we just let them die in the dessert. So I guess as a Democracy we have something in common with Israel.

[Behind the Aegis]

5. Why would they?

Syria and Israel are in a state of war. Syrian refugees who flee to Israel would likely never get back into Israel or could possibly be branded traitors. Israel has treated Syrian victims, in secret. Israelis have crossed into Jordan, in secret, to help with the refugee situation. Of course, it wouldn't matter if they did, the predictable response would be it was "all for show" or "hasbara!" If they don't do anything..."evil", they do something, "it's for all the wrong reasons."

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

6. "Syria and Israel are in a state of war."

Does that mean by association that refugees fleeing a despotic regime, namely Syria, are enemies of Israel?

Syrian refugees who flee to Israel would likely never get back into Israel or could possibly be branded traitors.

Since they are fleeing for their lives are they considered patriots at the present time?

More meaningless blather on your part.

My question was "How many have been let into Israel?"

Seeing how that the OP stated that "2 Million Already Into Jordan, Turkey, Lebanon", my question was how many have been welcomed into Israel?

You can always toss out the straw dog "hasbara" argument, but I was actually asking a legitimate question.

[Behind the Aegis]

8. Of course.

Syrians would of course naturally flee to a country their government has been in a state of war for 40 plus years. Your logically fallacious questions are just sad.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

9. That was not what I asked, and you know it.

My question was not where Syrians would go.

My question was "How many have been let in to Israel."


Better yet. How many have been turned away by Israel...the only Democracy in the Mid East?

[Behind the Aegis]

10. So it is just concern about the refugees?

Thanks for demonstrating it wasn't. That was actually classy.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

11. Why do you have a problem answering a very simple query?

How many (Syrians) have been let in to Israel?

1?

5?

20K?

ZERO?

[Behind the Aegis]

12. Why do you have a problem with being honest it isn't about the refugees?

Why do you think I would have information like that? Is it my avatar? (See how those strawman accusations work?)

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

13. How many (Syrians) have been let in to Israel?

1?

5?

20K?

ZERO?

[Behind the Aegis]

14. I don't know. Is it about your "concern" for the refugees?

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

21. My concern or your disdain?

How many Syrians have been let into Israel?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3579527

Your words: Why would they?

Not that is quite a Democratic and humanitarian bent you have going on there.

Why would they?

[Behind the Aegis]

25. My question was followed by reasons as to "why would they."

The disdain seems to be yours as evidenced by the sub-thread: it isn't about the refugees but about Israel's in/actions. But yes, you are the one with the true humanitarian concern.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

29. Yes, I am the one with the true humanitarian concern. Thank you for noticing.

More true than Israel, or their cheerleaders with bankrupt proclamations.

[Behind the Aegis]

30. Sure you are.

Keep thinking that, it may help you thru the day.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

33. Yes, I am. Thank you.

So how many Syrians has Israel let through their borders?

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

32. Also, I have to thank you for pointing out the victimization of Israel by doing close to nothing

when the real victims are the Syrians escaping civil war...just not into Israel.

I'm sure that Jordan, Turkey and Lebanon thank Israel for their efforts though.

[Behind the Aegis]

35. And thank you for showing your true motivations.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

37. Motivations? My motivations are to find out why all the

surrounding countries are taking in Syrian civilian refugees except for Israel.

You were the one to point out Israels victimization here.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3579527

Of course, it wouldn't matter if they did, the predictable response would be it was "all for show" or "hasbara!" If they don't do anything..."evil", they do something, "it's for all the wrong reasons."

Thank yourself for that, and your motivations.

[Behind the Aegis]

38. That was your motivation?

You were told why Israel might not be taking refugees. You didn't like it. So your motivation is quite clear, and I spelled it out. You proved your true motivation and it wasn't concern for refugees.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

40. Wrong, huff and puff as you may.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3579491

My post was only a query and not dislike as you suggest.

3. How many have been let into Israel?

Your post was complete indifference, then apologistic and irrational hasbara pity.

You wrote it.

Why would they?

Those that need help are the Syrian refugees.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023579368#post5

Why would they?

Then you blather on with; "Syrian refugees who flee to Israel would likely never get back into Israel or could possibly be branded traitors."

[Behind the Aegis]

42. No, it is quite obvious.

Your entire set of posts demonstrate it. My post was not "indifference", (again, your inference) it was an explanation for which you were unwilling to accept, demonstrated by the fact you ignored that Syrians have been treated by Israel. Your posts then continue to mock Israel, blame Israel, and chastise Israel. Your comments don't show any interest in the Syrian refugees, only an interest in how Israel could be blamed. But thanks for quoting the last quote, I see I wrote "Israel", when I should have written "Syria."

The quiet hospital ward in northern Israel is a world away from the ravages of Syria’s civil war but scores of wounded Syrians, ignoring long-standing taboos concerning relations with the Jewish state, are receiving treatment here.

Fatima, a Syrian woman who ended up in Ziv hospital with her daughter after a blast shattered their legs in their hometown of Daraa, was full of praise for the medical staff.

“They care about us and have shown us a lot of respect,” she said.

But mindful that Syria and Israel are technically still at war following their 1967 and 1973 conflicts, she was reluctant to be identified, asking that pseudonyms be used both for herself and for her daughter.

“Please do not show our faces,” she asked AFP photographers.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/08/29/syrias-wounded-find-medical-care-in-israeli-hospitals-despite-official-hostilities/

Evil Israelis, they are!

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

43. Behind the Aegis: My post was not "indifference"...

My words: How many have been let into Israel?


Your words. Why would they? If that is not indifference...

And then you go off the deep end into victimization, when you were the one writing about bigotry.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023579368#post5

Of course, it wouldn't matter if they did, the predictable response would be it was "all for show" or "hasbara!" If they don't do anything..."evil", they do something, "it's for all the wrong reasons

."


But thank you for pointing out that scores of Syrians have been treated by Israel while 2 million refugees are in Turkey, Jordan and Lebanon.



Why you would try to then pepper this subthread with more victimization is shameful.

Evil Israelis, they are!

Grow up.

[Behind the Aegis]

44. How disingenious.

"Why would they?" was the subject line; you are acting as if it was the entire response. It wasn't. That isn't "indifference" that is replying to your question.

"Why you would try to then pepper this subthread with more victimization is shameful.

Your posts indicate it.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

45. Stop it. You're killing me!

[The Straight Story]

15. Israel has maintained that it will not allow refugees into the country

Meanwhile, two more Syrians wounded in their country’s ongoing civil war were brought into Israel for treatment on Thursday. The IDF transported them to the Ziv Medical Center in Safed, where they received emergency care.

Israel has maintained that it will not allow refugees into the country, but it has treated a small number of wounded Syrian civilians in Israeli hospitals near the Golan Heights.

The IDF confirmed to The Times of Israel that the two Syrians arrived at the Israeli border Thursday, and “due to their medical condition, they were transferred for further treatment in Israel.”

They are the latest in a steady trickle of civilians to receive treatment in Israel. On Tuesday, a handwritten doctor’s note was found attached to the clothing of a Syrian man brought to Israel in critical condition. The note detailed, in Arabic, previous surgical procedures and medical care the man had received days before in Syria. It asked Israel to save his life because the Syrian doctors could not provide the necessary medical treatment.

http://www.timesofisrael.com/assad-plans-to-open-resistance-front-in-golan-says-report/

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

16. Thank you. So a number of 2+ have been let into Israel

with the qualifier: "Israel has maintained that it will not allow refugees into the country."


Thank you.

[avaistheone1]

19. Thanks.

I was wondering about that.

[Rincewind]

17. Who cares?

From what I read on DU, we don't care about the Syrian people. Assad can gas them, we don't care, he can gun them down,we don't care. And anyone who says we should do something just wants to steal their oil.

[David__77]

18. That is a steaming pile of dog shit.

But very similar to what the Republicans said when progressives opposed the war against Iraq - they whined, "the Democrats can't care about the Iraqi people."

With your sort of "care," the US will kill half the country with missiles and bombs.

[The Straight Story]

20. So what do you propose to stop dictators from using chemical weapons?

Should we ask the UN to do something about it?

[David__77]

22. I propose that we not intervene in Syria.

...

[The Straight Story]

26. It looks like we will and we should

We draw the line at chemical weapons usage (and biological and nuclear).

This does impact the US and it's allies since doing nothing now means we won't be anything but a paper tiger on the issue - why not just send out a message to anyone wanting to get chemical weapons that it is ok to use them?

Countries have held back because of the shitstorm that would erupt by their use. Back in the day we called it Mutual Assured Destruction and a deterrent.

Assad has cracked down on demonstrators, slaughtered them in order to keep power. We have went to the UN already on this issue and sought peaceful ways to deal with it (for many years) to no avail.

He chose to escalate the situation, more than once now, with chemical weapons. What makes anyone think he will stop using them - or do people just not care about their use?

[David__77]

28. Obama's "show across the bow" will do nothing to bring peace or security.

It's a nonsensical strategy and does nothing to secure any such weapons; instead by degrading command and control will further increase risk, and not just to Syria. Under the general principle you are describing, occupation of Syria with ground troops would be required.

[The Straight Story]

34. The message we are sending is not about attempting peace or security

It about taking action to punish those who use chemical warfare.

Take out radar sites, SAMS, etc that will cost him money. Take out the planes that are dropping napalm on schools. Degrade his general ability and desire to use weapons that will bring in outside involvement.

Israel has hit syria with air strikes and it didn't mean the end of the world and mass death. Precision strikes on nuclear sites.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

24. Wasn't that kind of question asked during the last administration?

And where did it get us?

[The Straight Story]

31. Iraq is not Syria for one

And we should always ask questions about their use and proliferation.

Assad wants to hold on to power, by any means.

The only link to Iraq is that both he and Saddam were/are Baathists (which is one thing I do like about Assad). The country is in a civil war mostly because of the cronyism of Assad and his allegiance to mainly the minority Alawites. The few and the wealthy there are favored and in power, slaughtering anyone who opposes them, and now - more than once - using chemical warfare.

As he loses more power (and he will) it will only strengthen his desire to use them more in desperation. His regime is unraveling and it is only a matter of time before he does something even more stupid like use chemical weapons on his southern neighbor to try to once again rally people to his side via hatred of Israel as his father did in the 70's (his father didn't use chemical weapons of course).

He is using terror to try and stop the people who want him out of power and it becomes our business when doing nothing will be seen by others as an OK from a superpower to use such weapons.

Or, put it this way - suppose our government decided to no longer prosecute people for murder here. Do you think incidences of doing so would rise? They would, and in this case we could see an expansion of use of chemical warfare if we do nothing.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

36. Iraq is not Syria for one. So?????

Assad wants to hold on to power, by any means.

Compare.

Saddam wants to hold on to power, by any means.

He is using terror...

The same verbiage could have been used by the last admin.


On another note.

suppose our government decided to no longer prosecute people for murder here

They decided that when impeachment was off the table, and drone strikes hitting civilians are the flavor of the day.

[The Straight Story]

39. And yet you dodge the actual issue, chemical warfare. Do you support it's use?

This whole debate is not about yet another civil war going on (there are a few of them across the world) but about chemical warfare.

If he used a nuke on Damascus would you just shrug as well and say we should do nothing?

Release a biological agent that could spread?

We all get that people are dying in stupid wars all over the place, we cannot stop them all because you cannot change human nature.

What we can prevent is the use of certain weapons by swift action against those who do use them.

Now, maybe you are fine with their use and don't care if countries around the world start to use them now, but some of us really don't like the idea.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

41. Ah, yes. The predictable, REAL issue.

I don't support warfare of any kind. Chemical warfare that kills innocents or Drone attacks that kill the same.

Who will stand before justice first?


And the smoking gun/mushroom cloud nonsense is just that.

Theoretical foreplay was the bastion of the last admin so why play it up now?

What we can prevent is the use of certain weapons by swift action against those who do use them.

But America is somehow exempt from attacking the populations of countries we are not at war with?


Seriously? Fucking seriously?


Your argument is sophmoric and weak.


If Syria can be found with complete and certain proof that they have used chemical agents then they are and should be answerable to the UN and not one unilateral country: with very well meaning but completely hypocritical citizens.

[NuclearDem]

52. Not intervene in Syria.

I mean, this has been explained to you several times before, but military intervention in Syria won't do a damn thing to stop the use of chemical weapons. Short of boots on the ground to actually secure the weapons, it won't stop them.

[Douglas Carpenter]

23. and this is nothing compared to what will happen if the rebels win and the Assad regime collapses

"Christians to Beirut - Alawites to the grave."

[Turbineguy]

27. It might be better for the US to support the cost of the refugees

and encourage more to flee than spend the money on military intervention. 2 million is about 10% of the population. At some point the Syrian economy grinds to a halt.

Maybe instead of picking from an array of old choices that don't work, we think of something different?

[KittyWampus]

47. I agree with you. And think the refugee situation could actually yield some good karma if we address

it.

[Bluenorthwest]

48. Food Not Bombs as they say.

I agree, but this sort of humanitarian action is apparently unacceptable to the hawks in DC.

[malletgirl02]

49. Humanitarian Aid

Imagine how much good we could do if we spent the money going towards an attack even Obama admits isn't going to do much good on aid for the refugees.

[Turbineguy]

50. I remember in Iraq

we had the sanctions which only created more deprivation for ordinary Iraqis and made them even more dependent on the goodwill of Saddam Hussein who put his awful sons in charge of the black market. We could have bombed the place with Pampers and done some good.

[KittyWampus]

51. kick

[NuclearDem]

53. For context's sake, that's 1 in every 11 Syrian.