Why can't rich Arab countries take in all the Syrian refugees?

format_quote Originally Posted by cooterhein

I'll keep this really simple. Here is a link from the same arabnews website that you gave me, on roughly the same topic, from two days before that one.

http://www.arabnews.com/columns/news/804116

In one article, it says that KSA (pay attention now) "has hosted" 2.5 million Syrians since the start of the Syrian civil war.

In the other article from the very same source, it says that KSA "is now home to" 500,000 Syrians. They're not refugees, of course, because KSA "doesn't deal with them as refugees."

Can you explain the distinctions that allow for both of those numbers to be accurate to the situation?

The article that you've linked above was published before the one that I have linked.

This one says that KSA is already home to 500,000 Syrians, that means, that many Syrians were already living and working in KSA before the start of the conflict.

The second one which I have linked says that since the start of the conflict, KSA took in 2.5 million Syrians. That means, the total number of Syrians living in KSA would be around 3 million at this time.


According to the report here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/anhvin...b_8175924.html

... a look at Saudi Arabia’s UNHCR page has a few curious footnotes that Western publications are conveniently omitting. The UNHCR counts refugees by noting only those “persons recognized as refugees under the 1951 UN Convention/1967 Protocol, the 1969 OAU Convention, in accordance with the UNHCR Statute, persons granted a complementary form of protection and those granted temporary protection.“ Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, and the UAE are not parties to any of the UN protocols on refugees, and so through this technicality, they, along with most of their refugees, are excluded from many refugee counting mechanisms.

And as if the statement that Saudi Arabia has not taken any refugees were not preposterous enough, with the lack of a “Great Arabian Wall” of sorts, numerous commentators have conveniently overlooked the fact that the noted Gulf States are not included in maps of UNHCR progress reports like this one. One would think that such maps might raise the question, why aren’t any of the Gulf States included in the graphics? And given their exclusion from many UN refugee graphics, one might also ask, is the absence of Syrian refugees in Saudi Arabia really due to an astonishingly secure border? Or just a technicality that pundits have deceitfully misinterpreted?

...

With Saudi Arabia’s non-signatory status, the Syrians residing in Saudi Arabia are classified as “Arab brothers and sisters in distress” instead of refugees covered by UN treaties. According to Nabil Othman, the UNHCR regional representative to the Gulf region, there were 500,000 Syrian refugees in Saudi Arabia at the time of his statement. The government itself of Saudi Arabia has stated that it has, over the past five years since the start of the conflict hosted 2.5 million refugees.

Because the noted treaties establish treatment standards for refugees, some might raise concerns regarding the conditions that Saudi Arabia’s refugees may be living in. However, Al-Arabiya, a news outlet based in the UAE, has noted that “Saudi authorities granted Syrians the right of residency and work, and provided them with education and health services for free.” According to the Saudi government, over 100,000 children are currently receiving education in the country’s schools. Saudi Arabia is not alone in attempts to provide education for the refugees, with Lebanon now providing schooling for another 100,000 child refugees.

Very informative; thank you

The answer is simple; they don't want revolutionary ideas to be spread in their lands, as it would threaten their kingdom.

format_quote Originally Posted by ReckonerH

You're absolutely right, I am indeed making too many assumptions. In my defense though about media coverage, I just figured independent journalists or more reputable/neutral stations would at least contest what's in the mainstream media. I hear RT is pretty reliable for example, is it that not the case anymore? (Serious question, not rhetorical lol)

Rt
is pretty good, give it a watch but it wont give you the entire picture. Its not just the tv media, read online media sources and even the bigger ones which are mainstream western organisations will have the tiniest headline about something positive to do with muslims lol

What rich arab countries you know? If it is rich per capita, it doesn't mean it is rich and can accept all syrians. And if all syrians leave syria who will fight for their future?
By the way most syrians refugees are in Turkey and Jordan, not Europe.

Saudi Arabia props up the Fiat petrodollar the mother of all usury monopoly casinos that serve the wealthy at the expense of the poor , they just made a Pact to wage more war with the USA and Donald Trump, They are a hyper conservative sectarian Kingdom that hides important truths which doesn't emulate the kind of system Mohamed would of wanted as far as my limited understand goes and what little i know about the secular stateless society that was forged with the constitution of Medina.

May be they are not helping because they are just bad Muslims?

It is true that many Gulf countries including Saudi Arabia have taken in many Syrians since the war began, however they have taken these people in mainly via family visas (via a Syrian family member living in a Gulf country) then they would generally convert these into work visas to gain the right to stay and work in a Gulf country.

Below is evidence for the above, from Sky News Arabic debate:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMeg7ze5ZVQ

I have not heard of Saudi Arabia or any other 'rich' Gulf country taking in refugees without some sort of visa, which begs the question what does a Syrian refugee do when they don't fulfill the requirements of a visa...?

If Saudi and other wealthy Muslim Gulf countries cared so much about helping the Syrian people would they not make this process easier for Syrians...?

Why the need for a visa at all for women and children who is fleeing conflict and have no other place to go...?