To Hijab or not to Hijab

[rory_20_uk]

The lovely persons in the Middle East often do this with Westerners already which no one seems to bat an eyelid at, and there is no "respect everyone's cultural background" - more the "do as we say or you are in trouble". Why should the new influx be treated any better?

[Montmorency]

My main assertion is that critical destabilisation of an Arab country caused by such an influx is considerably less likely than negative effects in European societies that are already evident here (and that could get a lot worse still; all the way up to the catastrophic scenarios you illustrate); negative effects that should not be more likely to occur in these Arab countries.

Negative effects are already evident in European societies, yet similar negative effects but worse by an order of magnitude would not be likely in Middle Eastern societies because they "have similar cultures"? Are you getting this stuff from Samuel Huntington or something?

I'm afraid realistic thinking beats diaphanous dialectics every time. Adding national and ethnic animosity, social unrest, and economic deadweight to countries that are already unstable and economically-fragile quite clearly would lead to very rapid regional degeneration if ever actually implemented through mediated population transfers.

For all the problems Europe has had with the refugee influxes, they have only now, after all these years, reached the point of becoming mildly-troubling precisely because European countries have been in such a good position (compared to most of the world) to withstand the experience.

[Viking]

I see, taking the Warsaw ghetto as a blueprint since it is a tried and proven method for keeping the racial cultural purity of a country intact.

Of course not; even when considering the inherent limitations of an internment area, the ghettos were not intended to be humane.

Negative effects are already evident in European societies, yet similar negative effects but worse by an order of magnitude would not be likely in Middle Eastern societies because they "have similar cultures"? Are you getting this stuff from Samuel Huntington or something?

Do tell me what kind of cultural shocks Syrians resettling in Gulf states would face. Headgear-related? Lack of tribal identity?

I'm afraid realistic thinking beats diaphanous dialectics every time. Adding national and ethnic animosity, social unrest, and economic deadweight to countries that are already unstable and economically-fragile quite clearly would lead to very rapid regional degeneration if ever actually implemented through mediated population transfers.

For all the problems Europe has had with the refugee influxes, they have only now, after all these years, reached the point of becoming mildly-troubling precisely because European countries have been in such a good position (compared to most of the world) to withstand the experience.

One of the most fragile countries in the ME that is currently at peace is precisely Lebanon; and despite little funds available for the camps there; I have yet to see any signs that the country has become significantly more unstable because of the refugees.

LEBANON has taken in 1.1 million registered refugees and others who are not registered. Government officials put the overall number at 1.5 million. With an estimated population of about 4.5 million, Lebanon has the highest per-capita number of Syrian refugees, accounting for about 1 in 4 people in the country. With half a million Palestinians remaining in refugee camps established six decades ago, the government has been reluctant to set up formal refugee camps for the Syrians.

JORDAN says it has taken in 1.4 million Syrians, although the UNHCR counts 629,266 registered refugees. Jordan prides itself on its hospitality toward these and other refugees, but the high numbers — about 20% of the population, based on government figures — have taxed the small kingdom, already struggling with strained resources such as energy and water.

http://www.latimes.com/world/europe/...908-story.html

So, I don't find your worst-case scenarios particularly probable as things currently stand.

The war will end someday, at which point surplus refugees could be repatriated by force if encouragement turns out to be inadequate.

[Montmorency]

Do tell me what kind of cultural shocks Syrians resettling in Gulf states would face. Headgear-related? Lack of tribal identity?

There is more in the world than culture, as you understand. Even leaving aside political and institutional social structures, there is of course economics, geography, ecology...

Jordan is a heavily-subsidized state, and it's government is well-organized. Lebanon, however, while organized is organized along partisan and sectarian lines such that it would be very difficult to produce a unified response to future refugee political agitation. Pointing out that the Syrians have not overwhelmed Lebanon right now? I might as well say the same for Europe.

Look at this map of Lebanon: http://data.unhcr.org/syrianrefugees/country.php?id=122
Now Jordan: http://data.unhcr.org/syrianrefugees/country.php?id=107
Might as well point out Egypt as well: http://data.unhcr.org/syrianrefugees/country.php?id=8

Note the distributions and explain how the distributions in Lebanon do not threaten stability?

The war will end someday, at which point surplus refugees could be repatriated by force if encouragement turns out to be inadequate.

Yep, totally a trivial enterprise to repatriate millions by force. Are you working with Donald Trump's campaign, by any chance?

If integration is not the goal, then secure and carefully-managed internment camps would be necessary, of the sort that housed the Japanese-Americans during WW2. That isn't the case and neither the West nor the Arab countries nor the refugees would agree to a program involving such.

On that note, a relevant bit of trivia: during WW2, the ethnic Japanese of Hawaii were never interned. Can you guess why?

[Viking]

Jordan is a heavily-subsidized state, and it's government is well-organized. Lebanon, however, while organized is organized along partisan and sectarian lines such that it would be very difficult to produce a unified response to future refugee political agitation.

What kind of agitation? With what purpose?

Pointing out that the Syrians have not overwhelmed Lebanon right now? I might as well say the same for Europe.

Actually, I said I hadn't seen signs that the political situation in Lebanon has gotten worse because of refugees from Syria, not that the country hadn't gone belly-up yet. The comparison with Europe becomes rather different, then.

Look at this map of Lebanon: http://data.unhcr.org/syrianrefugees/country.php?id=122
Now Jordan: http://data.unhcr.org/syrianrefugees/country.php?id=107
Might as well point out Egypt as well: http://data.unhcr.org/syrianrefugees/country.php?id=8

Note the distributions and explain how the distributions in Lebanon do not threaten stability?

I am not sure about the exact point you want those maps to illustrate. Millions of refugees could become a veritable force if they all acted towards a common goal in an organised manner (de facto or otherwise); e.g. if they all swarmed the streets to protest. I think it should be possible to tell well in advance before something like that would happen, and take effective measures to prevent it from happening (sweetening the pill or enforce a curfew).

I would like to point out that I was never advocating for Lebanon to take in more refugees; that's something Saudi Arabia & co should do. They might even be able to relieve Lebanon without taking in more than they can handle. Shia refugees could possibly be taken in by Iran.

Yep, totally a trivial enterprise to repatriate millions by force.

It doesn't have to happen over night. Give it a few years - most would have left on their own volition by then.

If integration is not the goal, then secure and carefully-managed internment camps would be necessary, of the sort that housed the Japanese-Americans during WW2. That isn't the case and neither the West nor the Arab countries nor the refugees would agree to a program involving such.

I am not sure that would be necessary. I believe a lot of refugee camps in the area effectively work a lot like that. A significant fraction of them might walk out of the camp from time to time, but that isn't necessarily a problem.

On that note, a relevant bit of trivia: during WW2, the ethnic Japanese of Hawaii were never interned. Can you guess why?

Could be many reasons. Why?

[Montmorency]

What kind of agitation? With what purpose?

I'll leave it to you to imagine why displaced persons in refugee camps might cause trouble at some point. More specifically, that would become entangled with local sectarian and political contests, which the refugees could easily recognize themselves as having a stake in and holding some influence over.

Actually, I said I hadn't seen signs that the political situation in Lebanon has gotten worse because of refugees from Syria, not that the country hadn't gone belly-up yet. The comparison with Europe becomes rather different, then.

It amounts to the same, as what's really the problem in both the Middle East and Europe is economic malaise. With the European economy doing well, refugees are A-OK for menial labor. With the Syrian/Egyptian/Libyan economy doing well, there is less incentive to take actions that would reopen the scabs that can lead to the infection of civil war. These forces cannot be separated, and neither can their resolutions or exacerbations.

But a simple way to sum it up is just that we are much more sensitive to a sharpening in the European crisis; given that Lebanon has existed in a state of endemic crisis for decades now, it is more difficult to perceive the impact of the refugees. Until the massacres begin, at any rate.

Millions of refugees could become a veritable force if they all acted towards a common goal in an organised manner (de facto or otherwise); e.g. if they all swarmed the streets to protest.

In fact, it is organized movements that are more easily managed than general unrest. Just look at China.

that's something Saudi Arabia & co should do.

With Saudi Arabia, the situation is even more volatile. Given the ecology of the area, isolated concentration areas are necessary unless the refugees are spread throughout the urban centers, a move which would quickly prove disastrous. The Saudi economy survives on foreign labor and royal patronage through networks of privilege. Adding millions of destitute Syrians to the mix would spur popular revolt.

Could be many reasons. Why?

Demographics and geography. In the territorial states, ethnic Japanese were a tiny minority spread over a large area. In Hawaii, the ethnic Japanese were over 1/3 of the population -a plurality - concentrated in a small space. The rest falls out of these facts.

[AE Bravo]

The lovely persons in the Middle East often do this with Westerners already which no one seems to bat an eyelid at, and there is no "respect everyone's cultural background" - more the "do as we say or you are in trouble". Why should the new influx be treated any better?

What are the things westerners cannot do in the ME?

[rory_20_uk]

What are the things westerners cannot do in the ME?

How they dress
Hold hands in public
Kiss in public
Drink in public
Live together if not married.
Discuss religion that is not Islam publically.

Live there if they don't have a job.

[AE Bravo]

How they dress
Hold hands in public
Kiss in public
Drink in public
Live together if not married.
Discuss religion that is not Islam publically.

Live there if they don't have a job.

Drink in public - where can you? Go to a bar
Live together if not married - not true
Discuss religion... - also not true
Live there if they don't have a job - rightfully so

What do you mean "middle east?" That is a sweeping generalization of 5 million square miles sir.

None of these bans come close to the banning of the hijab or the harassment the wearers suffer, including countless instances of rape you will rarely find in stable Muslim countries. The level of oppression is much stronger on your end I'm afraid.

[rory_20_uk]

Drink in public - where can you? Go to a bar
Live together if not married - not true
Discuss religion... - also not true
Live there if they don't have a job - rightfully so

What do you mean "middle east?" That is a sweeping generalization of 5 million square miles sir.

None of these bans come close to the banning of the hijab or the harassment the wearers suffer, including countless instances of rape you will rarely find in stable Muslim countries. The level of oppression is much stronger on your end I'm afraid.

The Gulf Cooperation council then.

Living together when not married is illegal in Qatar, UAE and SAudi Arabia punishable with 1 year in jail and then deportation.
Discussing religion which could be taken as trying to convert a Muslim which is also illegal - and people have been killed for such acts in Islamic states.

You seriously think that jail time and deportation is not as bad as being locked up and deported??!? And I doubt that many Islamic countries have reliable crime statistics - absence of reporting is hardly evidence of absence. Then of course the Saudis sent in troops and tanks to, erm, help the rulers in Qatar - of course that is not oppression apparently.

[AE Bravo]

Oh there is oppression, I just meant that when it comes to that towards foreigners it's much stronger in the west.

Qatar and Saudi Arabia are wahhabi so yes. In the UAE, I assure you that you can live with whoever you want. These Sharia Laws are only present to appease whatever is left of the relegated religious institution, my uncle lives with an Australian chick and he is a colonel in the interior ministry. No harm no foul, because nobody in their right mind cares who you sleep with as long as you don't rub it in everyone's faces.

It's true people have been killed for "such acts," but you say Gulf Cooperation Council. You mentioned two Wahhabi states yet fail to mention Kuwait and Oman along with the UAE. I think you'd be surprised by all three. Not to mention I've seen widespread PDA in Egypt, Morocco, Algeria, Lebanon (Beirut and south), and my own country. Only in Dubai of course, nowhere else.

And I doubt that many Islamic countries have reliable crime statistics - absence of reporting is hardly evidence of absence.

Everything is reported. You conveniently assume this because we camel jockeys are all the same.

Then of course the Saudis sent in troops and tanks to, erm, help the rulers in Qatar - of course that is not oppression apparently.

You mean Bahrain. I don't see how this is oppression against foreigners?

[Montmorency]

Everything is reported.

Can you be more exact? On its face, what you say means that every legally-actionable episode that occurs within the jurisdiction of a given Arab state is reported.

In reality, most instances of, for example, mugging, pickpocketing, or minor fraud are not reported anywhere in the world, so that can't be the case.

What are you trying to say then?