As European countries struggle to absorb the flood of migrants from the war-torn Middle East, Joel Golovensky asks why wealthy Arab countries aren’t opening their doors—and sees similarities with the same countries’ past refusal to absorb or settle Palestinian refugees:

While hundreds of millions of refugees all over the world have been successfully resettled and integrated into their new worlds, the children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren of these Palestinian refugees have been cynically kept hostages to hate and to the blind rejection of the reality their own leaders imposed. These same wealthy Arab states also renege on their pledges to support the Palestinian Authority operating budget, shifting yet another Arab obligation onto the shoulders of Europe and the U.S.

Why do world leaders not demand that these rich Arab states take care of their own brother Arabs and fellow Muslims? . . . Why are these Arab refugees, running from Arab hostility and Arab cruelty, a European responsibility?

It seems to me that this is a manifestation of raw racism. . . . It’s as if the world does not hold Arabs to accepted norms of human compassion, empathy, and moral obligation. It’s as if the world does not expect Muslim Arabs to care about their own brothers and sisters. No one dares mention their obligations and their naked repudiation of responsibility. Is the underlying premise that they are somehow different or inferior, or that their culture and code of conduct cannot be judged by Western standards? Do we implicitly discredit their culture and unthinkingly excuse them from humanitarian and international responsibility?

For some time, opponents of U.S support for Israel have been urging the White House to end the war in Gaza, or simply calling for a ceasefire. Douglas Feith and Lewis Libby consider what such a result would actually entail:

Ending the war immediately would allow Hamas to survive and retain military and governing power. Leaving it in the area containing the Sinai-Gaza smuggling routes would ensure that Hamas can rearm. This is why Hamas leaders now plead for a ceasefire. A ceasefire will provide some relief for Gazans today, but a prolonged ceasefire will preserve Hamas’s bloody oppression of Gaza and make future wars with Israel inevitable.

For most Gazans, even when there is no hot war, Hamas’s dictatorship is a nightmarish tyranny. Hamas rule features the torture and murder of regime opponents, official corruption, extremist indoctrination of children, and misery for the population in general. Hamas diverts foreign aid and other resources from proper uses; instead of improving life for the mass of the people, it uses the funds to fight against Palestinians and Israelis.

Moreover, a Hamas-affiliated website warned Gazans last month against cooperating with Israel in securing and delivering the truckloads of aid flowing into the Strip. It promised to deal with those who do with “an iron fist.” In other words, if Hamas remains in power, it will begin torturing, imprisoning, or murdering those it deems collaborators the moment the war ends. Thereafter, Hamas will begin planning its next attack on Israel:

Hamas’s goals are to overshadow the Palestinian Authority, win control of the West Bank, and establish Hamas leadership over the Palestinian revolution. Hamas’s ultimate aim is to spark a regional war to obliterate Israel and, as Hamas leaders steadfastly maintain, fulfill a Quranic vision of killing all Jews.

Hamas planned for corpses of Palestinian babies and mothers to serve as the mainspring of its October 7 war plan. Hamas calculated it could survive a war against a superior Israeli force and energize enemies of Israel around the world. The key to both aims was arranging for grievous Palestinian civilian losses. . . . That element of Hamas’s war plan is working impressively.