Globalists cremate care for Gaza refugees

Eliyahu Tulshinski

October 16, 2023

In a sharp break from their open borders policy, the globalists have rejected the idea of allowing refugees to leave Gaza.

Closed door for women and children used as human shields

Even before the current war, more than 90% of Gazans wanted to permanently leave due to Hamas abuses including, “abductions, torture and extra-judicial killings.” They could have also claimed economic migrant status, with average incomes of about $273 a month for those without Hamas connections.

Now, as Hamas uses women and children as human shields, not allowing them to leave Hamas-dominated areas replete with missile launchers that draw Israeli fire, that percentage could be expected to be closer to 100%.

Egypt nonetheless closed the door on those women and children trying to escape an actual war zone. Egypt refused them entry into the vast empty space of bordering Sinai, which is three times the size of Israel and Gaza combined.

Even protests outside Egyptian embassies by relatives of residents claiming shortages of food, electricity, and water have not altered the decision to keep Gazans in Gaza.

Globalist media sites like The Economist were quick to provide ideological support for Egypt's decision to keep Gazans under Hamas tyranny, though the journal left open the possibility of temporary refuge in Egypt before a return to Gaza. The Economist opined that the eventual return of Gazans be guaranteed by the US, a guarantee likely to lead many Gazans to simply wait out the war at home rather than in a tent in the Sinai desert.

The headquarters of globalism itself, the UN, has also decided that open borders policy has an exception — Gazans apparently are not deserving of a move to peaceful surroundings:

UN spokesman Stephane Dujarric later said . . . “We do not want to see a mass exodus of Gazans.”

In lockstep, other progressives voiced their opposition to saving Gazan refugees. Secretary of State Antony Blinken went so far as to label the relocation of Gazan refugees a “non-starter.”

Adult, male economic migrants welcome

In stark contrast, Leftist operatives and Western governments alike have long pushed open borders for adult men “refugees” who are leaving women and children behind and are not even coming from war zones. These “refugees” are welcomed even when coming from nations at peace, like Mexico or Turkey.

In some cases they arrived at those peaceful nations after fleeing economic hardship from places like Honduras. In others, they arrived from war torn countries like Syria, but were already safe in a different nation before choosing to move on to the West. In all cases, they are freely welcome by the Biden administration and their Leftist supporters:

@JoeBiden promised that 'not another foot of wall would be constructed" on the border.

The result of that policy is that the number of immigrants accepted into the US during the Biden administration is more than double the entire population of Gaza, which is estimated to be approximately 2 million.

Europe's globalist policies result in millions of illegal immigrants crossing its borders each year. The EU has even sent its coast guard to ferry economic migrants at sea to European soil.

And the flow of illegals is constantly increasing.

Gaza's different

When The Economist warned in the above post that if refugees "leave Gaza, they may never be allowed home," they didn't suddenly begin worrying that illegal immigrants from El Salvador, Bangladesh or Guatemala may not be able to return home. In fact, they support their permanent resettlement in the West.

According to CNN, Egypt itself has accepted 9 million immigrants from nations like Sudan, Syria, Yemen and Libya, all without a similar warning from The Economist.

Why the difference?

Globalist interests

The New American describes The Economist as a major mouthpiece for globalism:

The CFR-Pratt House/RIIA [Royal Institute of International Affairs]-Chatham House axis has proven to have been a potent propaganda transmission belt. Their climate-change alarm chorus gets considerable global heft from The Economist, which boasts an undeserved reputation as a journal of substance. The writers and editors of The Economist are regulars in the CFR/RIIA salons and reliably retail the one-world gospel. [Emphasis added].

Knowing the move toward global government faces strong opposition from multi-generation Americans and Europeans, globalists have long lobbied for both open borders and welfare incentives encouraging illegal immigration (of new voters for the Left) to the West.

Of course, Gazan refugees and their children could be relied upon to generally vote “against the establishment” and with the Left after gaining citizenship (or even before in some cases) as much as any other group of immigrants.

In their case, though, Gazans are more useful to globalists as cannon fodder in the Marxist “war of national liberation” being fought to destroy Israel. Israel is singled out as a threat to globalism as, more than any other nation, they cannot agree to “regional borders” like those in the EU. Due to security concerns, Israel would never agree to hundreds of millions of Arab neighbors being granted unhindered entrance to the Jewish state in regional agreements.

Great-grandchildren can't leave “camps”

Thus, 18 years after all Jews in Gaza were forcibly transferred out and the PLO and subsequently Hamas took control of the area, the refugee camps in Gaza remain, housing more than half of the Gaza population.

While Hamas labels Gaza a Palestinian homeland, they continue designating local Arabs as refugees who will eventually leave Gaza and enter Israel where, together with other Arabs entering Israel, they would outnumber Jews and take over the nation at the ballot box.

In 1948 the grandparents and great-grandparents of those alleged Gazan refugees left Israel in order to make it easier for Arab nations to bomb Jews without also hurting Arabs as several Arab nations invaded Israel after Britain withdrew its forces. Now, 75 years on, Hamas still keeps Gazans in their respective ghettos, generally not allowing the so called refugees to leave Gaza or to relocate to different neighborhoods.

The UN reinforces the Hamas policy of keeping children and grandchildren of the original inhabitants of the “refugee camps” confined to the camps by distributing food and other forms of welfare specifically within the approximately one square kilometer that defines the boundaries of those so called camps. The camps are actually urban neighborhoods with residential towers. This makes so called Palestinian refugees the only fourth-generation refugees in the world, all others being assimilated into their host countries in the first generation.

It would be as if Cuban refugees in America were ordered by the government to live within one neighborhood, with even the children and grandchildren prohibited from leasing or buying a home elsewhere. The only reason to keep Arabs in the so called camps is to enable them and their descendants to flood Israel in the future, by force or by an agreement signed by Israel under duress.

Good refugees; bad refugees

So some refugees are more equal than others.

Flooding the US with refugees and providing them with free schools, healthcare, housing and welfare funds, together with deficit spending and environmental laws driving factories overseas, can bring down the standard of living to the point that Americans will not suffer much worse by allowing Central and South American residents to compete for US jobs in an EU style regional government of the Americas.

Keeping Gazan refugees in war torn Gaza, on the other hand, helps the PLO and its subsidiary the Palestinian Authority, which fund Hamas, advance their war of national liberation to weaken the Jewish state and make it vulnerable to destruction.

Either way, refugees, from whichever nation they emanate, are but pawns in globalist plans.

See our additional coverage of Israel's deep state: