Equally respectfully:
1. I didn't say it should or shouldn't happen. I said that's one reason why it did happen. The fact remains that, whatever the reason(s) for it, it was a decision taken by the whole of the UN. Those who think as you do never make reference to that because it doesn't fit your slanted narrative.
2. The 400,000 or so to whom you refer are a fraction of the number of people affected.
3. The governments of the countries involved did say no. The refugees turned up anyway and many of them were treated - and in some cases continue to be treated - as highly unwelcome guests.
I have a slanted narrative but others dont?
I have made reference to UN plenty of times, we've interacted about it before. I mentioned then as I do now, you can accept the UN then then the UN should be accted now.
Over 50% is a pretty large fraction, no?
To clarify what is the purpose of mentioning the fact other Arab States didnt want hundreds of thousands of refugees at their door? I'd imagine most of us would be concerned if 100k refugees rocked up at the border.
In a way this again is mental machinations
He said, she said.
I take issue with a few other things you mention and equally, imo, its telling what is missing from conversations.
The point remains, and this is the most pressing discussion now, that:
Israeli soldiers have admitted & been found guilty of murdering of civilians, starvation and more
Israeli forced have acted with total impunity and have been a disgrace.
That the Israeli leaders have arrest warrants out
That the US/UK have been complicit in this plausible genocide.
That this has highlighted the utter hypocrisy and double standards of the western political structure and framework.
www.bbc.co.uk
