There are many stable middle eastern countries with a low population density. They could easily take in these refugees. I think it's quite unfair that people in general constantly talk about how the West is turning their backs on refugees without once mentioning how the stable middle-eastern states have failed to resettle a single refugee.
It's sad and it's heartbreaking, I'm with you on that, but it's extremely wrong for people to characterize the world as "turning their backs."
When the US was conscripting men to serve in Vietnam against their will, Canada welcomed them with open arms.
When Germany was divided, West Germany would gladly accept any East German who managed to cross the Iron Curtain.
When war was raging in Bosnia, thousands of people fled to Western Europe and were largely accepted.
IMO, if a county's neighbour were to face issues, I would accept that country to lend a helping hand, and as history as shown us, that's usually what happens. Canada, the EU, and the US cannot be responsible for the entire world's issues. It should be Lebanon and Saudi Arabia and the Persian gulf states that should take in the largest number of refugees, not Germany and France.
It's a sad thing when Israel -- a country that's officially in a state of war with Syria -- has resettled more Syrian refugees than most of the middle-eastern nations combined.
(and resettlement does not mean just letting them in, it means giving them access to basic services, identification papers, and fundamental human rights, which rarely happens in places like Lebanon where asylum seekers are dumped in walled-off camps and forgotten.)
