This is a guest post from Bataween of Point of No Return
It’s easier to condemn Comment is Free for what it does than for its sins of omission. And for a site that focuses disproportionately on Middle Eastern issues, CiF is remarkably coy about the forgotten Jewish refugees from Arab countries.
There were more Jewish refugees fleeing from Arab countries after 1948 than Palestinian Arabs from Israel. There were more of them, they lost more and suffered more.
But only rarely have Jewish refugees been the subject of attention at Comment is Free. Coinciding with a conference in London in June 2008, Matt Seaton allowed Lyn Julius to put the case for Jewish refugees. But he also got David Cesarani, an academic not known for his expertise in this field, bizarrely to argue that Jews who fled Arab countries should not have their suffering compared to ‘the misery of the Palestinians’. Rachel Shabi, the Guardian’s pet Mizrahi, was then wheeled out to deny that Jewish refugees were refugees at all – in fact most were Zionists who left of their own free will – an argument which she contradicts in some of her other writings. It’s a classic CiF strategy: obscure, confuse, and de-construct historical fact.
The denial of what is being increasingly becoming known as the ‘Jewish naqba’ is central to the Guardian’s agenda.
On no account must the ‘de facto’ exchange between roughly equal numbers of Arab and Jewish refugees be permitted to challenge the Palestinians’ exclusive claim to victimhood.
On no account must the successful integration of the majority of Jewish refugees in Israel and elsewhere be mentioned. This would undermine the ‘sacred’ right of return of Palestinian refugees to Israel. It would be disastrous if the reader twigged that Palestinian refugees could just as easily be resettled – if not more easily – in Arab host countries.
On no account must the idea that the Jews in Israel are anything other than ‘white’ interlopers from Europe, engaged in a colonial adventure in Palestine, be challenged. The whole edifice of Guardian groupthink crumbles once you introduce the notion that around half the population of Israeli Jews come from ‘indigenous’ communities in the ‘Arab’ world predating Islam by 1,000 years.
Commenters on CiF fervently believe that Jews only came to Israel from Arab countries as immigrants, or were forced to flee by ’Zionist bombs’. This ‘Zionist conspiracy’ conveniently lets Arab governments off the hook for the state-sanctioned persecution of their Jews.
Some commenters admit that violence and Arab antisemitism did force the Jews out, but that it was an ’excusable backlash’ provoked by Israel’s creation. Before 1948, Jews and Muslims ‘lived in perfect harmony’. The word ‘dhimmi’ – the condition of institutionalised humiliation of 14 centuries of Jewish and Christian life under Islam – is virtually unknown on CiF.
On the rare occasions that Jews from Arab countries feature on Comment is Free, they do so as ‘Arab Jews or Jewish Arabs’ – fellow victims of the ruling Ashkenazim, united in discrimination with the Palestinians. It is Zionism which has driven an artificial wedge between ‘Arab Jews’ and ‘Muslim Arabs’. (See the writings of Khaled Diab here and discussed here and Rachel Shabi here) Yet another reason for CiF to endorse the one-state solution, where the Jews can revert to the idyll of their minority existence in Arab lands.
Jewish refugees are at the heart of the Middle East conflict. Stuck in its one-sided cheerleading for Palestinian refugees, by its ‘Jewish naqba denial’, the Guardian is skewing the ‘narrative’. Surely its readers deserve better?



95 comments
Comments feed for this article
September 8, 2009 at 11:40 pm
CIFDisgustsMe
Yes.
After so many years trying to demonize Israel for actually existing, it must be such a comedown to accept that the ‘victims’ are the guilty ones who expelled their Jewish populations.
The very mention of historical writings tabulating Jewish communities who were the victims of Muslim Pogroms throughout history is also an embarrassment to the denizens of CI(F).
September 9, 2009 at 2:52 am
pennine
On no account must the “Lavon Affair” be mentioned or any other Zionistic terroist antics to foment strife between Arabs and Jews.
September 9, 2009 at 3:15 am
zamalek
Pennine, you are a classic example of a ‘Jewish naqba’ denier. Please tell how incendiary devices planted in offices which did little damage and killed and injured nobody in 1954, could have caused the expulsion of a quarter of the Jewish population of Egypt two years later, their property sequestered and given 24 hours’ notice to leave the country.
September 9, 2009 at 3:24 am
Eliyahu
Bataween rightly characterizes what CIF and other press and broadcasting outlets are doing. They are instilling a “narrative” for long term purposes. Some anti-Israel themes go back to the 1940s, that is, Jews who were Nazi victims have become Nazis, are acting like Nazis.
IN the 60s, new themes emerged. Israel was no longer fighting the whole Arab world, but a hitherto unknown small, innocuous, ever innocent people called “palestinians,” although journalists wrote as if there had already and always been “palestinians.”
Another theme of the 60s was especially promoted by the so-called “Left.” In the soft version, the Jews were said to have made a mistake by setting up their state in the land of a “non-white” people. This insinuated that the Jews were “white,” if not “ultra-white.” We now more commonly run into the hard version of this argument: the Jews are merely European colonialists like all others who deliberately came to “palestine” to despoil the “palestinians”. It doesn’t matter that 100 years ago, bigots in Britain were calling Jews “Orientals” who were not quite white. Jews were commonly seen in Europe as not really European no matter how long their forefathers had been there. In British literature, we see this in Thackeray’s Vanity Fair, for example. Later in the 19th century, there was Trilby by DuMaurier. Here the villain is a swarthy Polish Jew who corrupts a pure white maiden. Note that the villain was a swarthy Polish Jew, not a native of Syria or Egypt or India. DuMaurier was also an illustrator for Punch where cartoons mocking the Sassoon family [originally from Baghdad]
were common, particularly the athletically proficient family member who belonged to the circle of the Prince of Wales. John Buchan’s 39 Steps too identifies the Jew –in this case a German Jew– as the enemy of Britain.
Now, the Jews’ skin color has been magically transformed into a uniform white for all Jews and the Jews who went to Israel from Europe are insinuated to have been real, authentic Europeans all along just like every body else. So What was the Holocaust all about??
The constant factor here is that Jews in Europe were perceived in many countries, including the UK, as alien, not quite belonging to the nation, Orientals, etc. In fact, the Jews did not originate in Europe although Jews lived there for nearly 2 millenia. Now, the locus of the Jews’ alien nature has been transposed to the Middle East, whence they had originated in historical fact, but were now –post 1948– just Europeans like everybody else but worse, more guilty of colonialism.
Also forgotten is that the Arab nationalist movement were eager admirers of the Nazis, for the most part. This included the chief Palestinian Arab leader, Haj Amin el-Husseini who urged the Germans to kill more Jews, and asked Hitler before they met in Berlin to recognize the Arab right to solve the “Jewish Question” in the Arab lands as it was being solved in Europe.
These facts as well as the age-old oppression of Jews in Arab lands as dhimmis, cannot be allowed to intrude into the narrative, which belongs to what someone has called cogwar, that is cognitive warfare, a form of psywar operating over the long term to change attitudes and perceptions and loyalties, etc. The cogwar has superficially reversed old perceptions of Jews as alien to Europe with the new belief that they are alien to the Middle East. But the underlying belief in the Jews’ alien nature remains. This shows the success of the cogwar campaign.
September 9, 2009 at 3:46 am
exiledlondoner
“There were more Jewish refugees fleeing from Arab countries after 1948 than Palestinian Arabs from Israel. There were more of them, they lost more and suffered more.”
What’s this – a suffering contest? Am I the only one who find this to be rather tasteless?
“On no account must the ‘de facto’ exchange between roughly equal numbers of Arab and Jewish refugees be permitted to challenge the Palestinians’ exclusive claim to victimhood.”
There was no de facto population exchange, as there was for example between India and Pakistan, or Greece and Turkey – the vast majority of Jewish refugees were expelled from the Arab States, not from Palestinian lands. What happened was two distinct rounds of ethnic cleansing – of Palestinian Arabs from Israel to the surrounding region, and of Jews from the Arab states to many countries, but mainly to Israel.
The issue with Lyn Julius’s article was her basic proposal that the Jewish refugees should be ‘compensated’, not by the Arab states that through them out, but by the Palestinians, and that this ‘compensation’ should take the form of Palestinian land, and the removal of Palestinian rights, that would benefit Israel.
This self-serving, legally incoherent, and unjust proposal would allow one of the ethnic cleansers (Israel) to further benefit from its actions, the other ethnic cleansers (the Arab states) to escape any responsibility for their actions, and force the Palestinian people to not only bear the brunt of Israel’s ethnic cleansing, but also to pay the price for the ethnic cleansing carried out by the Arab states.
Looking at CIF Watch’s “About us” page..
“We are a grassroots, unaffiliated group that is neither left wing nor right wing, religious nor secular, that is dedicated to exposing antisemitism on ‘Comment is Free’.”
..I can’t help noticing that this piece hardly matches your stated ideals. Any link to CIF is pretty much incidental – this is a clear voicing of a pretty extreme Zionist position; one that many Zionists would find unpalatable.
Is it the policy of CIF Watch to be a platform for those who wish to belittle and delegitimise the Palestinian experience and promote extremist agendas?
September 9, 2009 at 4:46 am
JerusalemMite
Exiled – What’s this – a suffering contest? Am I the only one who find this to be rather tasteless?
That’s nice. I have now identified a trope that will get your knickers in a twist. It’s like when on CI(F) one of the ‘usual suspects’ writes that the Palestinians were forced to leave their homes.
September 9, 2009 at 4:55 am
exiledlondoner
JerusalemMite,
“That’s nice. I have now identified a trope that will get your knickers in a twist. It’s like when on CI(F) one of the ‘usual suspects’ writes that the Palestinians were forced to leave their homes.”
I’m very happy for you, but many Palestinians were indeed forced to leave their homes, so I’m not quite sure what this trope you have identified is?
September 9, 2009 at 5:45 am
Adina
Refugees from Arab countries were forced to flee their homes, and it’s not surprising that Comment is Free plays that down, but if you look at facts – there ARE some Jews remaining in Arab countries – not a lot, but some. Take many Persian Jews, who have lived in Persia/Iran all their lives, and don’t want to leave? We’ve heard all about the “threats” and “intimidation” to the Jewish community there – but the fact remains – many Persian Jews I’ve spoken to are content with their lot in Iran. Articles written about Jews in Iran being constantly terrified are to say the least disingenuous.
It’s a hiding to nothing when we start to compare who suffered most, when we consider that even now indigenous Arabs living in Israel feel they are disadvantaged because of the contemptible behaviour of some settlers who are NOT indigenous to the area. Who can say they do not deserve compensation?
Now… compensation for Jewish refugees. I’m surprised that nobody pays any attention to the doors being opened about this. Has nobody ever thought that if Jews from Arab lands are compensated, the door is open for the Palestinians to start actions to claim compensation from Israel?
It’s about time people looked at the bigger picture. Never mind “interested parties” and organisations outside the frame getting involved, who are “looking after the interests of the dispossessed”. The question we have to ask is can Israel afford to be in the situation where she’s backed into a corner about this? The time has passed where Israel can fudge her way out of things like this by obfuscation – can she really afford another reason for the world to look askance at her?
September 9, 2009 at 5:55 am
sababa
bataween, great post that makes some very important points, though I have to say that I don’t like much the term “Jewish naqba”, and none of the victims who experienced it that I know like it either. After all, the Arab term “naqba” to describe the Palestinian plight in 48 was chosen consciously to parallel the Hebrew Shoah.
exiledlondoner, you may not be aware of it, but the arguments you field here only go to show that you don’t quite know what you’re talking about — and this after being a Cif-I-P veteran going back all the way to Cif’s beginnings, I guess.
As is often said, exiled, 2 wrongs don’t make a right, but your line of argument here conveniently ignores a couple of important facts (and you know, supposedly, those are sacred, eh?), such as:
1) the Palestinians have always, up to this very day, considered themselves an inseperable part of the “great Arab nation” or some such;
2) the Jews were driven out of Arab countries expressly for the cause of the Palestinians/Arabs, with express Arab League support, and the Palestinians were in the Arab League, and no protest of them against this measure is on record
3) you mention legal considerations — yeah, right, you regard yourself as something of an expert in this field, don’t you? Well, if you were, you would know that the relevant UN resolutions talk about “refugees” from the I-P conflict, not about “Palestinian refugees” — and that was for all that is known a conscious choice
4) last but not least, everyone who claims to be for universal human rights and claims concerns for the plight of refugees whoever they may be — even if they are Zionists!!! — should have a bit of a problem with the fact that the UN rushed to establish a special agency to take care of the Palestinian refugees, while the same UN refused to lift a finger when already in spring 1947, Jewish groups protested the laws that were drafted by the Arab League to dispossess and expel Jews from Arab countries. At the time, these events were well covered by the media, e.g. the NYTimes, so it wasn’t unknown — and here goes pennine’s argument up in a big puff of smelly hot air…
September 9, 2009 at 6:12 am
SilverTrees
Adina, if Israel cared what the world thought of her she would have packed her bags and marched into the sea long ago. Look back at Medusa’s article about the Big Lie and its effects on the people who read it again and again and again.
I would prefer to be an Israeli Arab than a Jew in Iran or in the Yemen:
Do you remember the crisis recently involving the tinyYemeni Jewish community, see http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3765891,00.html
and
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3637452,00.html
These Jews did no harm. Their community history stretches back centuries. They merely wanted to be left alone.
I would really like to interview happy and contented Persian Jews. It must be rather a bizarre existence (and call for a certain dissociation by them) for them to hear Iminadinnerjacket mouthing off the official party line in Jew-hatred and yet apparently enjoy remaining where they are.
I am playing “who suffered most.” The example from the Yemen is a mere fractal of Mizrachi Jewish experience and the Jewish experience in Arab states.
And it’s still going on isn’t it?
September 9, 2009 at 6:13 am
SilverTrees
oops! should have written “I am NOT playing who suffered most.”
Apologies…
September 9, 2009 at 6:21 am
SilverTrees
exiled, why are you criticising CiFWatch for allegedly not living up to its stated ideals?
I would take your babble much more seriously had you provided proof here of any conversations you have had with your good friend with whom you are on first name terms – “Georgina” – about the actual disparity between CiF’s stated ideals and its total inability to accept or learn from criticism and allow freedom of speech to those who disagree with it?
Let’s face it you and your ilk are allowed more freedom to express yourself here than you would ever have on CiF. Is that why you keep on posting here and getting the threads hits?
More importantly, when was the last time you posted in such terms to CiF?
Oh, I see. You’re afraid of being deleted or banned.
Well, people are banned for much less, as AKUS’ experience shows.
September 9, 2009 at 6:56 am
Mita
This appeared on the Sultany thread yesterday:
grumpyoldman
08 Sep 09, 7:37pm (about 16 hours ago)
@ graniteman
Oh right, almost all Jews in the Arab countries were driven from their homes decades ago and their property confiscated.
Not true. Many, like my grandparents left because they were in business and settled where their interests were best served. In their case that meant Manchester which was, at the time, a centre for the cotton trade.
In fact it was routine for theSephardim of the former Ottoman Empire to add as a blessing at the end of a briss:
…and may he live in Manchester.
Not, you will note, Jerusalem.
————————————————————
An attempt by someone who had previously mentioned “jihadism among the so-called settlers, and their friends in the IDF.” to pooh-pooh the whole idea.
As JoerganTW pointed out almost immediately the Ottoman Empire and the expulsion were removed in time from each other.
I think it was Blue Warrior (uncertainty due to the deletion system) who pointed out to him that Spharadim don’t talk Yiddish and don’t talk of a briss.
September 9, 2009 at 7:18 am
Adina
SilverTrees, with respect to you, you’re entirely missing the point of my post. It’s all very well for you to say that “if Israel cared…. etc. etc.” but at the end of the day that thinking is outmoded, and I say this as an Israeli who’s lived in England for quite some time, but visits family there often. The Israel I knew no longer exists, and in these globalisation times (which I do not and have never agreed with) every country needs the others. Israel does need the rest of the world. You should look at the bigger picture.
Do I detect doubt in your mind about my statement about Persian Jews? By all means interview a few, not just one or two. Look at this link, as well:
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/archive/index.php/t-448868.html
In the urge to demonise all things Iranian, we have to be careful that, as my English friends say – the “boy scout” syndrome is not in play. This is the one where boy scouts see an old lady at the side of the road and without asking her, take her to the other side. It turns out that she was just resting and didn’t want to go…. I know of many Persian Jews who returned to Iran.
September 9, 2009 at 7:19 am
Mita
Exile, “and force the Palestinian people to not only bear the brunt of Israel’s ethnic cleansing, but also to pay the price for the ethnic cleansing carried out by the Arab states.”
——————————————————
It is just the same shoe on another foot.
That is pretty much the position that most pro-Pals on c.i.f. take towards Israel about the Palestinians isn’t it? (and let me say now that I will write Pals or Pal here not out of disrespect but because it is easier – as long as the owners of the site do not express their disagreement.)
They consider that we forcibly expelled all the Pals who left –
disagree that any might have left for other reasons.
They consider that “the Ashkenazi” Jews did it with brute force and malice aforethought,
and demand both that they receive not only compensation but also a ‘right of return’ to Israel until the third and fourth generation and forever after and they
demand an apology.
September 9, 2009 at 7:46 am
Ariadne
Eliyahu – What a great summary!
September 9, 2009 at 7:57 am
Eliyahu
exiledlondoner seems unaware that the British army facilitated “ethnic cleansing” of Jews by Arabs from Jerusalem [what later became "East Jerusalem" after 1948]. The first refugees in Israel’s War of Independence were Jews, not Arabs. Jews were driven out of the Shimon haTsadiq Quarter around the Tomb of Simon the Just in December 1947. They could not go home after the war. The British army had attacked the Jewish forces, the Haganah, which tried to take the neighborhood back in April 1948. The Haganah retreated under the British onslaught and the Jews of Shim’on haTsadiq could not go home after the war.
Here’s more about the Shim`on haTsadiq Quarter in what became “East Jerusalem” in 1948 after the Jews living there had been expelled.
- – - – - – - – - – - – - -
The Shimon haTsadiq plot of land was purchased jointly back about 1880 by the committees of the Sefardic and Ashkenazic communities in Jerusalem. See link for a photo:
http://ziontruth.blogspot.com/2009/08/old-synagogue-in-shimon-hatsadiq.html
Very small houses for poor Jews were built on the plot, which also contains, of course, the Tomb of Simon the Just [Shimon haTsadiq]. The poor Jews living in those homes were driven out very early in Israel’s War of Independence, in December 1947, although one family hung on for about 10 days more. Hence, these Jews of the Shim`on haTsadiq Quarter were the first people in the country who were driven from their homes [by Arab irregular forces led by the Husseinis] and could not go home after the war, whereas Jews in south Tel Aviv, driven out by Arab sniper fire from mosque minarets in Jaffa/Yafo, could go home after the war.
Now, not all of the plot was built up. The house from which Arabs were evicted a month or so ago was built by Arabs with Jordanian govt authorization about 1955-56 along with other houses still inhabited by Arabs. The older homes on the plot, originally inhabited by Jews, were also given to Arabs to live in by the Jordanian govt.
According to some Israeli press reports [in the JPost? by Dan Izenberg?], some children of the family had bought houses elsewhere in the city and have been living in them.
The real scandal here is that the Jews living here, in Shim`on haTsadiq, were the first people in the country driven out of their homes in the war who could not go home after the war. And nobody talks about it, not the British who facilitated the expulsion of the Jews from Shim`on haTsadiq, not the State Dept or the White House who are blatantly hostile to Jews and cling to their lies about Jewish and Israeli history, not the Arabs of course, nor the Israel govt, nor the so-called “new historians” who claim to bring out forgotten truths.
The text above and below was originally posted as comments on the Point of No Return site 12:26 PM, September 09, 2009
This post linked to below has more on the Shim`on haTsadiq Quarter and the adjacent Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood. Plus two photos.
http://ziontruth.blogspot.com/2009/08/semi-official-german-spokesman-wants-to.html
However, the focus is on a German semi-official institution located in the adjacent Sheikh Jarrah Quarter, first built up by wealthy Arabs.
September 9, 2009 at 8:00 am
Eliyahu
Thanks, Ariadne
Sababa made several points that I wanted to make but he or she got there first. All kudos [kol hakavod] to Sababa
September 9, 2009 at 8:17 am
Ariadne
Eliyahu – That is exactly the kind of information that needs to be got out. I hope some very rich people interested in justice will consider establishing a global satellite television channel for Israel as a poster to the Elder of Ziyon blog suggested.
September 9, 2009 at 8:46 am
AKUS
It is easy to avoid any comparison on CIF between the “Jewish naqba” and the “Palestinian naqba” for the simple reason that Israel has integrated the Jewish refugees from Arab countries into its society,as it did with the European refugees after WW II, then the Russians, etc. You can argue over the degree of success in each ethnic group, but the bottom line is that there are no refugee camps for Jews from Arab countries in Israel.
Moreover, it is also true of those Arabs who stayed in Israel after 1948. There are no refugee camps for Arabs in Israel
You can argue discrimination, etc., as you could for groups in any country I can think of, but you cannot dispute the fact that as a group Israeli Arabs have comparable services, economic opportunities, equality before the law, etc. This despite articles on CIF like the ludicrous Sultany article now running there which claims that an Arab with the same last name ( a coy co-incidence!) is discriminated against, but the bottom line is that this Arab Israeli (“political activist of the National Democratic Assembly (NDA), a party that calls for the transformation of Israel from a Jewish state into a state for all its citizens” – as if he is not a citizen!!) who traveled to anti-Israeli conferences in Arab countries was a member of the very same gym that the Israeli Chief of Staff uses!
In the contrary, the Arab refugees who left Israel in 1948 were deliberately maintained in refugee camps (actually, now townships) by the countries around Israel, a task made easier by the existence of UNRWA.
UNRWA took the economic burden off the shoulders of the surrounding countries. This allowed those countries to institutionalize the Palestinians’ refugee status. You might argue, as no doubt they do, that they should not have to bear the economic burden, but there are two opposing arguments: their own economies would have benefited from the additional labor and other resources this group could have created if they had been absorbed into their societies, just as Israel did with the Jewish refugees, and, if we are playing the Jewish naqba vs Palestinian naqba game, by the same token Israel should not have had to bear the burden of integrating the Mizrahi Jews into its economy.
As can be seen over and over, be it the current expulsions from Kuwait or the removal of Jordanian citizenship from Palestinians living for decades in Jordan, the maintenance of segregated townships in Lebanon, the refusal to grant work permits or study permits to Palestinians living in Lebanon,the surrounding Arab countries no more want their Palestinian brothers than Israel does. And, in fact, in most cases they have been treated far worse in those countries, kept at the level of refugees, migrant workers, little better than serfs.
UNRWA’s economic assistance was accepted and acceptable as long as it was directed at maintaining the Palestinians’ refugee status rather than moving them into the mainstream of the surrounding countries. Without that assistance, or had they accepted the assistance as part of a program of absorption of the refugees, the surrounding countries would have been forced at some point to accept that they had to integrate those Palestinians into their societies and economies, and this issue would no longer exist. India and Pakistan provide an example of how far greater numbers of refugees were integrated into their societies.
The debate on CIF never accounts for this, and those condemning Israel for its treatment of Palestinians never have the same level of opprobrium for their treatment in surrounding countries.
Deliberately kept as a festering sore for propaganda purposes the Palestinian refugee problem has been, in a horrible way, one of the great PR successes of the 20th and now 21st centuries. Its proponents succeed in dwarfing the far greater horrors and numbers of sufferers in events in Rwanda, Darfur, Sri Lanka, and the situation was and is entirely avoidable.
Even more ironic is that until the intifadas life for Palestinian refugees in areas under Israeli occupation was actually been BETTER than life in refugee townships in the countries around Israel by measures such as economic advances, education, healthcare etc. The most destructive actors the Palestinians have suffered from are, in fact, their own leaders – Arafat. Meshaal, Haniyah – who led them down a path of violence that could have no other outcome than what amounts to war with the most powerful army in the near ME, with totally predictable results.
The supporters of Palestinians on CIF seem to have the ability at one and the same time to mourn the role of Palestinians as helpless victims, mere spectators in their own tragedy, and fiercely approvel of their “armed struggle” as the only way forward. This was exemplified by the negative responses by many of those who cast themselves as supporters of Palestinian statehood on CIF to the article promoting institution building as the way to statehood by Ziad Assali, “If you Build it the State will Come” – because without such institutions, the current situation will be – well, institutionalized, even longer.
September 9, 2009 at 9:08 am
blue
Report: UAE to deport hundreds of Palestinians by month’s end : http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1112445.html
September 9, 2009 at 9:31 am
Observer
Adina
Articles written about Jews in Iran being constantly terrified are to say the least disingenuous.
Articles written about Jews in Iran being constantly terrified are completely accurate.
They don’t leave because:
- the Iranian autrhorities will not give exit visas to an entire family
- they must leave impoverished
- from the moment they apply for exit, they lose jobs & sustenance & may be subject to violence.
Simply put, Iran is holding the remaining 20,000 Jews hostage.
September 9, 2009 at 9:36 am
SilverTrees
Adina, I don’t at all doubt your statement about Persian Jews! Indeed I have heard the same from other people, including my family in Israel. I stand by what I said, however, in relation to this, about the likely necessity for dissociation (and to that I would add “denial”) in order to be able to stay (and, one assumes, to feel safe) in a country ruled by a regime whose leader spouts such hatred of Jews. I also meant what I said that I would like to interview some of these people, to get to know their experience first hand. This is not dismissing of what you yourself or my family have said!
And, yes, Israel needs the world. However does she need the world’s approval – because given the filth on CiF and elsewhere, she’s never going to get it, is she?
Have you read “The Olso Syndrome: Delusions of a people under siege”by Kenneth Levin? It documents Israel’s too-ready belief in the Oslo peace process because she was desperate for peace and therefore blind then to the threats to it by Arafat’s lies. Among other things it also addresses what it calls Israel’s awakening because of the terror war and its subsequent disappointment that its hopes had been dashed. This is summed up by Levin quoting Israeli journalist and commentator, Hirsh Goodman:
“I supported Oslo. I supported talking with Arafat. The greatest disappointment was to discover that despite everything I believed, everything I’ve promulgated, that asshole never gave up terror.
Think of the ramifications of Oslo for future peace talks.
AKUS, you hit the nail on the head when you describe the wilful subjection of Palestinians in neighbouring countries to hardship and distress there, and the deliberate fostering of a culture of belligerent self-pity.
It’s the equivalent of bread and circuses in ancient Rome, isn’t it, a device to distract the populace from the corruption and grave shortcomings of their governments.
September 9, 2009 at 9:40 am
SilverTrees
I seem to have lost my manners. Bataween, this is an excellent article. More power to you!
September 9, 2009 at 9:45 am
blue
@Observer, Adina is correct that Persian-Jews do travel to and from Israel and have been doing so for a good while (even during Khomeini’s rule)
@Adina – small point (ish) Parsim are distinct from Jews from Arab lands, though there is an historic link between Jews of Persia and Mesopotamia.
Some great posts here, informative and measure. cif’s loss is this and other site gain, I think. Try to look back later, some of these guys (above) are compulsive reading.
Have a good day/ evening, everyone.
September 9, 2009 at 9:49 am
Observer
Akus
This was exemplified by the negative responses by many of those who cast themselves as supporters of Palestinian statehood on CIF to the article promoting institution building as the way to statehood by Ziad Assali, “If you Build it the State will Come” – because without such institutions, the current situation will be – well, institutionalized, even longer.
Indeed, CiF seems to derive vicarious pleasure from Palestinian suffering, at least in part because of the excuse it gives Guardianistas to vent their Jew-hatred.
September 9, 2009 at 9:54 am
bataween
Just to clarify a few points:
Sababa is not comfortable with the term ‘Jewish naqba’ – I don’t like it either, but it seems to be gaining currency, in the absence of a suitable alternative. Can you think of a better expression?
Exiled makes the point that there should be no contest of suffering between Palestinians and Jews. I did not intend to minimise the suffering of Palestinians who were displaced, expelled and lost their homes. But Jews who were hundreds of miles from the battlezone in Arab countries were singled out for oppression and persecution in 1947, as Sababa says, even before war broke out in Palestine, just because they were Jews.
Without mentioning the pogroms and centuries of history as oppressed dhimmis, Jews in Arab countries were subject to civil and human rights violations, culminating in arrests, executions, travel bans, extortion, frozen bank accounts, loss of jobs, education bans, as well as loss of their homes and property and expulsion – just for being Jews. These are the ugly features leading to genuine ethnic cleansing.
Palestinians suffered by virtue of being caught up in a war. No Palestinian was ever singled out by Israel for persecution just for being Palestinian. They were not ethnically cleansed: hence one million Arabs live in Israel today. Barely 4,500 Jews live in Arab countries (1 percent), and as commenters have pointed out, the oppression is still going on – witness the flight of Jews from Yemen.
As far as I can see Lyn Julius in her CiF article never mentioned compensation, nor that Palestinians should pay the price for what other Arab states did to their Jews. As Sababa eloquently says, the Arab League went to war at the behest of and on behalf of the Palestinians – theirs was a pan-Arab cause. At the same time the Arab regimes waged a domestic war on their Jews, but the best these defenceless Jews could do was run for their lives, if that option was available to them. Otherwise the regimes kept them as hostages.
The Arab League bears a heavy responsiblity for not only invading Israel in 1948 but keeping the conflict alive. It was the Arab League which decreed in the 1950s that Palestinians should not be granted citizenship in Arab states (except in Jordan, and now even Jordan is stripping them of their citizenship). Palestinians would be entirely justified in holding the Arab League responsible for much of their suffering.
People have suggested that in a final settlement Jewish losses in Arab countries and Palestinian losses in Israel should cancel each other out, but this would be doing a great injustice to the Jews who being city-dwellers lost prime property in Arab countries and deeded land estimated at four or five times the size of Israel itself.
Adina, my piece was not meant to refer to Jews from Iran who were not included in the post-1948 exchange of refugees with the Arab world. However Iran has lost four-fifths of their Jews since 1979 and it is false to pretend that their situation is anything but precarious.
September 9, 2009 at 9:58 am
Observer
Blue
Observer, Adina is correct that Persian-Jews do travel to and from Israel and have been doing so for a good while (even during Khomeini’s rule)
You make an error in lack of understanding of the methods of authoritarian regimes.
It is illegal for Persian Jews to have contact with Israel. It is, however, to the regime’s advantage to “look the other way,” since Jews who do so have then given the regime a quite terrible sword of Damocles to hold over Jews’ head forever thereafter, to enforce dhimmitude.
Any Jew having had contact with Israel or Israeli-resident relatives knows that he must remain docile and subjugated, otherwise at any moment he may be arrested for treason, collaboration with Zionists, etc. And we know what would happen to him in an Iranian prison.
Meanwhile, those who visit Israel and consider staying, risk the well-being of their families back in Iran.
I re-assert that Adina is a revisionist. The remaining Iranian Jews are hostages.
September 9, 2009 at 9:59 am
bataween
Silvertrees, thanks for the compliment!
September 9, 2009 at 10:00 am
SilverTrees
Observer that’s quite an accusation. Can you provide us with some disinterested sources to prove what you are arguing?
September 9, 2009 at 10:01 am
Observer
Adina
I know of many Persian Jews who returned to Iran.
An anecdote used to imply a lie. The numbers speak for themselves. Of a millennia-old Iranian Jewish community of 150,000, barely 15% remain.
September 9, 2009 at 10:11 am
Observer
A more accurate view of the precarious, subordinate existence of Iran’s Jewish hostages, than the lies given by Adina:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=12362
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/12/11/eveningnews/main2248331.shtml
http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/012445.php
http://www.israelforum.com/board/showthread.php?p=307068
http://www.andrewbostom.org/blog/2008/07/20/shi%E2%80%99ite-iran%E2%80%99s-genocidal-jew-hatred-part-1/
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1634857/posts
September 9, 2009 at 10:15 am
Observer
More about the Jews of Iran, who are victims of hate and discrimination in every activity. To obtain any position of responsibility, they must pass review by a Muslim morals board and do not pass.
They don’t leave because they are unwilling to leave a family member behind to die. Occasionally a whole family escapes over neighbouring borders. Innocent Jews have been executed in the past so all now know to keep their mouths shut & they can be executed at any time.
http://jewishrefugees.blogspot.com/2008/10/and-now-truth-about-jews-of-iran.html
http://www.adl.org/backgrounders/Iranian_Jews.asp
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/breaking/oldiran.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,318248,00.html
September 9, 2009 at 10:33 am
JerusalemMite
Observer. Thank you for posting those links.
I suspect that if you had done so on a CI(F) thread, the comment would have been removed as it was not in line with ‘The Guardian World View’.
I always used to laugh sullenly at any videos or speeches of the one Jewish member of the Majliss. He would condemn Israel is no uncertain terms. Repeatedly.
Then I remember Arab members of Israel’s Knesset and how they too condemn Israel is no uncertain terms. Repeatedly.
The contrast is sad and missed by the denizens of CI(F). Probably purposely.
September 9, 2009 at 10:34 am
Observer
Bataween’s own blog documents well the precarious situation of Iranian Jews, here:
http://jewishrefugees.blogspot.com/search/label/Jews%20of%20Iran
One citation, from a letter to the New York Times:
The State Department — which does not embrace the hawks’ position on Iran — in its “International Religious Freedom Report 2008” found that Iran’s Jews live in a “threatening atmosphere” and that religious minorities suffer “officially sanctioned discrimination, particularly in the areas of employment, education, and housing.”
Threatening atmosphere, eh, Adina? Enough naive whitewashing of a brutal regime and its 20,000 Jewish hostages.
What will happen to them if Israel attacks Iran?
September 9, 2009 at 10:44 am
SilverTrees
Observer, thank for the links.
September 9, 2009 at 10:49 am
Observer
So long as we’re publishing anecdotes, here’s one: Many Iranian Jews admit privately they lock themselves in their homes during Ashura, due to the significant potential for violence.
Isn’t life wondeful for Iranian Jews?
September 9, 2009 at 10:52 am
Adina
Observer – I am wondering if this is a waste of time replying to you – judging by the rush of links you have sent.
For example, the ADL link you sent , unlike the American Abe Foxman, I am an Israeli. He supports things what he thinks is a pro-Israel agenda. He often confuses his position in a supposedly American civil rights movement with supporting what he “thinks” is a pro Israeli line, but having looked at the links you sent and what you’re saying, you’re a propagandist yourself. I know Iranian Jews who moved to Israel, and who deny outright the things that you and Abe Foxman, for example, have to say.
Something else that you and Abe Foxman have in common, is that anybody who doesn’t agree with what you say is either ignored or smeared.
Your posts are full of hyperbole – for example any Iranian Jew who denies what you say is suffering from some sort of syndrome or they’re crazy, or an Israeli like me who comes forward to counter this sort of rubbish is called a liar.
It’s your kind of attitude which will put a lot of people off engaging, and this is what our enemies accuse us of – anybody who steps out of a certain party line is attacked in this way.
September 9, 2009 at 11:20 am
exiledlondoner
Bataween,
“Sababa is not comfortable with the term ‘Jewish naqba’ – I don’t like it either, but it seems to be gaining currency, in the absence of a suitable alternative. Can you think of a better expression?”
Something in Hebrew?
“Exiled makes the point that there should be no contest of suffering between Palestinians and Jews. I did not intend to minimise the suffering of Palestinians who were displaced, expelled and lost their homes.”
So what’s “There were more of them, they lost more and suffered more” all about?
“But Jews who were hundreds of miles from the battlezone in Arab countries were singled out for oppression and persecution in 1947, as Sababa says, even before war broke out in Palestine, just because they were Jews.”
Nobody should be denying that.
“Palestinians suffered by virtue of being caught up in a war. No Palestinian was ever singled out by Israel for persecution just for being Palestinian.”
Singled out by Israel? Does that include the massacres and evictions carried out by Zionist groups?
“They were not ethnically cleansed: hence one million Arabs live in Israel today.”
Ah the “it isn’t ethnic cleansing if it isn’t complete” argument. The Arab population of Israel would be around 4 million, if it hadn’t been for a deliberate policy of ethnic cleansing.
“As far as I can see Lyn Julius in her CiF article never mentioned compensation, nor that Palestinians should pay the price for what other Arab states did to their Jews.”
Yes she did – she wanted the experiences of Jews driven out of the Arab states, and compensation for them, to form part of any negotiations with the Palestinians, and to be reflected in the final settlement.
“As Sababa eloquently says, the Arab League went to war at the behest of and on behalf of the Palestinians – theirs was a pan-Arab cause.”
The EUMC working definition suggests that one example of anti-semitism is the holding of all Jews responsible for the actions of groups of Jews, or of Israel – it seems that is acceptable to do that for Arabs though….
“People have suggested that in a final settlement Jewish losses in Arab countries and Palestinian losses in Israel should cancel each other out, but this would be doing a great injustice to the Jews who being city-dwellers lost prime property in Arab countries and deeded land estimated at four or five times the size of Israel itself.”
Self-pitying bollocks. The Palestinians have been left subjugated and stateless for 60 years. There’s a valid debate to be had about how to apportion the blame for this between those who drove them out, and the Arab states who used them as a pawn in their own game, but to claim that somehow the loss of property dwarfs the Palestinian experience is nothing more than a juvenile attempt to belittle an entire people.
Your entire aim is to demean, delegitimise and demonise the Palestinian people – if CIF Watch were serious about combatting racism, you would never have been allowed to write for them. The fact that you are a contributor rather suggests that CIF Watch is just another website for racial supremecists.
September 9, 2009 at 11:23 am
exiledlondoner
Adina,
“Something else that you and Abe Foxman have in common, is that anybody who doesn’t agree with what you say is either ignored or smeared.”
You’ve noticed that as well?
“It’s your kind of attitude which will put a lot of people off engaging, and this is what our enemies accuse us of – anybody who steps out of a certain party line is attacked in this way.”
Got it in one. Good luck with your attempt to take an independent view, but I can assure you that it won’t be appreciated.
September 9, 2009 at 11:31 am
blue
@Observer: “You make an error in lack of understanding of the methods of authoritarian regimes.”
Well, I will have to humbly disagree with you, I believe there is no error in either my understanding of authoritarianism, naturally, you have every right to disagree with me. My response will be brief, not through lack of respect to you but because of time constraint on my part.
Observer: ” Any Jew having had contact with Israel or Israeli-resident relatives knows that he must remain docile and subjugated, otherwise at any moment he may be arrested for treason, collaboration with Zionists, etc. And we know what would happen to him in an Iranian prison.”
This is not true, however much you want it to be.
Exclusive: Immigrant moves back ‘home’ to Teheran
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1131043721479&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull
I know of many Parsim who have happily settled in Israel and other countries, but some do, return. And they are allowed to do so.
So we don’t go too far off topic, WRT Mesopotamia and the warped narrative regarding Jews who had to flee for their lives, i.e. Iraq: The Sunni have never tolerated minorities particularly well, i.e. Jews, Kurds, Christians, Alawite, Shi’ite, etc…(research Fritz Grobba and Haj Amin el-Husseini / el-Husseini in Iraq and Rashid Ali and 1941 coup – Also see, el-Husseini’s Fatwa against the British – el-Husseini aided by the Japanese, then the Italians, so forth – apologies that i lack teh time to offer suitable links ) I think before we exchanged posts re: why the British/Russians invaded Persia which was also pro German at the time.
Back to Iraqi pogroms and the central topic — the Farhud instigated the terrible murders of Jews on Shavuot 1941 where they butchered 135 men, women (some pregnant) and their children. After this, the Jews got out – about 284/285,000 (from memory, so you should check the numbers to be precise)
In my opinion, it is precisely because the experience of Oriental Jews has not been taught in conjunction with the Shoah and the experience of European Jews who survived, that there is a huge hole in the entire account of that time, and why the Arabs world in particular has been able to politicise the Palestinian narrative in isolation to the wider issues at that time, and indeed, to this day.
September 9, 2009 at 11:38 am
Mita
If I were an Iranian Jew I would say life was wonderful there too. Poor things.
September 9, 2009 at 12:10 pm
blue
P.S.
@Adina, you are Israeli ?? Regardless of what exiled writes!!
Ani maricha et ma shekatavt ve’et hazchut shelach ledaber bechofshiut. Zeh lama shafachnu dam venilchamnu keday lehisha’er chofshi. Ein li efsharut lichtov lach mamash be’ivrit ke’et – ani lo babayit. Ani maricha et ma shekatavt ve’et hazchut shelach ledaber bechofshiut. Zeh lama shafachnu dam venilchamnu keday lehisha’er chofshi.
@CifWatch, I trust a little Hebrew is allowed here (I wont make a habit of it – promise) I accept this is an English language site.
September 9, 2009 at 12:18 pm
Adina
Blue – todah, ve’ani maskima itach. Perhaps you should translate what you wrote to me?
September 9, 2009 at 12:19 pm
Adina
Blue many Arabs read Hebrew but have problems with transliteration. Are you checking me out?
September 9, 2009 at 12:27 pm
SilverTrees
“…. Your entire aim is to demean, delegitimise and demonise the Palestinian people..”
Er.. no exiled.
You are confusing this site with CiF’s attitude to Israelis and Jews, and I believe you are construing in that way because Palestinian suffering is far more important to you than that of Jews, and yet you have the nerve to call CiFWatch posters racists!
I will take your babblings seriously, rather than treat them as mouthings off for the sake of making a noise, when you summon up what’s left of your pathetic little courage and challenge your friend “Georgina” about CiF’s racist attitude to Israel and its Jewish population.
Until then you continue to make yourself look more and more foolish as well as providing more and more hits to this blog and making CiFWatch look more and more civilised. Editors, you should be thanking exiled for his help in getting you established.
September 9, 2009 at 12:28 pm
blue
כן לא יכול להיות זהיר מדי בימים אלה
September 9, 2009 at 12:29 pm
Adina
Behechlet!
September 9, 2009 at 12:35 pm
blue
@Adina. No offence intended, sabra, we can both put our “prickles” away, now. Shalom.
September 9, 2009 at 12:49 pm
SilverTrees
Adina, your reply to Observer is intriguing. I am wondering what disconcerts you about the links he has sent which underline his disagreement with you that life is a bowl of cherries for Iranian Jews?
I am also wondering why you misconstrued my perfectly honest and without agenda wish to be able to talk with Iranian Jews (to find out for myself whether they are indeed as content as we are led to believe) as an indication that I didn’t believe you, and that you ask whether Blue is trying to check you out. What makes you so nervous?
September 9, 2009 at 12:53 pm
JerusalemMite
Exiled – Self-pitying bollocks. The Palestinians have been left subjugated and stateless for 60 years.
Actually for an infinity of years since there has never been a Palestinian state as such. Ever. The Palestinians only started to want a state in 1964 with Arafat’s forming of the PLO. And anyway, they now have a state in Jordan. It may not be the one that they want, (they want Israel), but it is still a state with a 70% Palestinian population.
And great land reserves.
September 9, 2009 at 12:56 pm
Adina
SilverTrees I’m not disconcerted at all about the links Observer sent, it cannot be said that they’re neutral – that is all.
By all means find out for yourself, and I’d like to know what you find. My view is that Jews should be allowed to live wherever they like in the world. Human nature is such that not everybody can be happy everywhere, wouldn’t you agree? We know that Iranian Jews who did not like life in Israel preferred to go home.
My conversation with Blue was just an innocent one – I have no reason to be nervous of Blue or anybody.
September 9, 2009 at 1:03 pm
bataween
Exiled:
This is what Lyn Julius actually wrote:
“The (US congress)resolution is about recognition, not restitution, although Jewish losses have been quantified at twice Palestinian losses. Such resolutions could lead to a peace settlement by recognising that there were victims on both sides. Thus justice for Jews is not just a moral imperative, but the key to reconciliation.”
What you are doing is belittling the Jewish experience,which was true ethnic cleansing, and saying that they are not entitled to demand compensation in a final settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict (which would deliver compensation to the Palestinians).
There is one way to describe you, Exiled: a ‘Jewish naqba’ denier.
September 9, 2009 at 1:42 pm
Mita
Exile:The Palestinians have been left subjugated and stateless for 60 years.
———————————————————–
When Partition was refused for the Palestinian Arabs by the Arab League and then an attempt at declaring a Pal state was killed by Egypt the Arab countries had an obligation to take in the homeless and make them citizens as Israel did for the homeless Jews. That they did not do this immediately sixty years ago should be suspicious to the most benevolent mind.
That from 1948 to 1967 no further attempt was made to form a Pal state should be viewed with some suspicion considering the claims and outcry we have now.
September 9, 2009 at 2:01 pm
SilverTrees
Adina, I agree with you for the most part, but you will agree I am sure that there’s a massive difference between not being happy and being fearful for one’s safety.
Perhaps CiFWatch would let me write a guest post if I do get to interview some Iranian Jews about their life in Iran
September 9, 2009 at 2:20 pm
TastySabra
Blue, you did not address Observer’s point, but rather buttressed Adina’s anecdotes. Anecdotes are not evidence.
The question is not whether yoredim exist. (Although, it is indicative that a single returnee to Iran merited an artcle in the JP.) The question, instead, is exactly how much freedom Iranian Jews do or do not have and how secure they are or are not. And it is clear you understand little about persecution and dhimmitude.
Adina attempts to substitute anecdote for fact. Exactly how many Jews emigrated from Iran? And exactly how many returned? I challenge Adina to present numbers and facts rather than unverifiable anecdote.
SilverTrees, somewhere on the net is a Western interview with the head of the Iranian Jewish community. Unaware that the sound recording is on, the community leader is heard to tell an assistant to bar a particular community member from the taping, since she “might say something which would get us in trouble.”
September 9, 2009 at 2:27 pm
TastySabra
Even the anecdotes presented by Blue/Adina contradict themselves. For example, in Blue’s JP article:
Moussa (also not his real name)
Why can’t he give his real name? Oh, right, he has family living or travelling in Iran.
“I’m scared,” said Moussa.
Why is he scared? Oh, right, Jewish life in Iran is so stable and safe, isn’t it? One official changes, and Iranian Jews are “scared.” Marvelous.
September 9, 2009 at 2:29 pm
exiledlondoner
Bataween,
“This is what Lyn Julius actually wrote:”
Yes, but that’s not all she wrote, is it? She also wrote…
“Moreover, a major hurdle to peace could be removed if the Palestinian “right of return” were counterbalanced by the Jewish right not to return to Arab tyrannies, recognising a de facto population exchange of roughly equal numbers.”
So I was right – Lyn Julius is promoting the removal of Palestinian rights to ‘counterbalance’ the actions of the Arab states.
“What you are doing is belittling the Jewish experience,which was true ethnic cleansing, and saying that they are not entitled to demand compensation in a final settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict (which would deliver compensation to the Palestinians).”
Maybe you should read the whole thread? Rather than go over my views on the subject, they’re all there. See if you can find any example of my belittling of the Jewish experience, or saying they’re not entitled to demand compensation?
I’ll give you a clue – CIF Watch contributor and my old sparring partner AKUS wrote “exiledlondoner. Not often i agree with you, but this time – yes.”
“There is one way to describe you, Exiled: a ‘Jewish naqba’ denier.”
Except if anyone reads the Lyn Julius thread, they’ll see I’m nothing of the kind. One of the problems with extremists is that they believe that anyone who doesn’t agree with them is an extremist of the opposite persuasion.
Have a nice evening.
September 9, 2009 at 2:32 pm
Adam Stone
This needed to be said. Jewish refugees never had an UNRWA, did they?
September 9, 2009 at 2:43 pm
blue
TastySabra: “Blue, you did not address Observer’s point, but rather buttressed Adina’s anecdotes. Anecdotes are not evidence.”
Yes, I did, @Observer – here and on cif! And I haven’t “buttressed” Adina’s anything, lets leave the conspiracies to the wingnuts over at cif, shall we.
Look, if we stick to the facts, neither dressing them better nor worse than they actually are, we stay on solid ground. This is important, more now than ever. Let Adina and everyone else have their say, for sure, dis/agree as you see fit. But respect the right to hold an opinion even if you cannot respect the actual opinion in question., this is the difference between Israel (The Jewish State) and her neighbours – you don’t go to prison nor find out if you can fly (when thrown off a roof!) on the basis of an opinion – OK.
September 9, 2009 at 2:43 pm
JerusalemMite
No they didn’t. The ‘dreadful Zionists’ took responsibility for them.
September 9, 2009 at 2:56 pm
TastySabra
Blue
Yes, I did, @Observer – here and on cif!
What are you talking about, “on cif”? I’ve not posted on CiF, and I haven’t noticed Observer there, either, so your comment is very strange.
Are you being paid by CiF?
September 9, 2009 at 3:43 pm
zamalek
Exiled you quoted,
“Moreover, a major hurdle to peace could be removed if the Palestinian “right of return” were counterbalanced by the Jewish right not to return to Arab tyrannies, recognising a de facto population exchange of roughly equal numbers.” So I was right – Lyn Julius is promoting the removal of Palestinian rights to ‘counterbalance’ the actions of the Arab states.”
Funny how in other exchanges between India/Pakistan and Greece/Turkey no refugees asked for their ‘right of return’.
Tell you what, Exiled, for every Jew who wants to return to an Arab country, let one Palestinian return to Israel. Fair’s fair!
September 9, 2009 at 4:06 pm
SilverTrees
TastySabra (not his real name)..
What’s with the lunatic “Blue/Adina” rubbish
It’s obvious to anyone with a grain of sense that they are not one and the same.
Go and read a history book or something
September 9, 2009 at 4:17 pm
TastySabra
they are not one and the same.
I didn’t say they were. But they are arguing the same anecdotes (which they then mislabel “facts”) and the same revisionist line.
Go and read a history book or something
Yes, they (and you) should, before spouting the same “Jews are soooo happy under Muslims” nonsense.
How many Jewish cabinet members are there in Iran? None. They’re not even allowed to head their own schools – Jewish schools cannot teach in Hebrew and must be headed by a Muslim.
How many Iranian Jews are free to state their support for Israel? None, if they wish to survive.
Blue/Adina have diplomas from the same school of dhimmitude.
September 9, 2009 at 4:42 pm
exiledlondoner
Zamalak,
“Funny how in other exchanges between India/Pakistan and Greece/Turkey no refugees asked for their ‘right of return’.”
But there was little population exchange (a nasty phrase that normally precedes support for ethnic cleansing to be somehow accepted) between Israel and Palestine – over 90% of the Jewish refugees were victims of third country’s actions.
“Tell you what, Exiled, for every Jew who wants to return to an Arab country, let one Palestinian return to Israel. Fair’s fair!”
Why’s that fair? I might as well say that for every Palestinian who wants to return to Israel, one Jew can return to an Arab state….
September 9, 2009 at 4:49 pm
exiledlondoner
TastySabra,
“Blue/Adina have diplomas from the same school of dhimmitude.”
“Are you being paid by CiF?”
Really plumming the depths here, aren’t you?
I find it quite reassuring that there are Zionists who you have such contempt for – it reminds me that your position is not the norm.
September 9, 2009 at 4:51 pm
TastySabra
Exiled
between Israel and Palestine – over 90% of the Jewish refugees were victims of third country’s actions
Same old, same old. “Arab misdeeds aren’t the fault of the Palestinians.”
Sorry, it won’t wash. Palestinians would do well to sign and implement a permanent peace before the “third-party” Israeli Mizrahim decide to complete the population exchange.
September 9, 2009 at 5:14 pm
TastySabra
Exiled
I find it quite reassuring that there are Zionists who you have such contempt for – it reminds me that your position is not the norm.
The two in question have given little indication that they are Zionists. You’ve just admitted you use “Jew” and “Zionist” interchangeably.
I doubt you know enough of either to have the least idea what is the norm. All you seem to do is practice debating.
September 9, 2009 at 5:41 pm
exiledlondoner
TastySabra,
“The two in question have given little indication that they are Zionists. You’ve just admitted you use “Jew” and “Zionist” interchangeably.”
That’s weird because I don’t actually know that both are Jewish – I guess Adina probably is, as she speaks Hebrew, but all I know about Blue is that she (?) is American.
Maybe you ought to read their other posts on the site? Both seem to be here in a broadly supportive capacity, so I assume that both are Zionists in the general meaning of the word.
However, what both have done is exercised their rights to form their own opinions on various issues – something which seems to have angered you greatly, and inspired you to unleash some of your favourite playground taunts.
Like the leader of a fundementalist religious sect, you will continually purge anyone who shows any sign of independent thought, until one day you will find yourself talking to the only person who shares every one of your hatreds, obsessions and delusions – yourself.
September 9, 2009 at 5:59 pm
blue
@exiled and @Tasty – I am a Jew, a Zionist, am not an American citizen…..sorry, carry on….
September 9, 2009 at 6:26 pm
1peter
Adina
Refugees from Arab countries were forced to flee their homes, and it’s not surprising that Comment is Free plays that down, but if you look at facts – there ARE some Jews remaining in Arab countries – not a lot, but some. Take many Persian Jews, who have lived in Persia/Iran all their lives, and don’t want to leave? We’ve heard all about the “threats” and “intimidation” to the Jewish community there – but the fact remains – many Persian Jews I’ve spoken to are content with their lot in Iran. Articles written about Jews in Iran being constantly terrified are to say the least disingenuous.
——————————————————————————————
Yes there are about 20,000 Jews living in Iran today, how many Jews were there in 1948?
150,000
The numbers speak for themselves.
There are always going to be some Jews who prefer assimilation and/or taking lower position to the risk of leaving to a fresh start, but to use the minimal remaining community as an example of “things are ok” is disingenuous.
Those 150,000 Jews in Iran should be how many today…..450,000 given the birth rate of the country.
How many Jews live in the Arab world? a handful.
September 9, 2009 at 7:06 pm
1peter
Excuse me if this is too long, but it is a “short version” of information that can be found on a 74 pg pdf file.
I’ll leave it to you to leave it on or delete.
=================================
The double Nakba
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1214726165071&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
Jun. 30, 2008
Irwin Cotler , THE JERUSALEM POST
I recently addressed an annual meeting of Quebec lawyers on the topic “The
Genocide Convention and Universal Declaration of Human Rights Sixty Years
Later: What have we learned? What must we do?”
Following the speech, a lawyer asked why I did not refer to “Palestinian
suffering” and the lesson of the “Nakba” of 60 years ago. I told her, “You’re
right, the Palestinian people – have – and are – suffering; and, you are
correct, they did endure a Nakba 60 years ago, and there is an important lesson
there. But the lesson to be learned is not that the Nakba was the result of the
creation of the State of Israel. Rather, it was the result of the Palestinian
and Arab leadership rejecting the UN resolution calling for the establishment
of both a Jewish state and a Palestinian-Arab state.
“The Jewish leadership accepted the resolution, but the Palestinian and Arab
leadership did not, which they had a right to do. What they did not have a
right to do was attack the nascent Jewish state with the objective – as they
acknowledged at the time – of initiating a ‘war of extermination.’ The result
was, therefore, a double Nakba: not only of Palestinian-Arab suffering and the
creation of a Palestinian refugee problem, but also, with the assault on Israel
and on Jews in Arab countries, the creation of a second, much less known, group
of refugees – Jewish refugees from Arab countries.”
IT IS tragic to appreciate that had the Partition Resolution been accepted 60
years ago, there would have been no Arab-Israeli war – no refugees, Jewish or
Arab – and none of the pain and suffering since. Indeed, we would have been
celebrating the 60th anniversary of both the State of Israel and the State of
Palestine.
Moreover, this “double rejectionism,” where Arab leadership was prepared to
forgo the establishment of a Palestinian state if it meant countenancing a
Jewish state in any borders, not only found expression 60 years ago, but has
underpinned the Arab-Israeli-Palestinian conflict ever since.
Yet the revisionist Mideast narrative – prejudicial to authentic reconciliation
and peace between peoples as well as between states – continues to hold that
there was only one victim population, Palestinian refugees, and that Israel was
responsible for the Palestinian Nakba of 1948.
The result is that the pain and plight of 850,000 Jews uprooted and displaced
from Arab countries – the forgotten exodus – has been both expunged and
eclipsed from both the Middle East peace and justice narratives these past 60
years.
YET THE United Nations once again commemorated the International Day of
Solidarity with the Palestinian People on the 60th anniversary of the United
Nations Partition Resolution of November 29, 1947, and continued to ignore the
plight of Jewish refugees on this commemorative occasion, thereby indulging and
encouraging this Mideast revisionism.
Moreover, this revisionist narrative has not only eclipsed – and erased – the
forgotten exodus from memory and remembrance, but it also denies that it was a
forced exodus, and one that resulted from both double rejectionism and double
aggression. This is the real Nakba – the real double catastrophes.
Simply put, the Arab countries not only rejected a Palestinian state and went
to war to extinguish the nascent Jewish state, but also targeted the Jewish
nationals living in their respective countries, thereby creating two refugee
populations – the Palestinian refugee population resulting from the Arab war
against Israel, and the Jewish refugees resulting from the Arab war against its
own Jewish nationals.
Indeed, evidence contained in a recent report entitled “Jewish Refugees from
Arab Countries: The Case for Rights And Redress” documents for the first time a
pattern of state-sanctioned repression and persecution in Arab countries –
including Nuremberg-like laws – that targeted its Jewish populations, resulting
in denationalization, forced expulsions, illegal sequestration of property,
arbitrary arrest and detention, torture and murder – namely, anti-Jewish
pogroms. And while the internal Jewish narrative has often referred to pogroms
as European attacks on their Jewish nationals, it has often ignored Arab-Muslim
attacks on their Jewish nationals.
Moreover, as the report also documents, these massive human rights violations
were not only the result of state-sanctioned patterns of oppression in each of
the Arab countries, but they were reflective of a collusive blueprint, as
embodied in the Draft Law of the Political Committee of the League of Arab
States.
This is a story that has not been heard. It is a story that has not yet even
been told. It is a truth that must now be acknowledged.
REGRETTABLY, THE United Nations also bears express and continuing
responsibility for this distorted Middle East and peace narrative. Since 1948,
there have been more than 130 UN resolutions that have specifically dealt with
the Palestinian refugee plight. Yet, not one of these UN Resolutions makes any
reference to, nor is there any expression of concern for, the plight of the
850,000 Jews displaced from Arab countries. Nor have any of the Arab countries
involved – or the Palestinian leadership involved – expressed any
acknowledgement, let alone regret, for this pain and suffering, or for their
respective responsibility for the pain and suffering.
How do we rectify this historical – and sustaining – injustice? What are the
rights and remedies available under international human rights and humanitarian
law? And what are the corresponding duties and obligations incumbent upon the
United Nations, Arab countries, and members of the international community?
What follows is a nine-point international human rights action agenda.
• First, it must be appreciated that while justice has long been delayed, it
must no longer be denied. The time has come to rectify this historical
injustice, and to restore the plight and truth of the “forgotten exodus” of
Jews from Arab countries to the Middle East narrative from which they have been
expunged and eclipsed these 60 years.
• Second, remedies for victim refugee groups – including rights of remembrance,
truth, justice and redress, as mandated under human rights and humanitarian law
- must now be invoked for Jews displaced from Arab countries.
• Third, in the manner of duties and responsibilities, each of the Arab
countries – and the League of Arab States – must acknowledge their role and
responsibility in their double aggression of launching an aggressive war
against Israel and the perpetration of human rights violations against their
respective Jewish nationals. The culture of impunity must end.
• Fourth, the Arab League Peace Plan of 2002 should incorporate the question of
Jewish refugees from Arab countries as part of its narrative for an
Israeli-Arab peace, just as the Israeli narrative now incorporates the issue of
Palestinian refugees in its vision of an Israeli-Arab peace.
• Fifth, on the international level, the UN General Assembly – in the interests
of justice and equity – should include reference to Jewish refugees as well as
Palestinian refugees in its annual resolutions; the UN Human Rights Council
should address, as it has yet to do, the issue of Jewish as well as Palestinian
refugees; UN agencies dealing with compensatory efforts for Palestinian
refugees should also address Jewish refugees form Arab countries.
• Sixth, the annual Nov. 29th commemoration by the United Nations of the
International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People should be
transformed into an International Day of Solidarity for a Two-State Solution –
as the initial 1947 Partition Resolution intended – including solidarity with
all refugees created by the Israeli-Arab conflict.
• Seventh, jurisdiction over Palestinian refugees should be transferred from
UNWRA to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. There was no
justification then – and still less today – for the establishment of a separate
body to deal only with Palestinian refugees, particularly when that body is
itself compromised by its incitement to hatred and violence, as well as its
revisionist teaching of the Mideast peace and justice narrative.
• Eighth, any bilateral Israeli-Palestinian negotiations – which one hopes will
presage a just and lasting peace – should include Jewish refugees as well as
Palestinian refugees in an inclusive joinder of discussion.
• Ninth, during any and all discussions on the Middle East by the Quartet and
others, any explicit reference to Palestinian refugees should be paralleled by
a reference to Jewish refugees from Arab countries.
THE EXCLUSION and denial of rights and redress to Jewish refugees from Arab
countries will prejudice authentic negotiations between the parties and
undermine the justice and legitimacy of any agreement.
September 9, 2009 at 7:18 pm
Eliyahu
In my neighborhood in Jerusalem, there are quite a few Persian/Iranian Jews. I often go to a synagogue where many Parsim go. My sons are quite friendly with the boys of their own age. I don’t know any of them eager to go back to Iran. Rather, there is a slow trickle of Jews coming from there, although most of the Parsim in the neighborhood have been in Israel a very long time or were born here.
Now, I note that Adina and exiledlondoner claim that Abe Foxman “ignores” people who don’t agree with him. Well, I don’t know about Foxman, but exiledlondoner is doing exactly that in regard to me and my arguments.
He has totally ignored, as far as I can tell, my assertion that the Jews in Arab/Muslim lands were oppressed, exploited economically and humiliated legally as dhimmis for more than a thousand years. If I did not make clear that the Jews in the Land of Israel too suffered as dhimmis throughout the time of Arab/Muslim ascendancy. then I regret that. In fact, Jews were treated very badly in Israel, particularly in Jerusalem, as Karl Marx –no less– noted in his report in the New York Tribune of 15 April 1854. He wrote: Nothing equals the suffering of the Jews at Jerusalem…” So the Arabs in the Land of Israel, what you call “palestine,” were not exempt from treating Jews as dhimmi subjects.
Further, exiledlondoner makes false claims about the prevalence of massacres and evictions of Arabs during Israel’s War of Independence by Jewish forces. Exiledlondoner much exaggerates such events done by the Jewish side and overlooks what the Arabs did. I pointed out above in my comment of 7:27, 9-9-09, that the first refugees in the war were Jews, and that Arab forces were trying to kill Jewish civilians from the beginning of the war shortly after the UN partition recommendation of 29 XI 1947. The Arab forces often succeeded in murdering Jewish civilians. The first ones to perpetrate ethnic cleansing in that war were the Arab forces led by the Arab Higher Committee for Palestine, which was led in turn by the British-appointed Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin el-Husseini, who spent most of the war in the Nazi-fascist domain, met Hitler and Himmler, and urged the Germans not to let any Jews escape the Holocaust. Exiled overlooks my account of the Jews driven out of South Tel Aviv and the Shimon haTsadiq quarter of Jerusalem in December 1947. I am personally annoyed that exiledlondoner accuses Foxman of doing what he does himself.
He also seems to have ignored what Sababa pointed out, that is, that the Arab League decided collectively to go to war to prevent the emergence of a Jewish state. In other words, the Palestinian Arabs did not suffer for actions of the Arab states since their own leadership took part in Arab League war councils, such as at Bludan. The Palestinian Arab leadership, that is, the Arab Higher Committee, fully agreed with the decision to go to war against the Jews.
It seems that exiled continues to make the same arguments no matter that they have been refuted. He just ignores views contrary to his own that vitiate his arguments.
On the issue of Return, the Palestinian Arabs rejected the Jewish right of return, which had been recognized by the League of Nations in the mandate. The UK govt went along with Arab demands and effectively brought Jewish immigration to the Jewish National Home down to a very small number during the Holocaust when the Jews most needed a home.
Further, exiled seems dishonest in failing to understand that for Jews from Arab countries, not being ruled by Arabs is a liberation. Maybe they wanted to be liberated from the dhimmi status that they traditionally had to bear in Arab lands. If they go back to Arab-ruled lands, they might be in the status of the Copts in Egypt who are oppressed terribly, although exiled might not be aware of that. Now, if the Arab refugees from Israel are allowed back here in their third and fourth generations, then they and the Arabs already here might combine to restore the Jews to an oppressed status or drive the Jews out of the country, which they have also openly looked forward to.
September 9, 2009 at 7:29 pm
Eliyahu
if it is not clear, when I wrote above that Amin el-Husseini spent the war years in the Nazi-fascist domain, the war that I’m referring to is WW 2.
September 9, 2009 at 7:53 pm
AKUS
Its strange how the fact that a remnant of the Jewish community in Iran is used to prove various points by those trying to deny the mass expulsion of Jews from the Arab countries. It strikes me that there are two or three interesting aspects to this:
First, Iran itself should have no interest nor any involvement in the I/P conflict. In fact, I have heard radio interviews with Iranians highly annoyed by the ruling clique’s obsession with Israel that diverts resources form the home economy to promoting a feud in which they have no part. Its not as if the Persians have anything really in common with the Palestinians besides a common religion – in Europe the shared heritage of Christianity does not automatically align all the EU countries.
Second, the fact that there are Jews remaining there is no more surprising than the well-known reluctance of Jews in Hitler’s Germany to leave when they could – there are business, family, cultural ties – and always a hope that things will take a turn for the better.
Third, the tragedy is that this remnant is all that is left of a Jewish community that can trace its antecedents to the time of Cyrus (c. 600 BC) – one of the oldest, if not the oldest, Diasporan communities with the possible exception of the Iraqi community (under Nebuchanezzar (c. 630 BC) – essentially destroyed due to the hatred for Israel by the rulers of the country who forced most to flee from a place that gave them shelter for millennia, with all the ups and downs there were during those times.
September 9, 2009 at 7:54 pm
AKUS
By the way – the term “Arab Jews” should be decried at every opportunity. It is an attempt to delegitimize Israel, as bataween says, by trying to differentiate between different Jews ethnicities in order to claim that Jews from Arab countries are discriminated against. The purpose being to weaken the idea of the Israeli Jewish community as a diverse but cohesive whole.
I also do not like the use of the term “Jewish naqba” because it legitimizes the idea of a non-Jewish naqba, when in fact the Arabs who did not flee Israel not only did not suffer a catastrophe, they have prospered mightily compared to the Arabs around them. Had those that fled been absorbed into Arab countries as the Jews who were expelled from Arab countries were absorbed into israel, there would be no “Arab naqba”.
September 9, 2009 at 8:31 pm
sababa
Since there is so much debate here about the Jews in Iran, I’d like to remind those interested in the issue of Roger Cohen’s (in)famous columns from Iran earlier this year. Here is one report from a meeting he had with a rather angry crowd of Iranian Jewish exiles in LA – safe to assume that Adina and blue were not among them:
http://jta.org/news/article/2009/03/16/1003749/roger-cohen-spars-with-iranian-jewish-expats
Let’s savor a few bits from this report:
“Iran, he [i.e. Roger Cohen] said, is the most democratic state in the Middle East outside Israel … When Cohen completed his talk, which was met by light applause, [Rabbi] Wolpe was the first to challenge him. “You draw a distinction between the Iranian people and their rulers, but Iran has a long history of anti-Semitism,” Wolpe said. “The Iranian government has republished the notorious anti-Semitic forgery ‘The Protocols of the Elders of Zion,’ and your New York Times column ran in the Tehran Post.” “Then they stole my column,” Cohen responded. Wolpe countered, “That shows that it was worth stealing.”
I’d say the Rabbi had a point…
Here is a very friendly take on what happened then (there were less friendly comments)…
http://www.jewishjournal.com/articles/item/the_education_of_roger_cohen_20090624/
September 9, 2009 at 9:36 pm
KARMEL MELAMED
Adina,
As an Iranian Jewish journalist who is in constant contact with Iranian Jewish community leaders living in Iran, Israel, Europe and the U.S., I find your baseless comments about Jews returning to Iran or going back/moving back to Iran to be utterly ridiculous! The fact that you have some family members that may have returned for a visit is frankly NOT evidence enough of any real Jewish reverse migration back to Iran.
While it may be true that some Iranian Jews living in the U.S. travel to Iran for brief tourism stays and some travel there to handle their businesses in Iran– in reality, there has been no massive return of Iranian Jews to Iran. To the contrary, the evidence from HIAS (Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society) has shown a steady increase of Jews fleeing Iran during the last 30 years. Since 1979, Iran’s have been immigrating to Israel and the U.S. is mass numbers via Austria but these facts are not publicly reported. Since 1979 Jews have been living in constant fear for their lives in Iran and treated as second class citizens under the radical Islamic laws of the Iranian regime. For the 30 years nearly three dozen Jews have either been official executed, murdered or tortured to death by the current regime. There is simply NO EVIDENCE to suggest a return of Jews to Iran and for you to make a baseless and unsubstantiated claim is ludicrous!
Today there are estimates of somewhere between 10,000 to 20,000 Jews still living in Iran but in no time has there been proven facts that that number has grown. To the contrary the hard evidence from HIAS with the flow of thousands of Jews out of Iran during the last 30 years suggest the numbers of Jews living in Iran are declining at a steady rate. I recommend you go back and do your homework before you make simply stupid remarks about Iranian Jews. Your statement about Jews returning to Iran either suggest you are not Israeli and have a hidden agenda, or that you are some poor mislead soul about this topic. In the future I suggest you keep your mouth shut when you don’t have solid facts to back your claims!
September 9, 2009 at 10:44 pm
blue
I think this is a fair round up of the current situation for Persian Jews from Andrew Sulivan over at the Atlantic:
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/07/outing-iran-persian-jews.html
Which incidentally includes mini documentaries by Bahman Kalbasi: http://www.cbc.ca/sunday/2009/02/021509_5.html
@Sababa would be safe to assume that I wasn’t present when Roger Cohen “took questions.” Am I safe to assume he supports this:
US Jews push Obama to act on Iran: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1251804532485&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
because if so, s/he might consider what Caroline Glick actually explained in her recent JP column (and carried by JWR) : http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0909/glick090409.php3
“But then even if the Russians and the Chinese supported stronger sanctions, the measure now being debated will have no impact on either Iran’s ability or willingness to become a nuclear power. Today these leading nations are discussing the prospect of banning refined petroleum imports into Iran. Given that Iran with its currently limited capacity to refine petroleum, is a net oil importer, for the past several years, the notion of banning the Iranian imports of refined petroleum products has been raised every time the IAEA submitted a report on Iran’s nuclear program and every time more information came out describing Iran’s spectacular progress in missile development and uranium enrichment. Inevitably, this talk was dismissed the moment a mullah approached a microphone and hinted that Iran might be interested in cutting a deal.
But while the West has consistently postponed imposing such sanctions, Iran has taken the prospect seriously. Over the past four years, Iran moved to reduce its vulnerability to such a ban. It has required citizens to adapt their cars to run on natural gas which Iran has in abundance. Furthermore, in a joint venture with China, Iran has launched a crash program to expand its domestic oil refining capabilities. With Chinese assistance, Iran is expected to have the refining capacity to meet its domestic needs by 2012.
Beyond that, as former US ambassador to the UN John Bolton noted this week in the Wall Street Journal, even if the West were to impose such sanctions on Iran today, they would not impact the Iranian military’s ability to operate. The only people who would be impacted by such sanctions are Iranian civilians. ”
Because this being the case and even Bolton (amongst others) pretty much admits that it is, apart from hurting Iranian civilians, what is the point to these sanctions ?
September 9, 2009 at 10:52 pm
JerusalemMite
AKUS – Iran itself should have no interest nor any involvement in the I/P conflict. In fact, I have heard radio interviews with Iranians highly annoyed by the ruling clique’s obsession with Israel that diverts resources form the home economy to promoting a feud in which they have no part. Its not as if the Persians have anything really in common with the Palestinians besides a common religion – in Europe the shared heritage of Christianity does not automatically align all the EU countries.
The ‘peaceful’ Ayatollahs see Israel as a block to their domination of the Middle east.
Thus the obsessive antagonism.
September 10, 2009 at 12:24 am
JustAThought
Blue, haven’t you wandered quite a bit off the thread’s topic?
And haven’t you inverted the intent of Glick and Bolton? As well-known hawks, their position is that sanctions are ineffective – so proceed immediately to bomb Iran.
Is that what you want?
September 10, 2009 at 2:34 am
exiledlondoner
Eliyahu,
“Now, I note that Adina and exiledlondoner claim that Abe Foxman “ignores” people who don’t agree with him. Well, I don’t know about Foxman, but exiledlondoner is doing exactly that in regard to me and my arguments.”
I think the phrase I agreed with was that Abe Foxman “ignores or smears” people who don’t agree with him. I don’t have a lot of problems with the “ignores” bit….
“He has totally ignored, as far as I can tell, my assertion that the Jews in Arab/Muslim lands were oppressed, exploited economically and humiliated legally as dhimmis for more than a thousand years.”
Was that a point to me? Yes, Jews have been abused throughout history, and if anything, the situation in Europe was worse than that in the Arab lands.
“Further, exiledlondoner makes false claims about the prevalence of massacres and evictions of Arabs during Israel’s War of Independence by Jewish forces. Exiledlondoner much exaggerates such events done by the Jewish side and overlooks what the Arabs did.”
Please point to these false claims and exaggerations….. If it helps, look at the Lyn Julius thread – there you have a proposal that I opposed, but I don’t think that any of your idiotic accusations will stand up to scrutiny.
“The first ones to perpetrate ethnic cleansing in that war were the Arab forces led by the Arab Higher Committee for Palestine, which was led in turn by the British-appointed Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin el-Husseini, who spent most of the war in the Nazi-fascist domain, met Hitler and Himmler, and urged the Germans not to let any Jews escape the Holocaust.”
Palestinians – Mufti – Nazi – Haj Amin – Fascist – Palestinians – mufti – Holocaust – Hitler – Nazi…… Did you mention Nazis and Palestinians…. I think you did… and Haj Amin, Nazis and the Holocaust? Don’t forget to get Palestinians, fascists and Hitler in!… Oh you did? Have you missed anything?
“Exiled overlooks my account of the Jews driven out of South Tel Aviv and the Shimon haTsadiq quarter of Jerusalem in December 1947. I am personally annoyed that exiledlondoner accuses Foxman of doing what he does himself.”
Then you’re going to stay annoyed – if you ewant me to respond in detail to every point you make, you’re going to have to make them a bit more interesting, and a bit less demented….
“It seems that exiled continues to make the same arguments no matter that they have been refuted. He just ignores views contrary to his own that vitiate his arguments.”
Does “refute” mean something different in Zionist circles?
“On the issue of Return, the Palestinian Arabs rejected the Jewish right of return, which had been recognized by the League of Nations in the mandate.”
Just like Israel rejects the Palestinian right of return which has been recognised by the United Nations. If that was so terrible, can I assume that you would support the Palestinian right of return?
“The UK govt went along with Arab demands and effectively brought Jewish immigration to the Jewish National Home down to a very small number during the Holocaust when the Jews most needed a home.”
They did, and the result of this was terrible.
“Further, exiled seems dishonest in failing to understand that for Jews from Arab countries, not being ruled by Arabs is a liberation.”
I don’t ignore that at all – I believe that the refugees from Arab lands form the single most compelling moral and humanitarian case for Israel’s existance.
“Now, if the Arab refugees from Israel are allowed back here in their third and fourth generations, then they and the Arabs already here might combine to restore the Jews to an oppressed status or drive the Jews out of the country, which they have also openly looked forward to.”
Another one who assumes that, becease I oppose Zionist extremism, my views are somewhere between Hamas’s and Islamic Jihad? Let me spell it out…
I believe that Israel has the right to exist, with secure borders and recognition from its neighbours, as a Jewish state if that’s what its citizens want, alongside a Palestinian state.
On the right of return – Israel is not going to accept a large scale right of return, for obvious reasons. My view is that with the exception of those Palestinians who were personally expelled (who’s rights are held individually, and who I believe cannot legally be deprived of them), the inherited right of return will be negotiated away (and confirmed by the UN) as part of a final status agreement, but not before then.
The end result will be that maybe less than 100,000 Palestinians would be able to exercise their inalienable rights, though many would choose not to do so, having families elsewhere.
By the same token, any Israeli settlers who were born in what would become Palestine, or who were living in Palestine at the point of its creation, would have that same inalienable right to remain, or to return at a later point.
So Eliyahu, if you want to attack my views, I would suggest that you first find out what they are…
September 10, 2009 at 3:55 am
zamalek
Exiled:
About the Palestinian ‘right of return’:
United Nations General Assembly resolutions such as 194 and 3236 are recommendations only and non-binding.
Resolution 242 (binding) does not mention a right of return or any other arrangement as a mandatory solution for the refugee problem.
The Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees makes no mention of descendants. Moreover, the convention ceases to apply to a person who has acquired a new nationality.
As none of the 900,000 Jewish refugees who fled anti-Semitic violence in the Arab world were ever compensated or repatriated by their former countries of residence, a precedent has been set: the nation which accepts the refugees is responsible for assimilating them.
You dismiss the association of the Palestinians and the Mufti with the Nazis as so much hyperbole, but it is genuine historical fact, amply documented, that the Mufti was Hitler’s ally, that he instigated a pro-Nazi coup leading to the murder of 180 Jews in Iraq in 1941 and generally played an active part in furthering Nazi objectives.
September 10, 2009 at 4:15 am
sababa
blue, there are already some (justified) complaints about wandering too far with this debate on Iran here, but I can’t resist this one more comment – perhaps the mods will be generous?
I’ll try to bribe them by sticking to Cif here: Simon Tisdall’s latest column on Iran made for rather amusing reading –
1) he seemed to endorse the Bolton analysis on sanctions (who’d have thunk that is allowed at the Graun to agree with Bolton???);
2) he quoted Roger Cohen as somebody whose advice on Iran might be worthwhile listening to (ehm, see my previous post); and
3), and most incredibly, if not outright miraculously, there was this conclusion:
“Discard these policy options [which, according to Tisdall, are all rather unpromising] and two choices remain. One is to admit the Israelis may be right in arguing that military action is the only sure way to hinder or stop Iran’s nuclear advances. The other is to do nothing – and hope that Iran’s repeated assurances that it does not seek the atom bomb are true. Trouble is, both choices risk catastrophe.”
I mean, can you imagine, they published this: “the Israelis may be right”???
Cif-Watch, perhaps you guys should be blamed for such subversive thinking at Cif???
September 10, 2009 at 5:48 am
exiledlondoner
Zamalek,
We’re not as far apart as you seem to believe.
“United Nations General Assembly resolutions such as 194 and 3236 are recommendations only and non-binding.”
Agreed.
“Resolution 242 (binding) does not mention a right of return or any other arrangement as a mandatory solution for the refugee problem.”
No 242 calls for “a just settlement of the refugee problem”.
“The Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees makes no mention of descendants.”
It doesn’t, but it does say that those who were made refugees for whatever reason have a right of return. Do you accept that the original refugees have that right?
“Moreover, the convention ceases to apply to a person who has acquired a new nationality.”
That’s true – refugees who have taken citizenship elsewhere lose that right.
“As none of the 900,000 Jewish refugees who fled anti-Semitic violence in the Arab world were ever compensated or repatriated by their former countries of residence, a precedent has been set: the nation which accepts the refugees is responsible for assimilating them.”
Not true. Israel chose to offer citizenship to the Jewish refugees, and many refugees chose to accept that citizenship. There is no precedent – countries have offered citizenship to refugees for time immemorial (the US was built on this), while others have not. Any move to place this responsibility on states that accept refugees would be furiously opposed, not least by refugee organisations and agencies, as it would result in countries refusing all refugees.
As a side issue, I don’t believe that Israel offers citizenship to all refugees either – the stream of African refugees arriving in Israel mainly remain with refugee status.
Regarding the issue of compensation – that is a different issue. I would support the right of any victim of ethnic cleansing to claim compensation, even if they had taken citizenship elsewhere.
“You dismiss the association of the Palestinians and the Mufti with the Nazis as so much hyperbole, but it is genuine historical fact, amply documented, that the Mufti was Hitler’s ally, that he instigated a pro-Nazi coup leading to the murder of 180 Jews in Iraq in 1941 and generally played an active part in furthering Nazi objectives.”
I don’t dismiss the Mufti’s links with Nazi Germany – they are well documented. I dismiss the concerted attempts to rake up the story of this appalling man as a stick to beat modern-day Palestinians with. Every people have their ogres (Israel included), and just as the actions of a few Jewish terrorists cannot be used to smear an entire people, the actions of the Mufti cannot be used in the same way.
The principle of “my enemy’s enemy is my friend” has a long and painful history, and it is by no means unusual for people to make pretty ugly alliances in the interests of their cause – Britain joined forces with “Uncle Joe Stalin” in the war, the US has supported some of the most brutal despots on the planet, and even Israel had some rather unfortunately cordial relations with Apartheid South Africa.
Some Palestinians undoubtedly believed that the best way to rid themselves of both British colonialism, and a growing Zionist population that made no secret of its desire to create a Jewish state, was to support a Nazi victory (they weren’t alone in this – many colonial independence groups did the same). I have no problem with you damning those involved for their actions, but I do have a problem with the current campaign to make it a factor in the current situation.
September 10, 2009 at 6:28 am
blue
@JustAThought
Well, if you see my 09/09/ @ 11:31 post I answered queries re: Persia and mentioned then, that we were going too far off topic, and I returned to it. However, I seemed to have been paired of with Adina to whom I apologised to for my earlier small “curiosity.”
I don’t feel I have at all inverted Glick or Bolton, since the next step would have been to discuss, option two, and under what circumstances, but as you say, this is wondering off topic. Just a small reminder, it wasn’t I who took the diversion.
As for Doves and Hawks, some people, in my humble opinion, can’t tell the difference but, that too, as you say, for another day.
@Tasty / Sababa — another time, it would seem. However, in the meantime, kindly don’t ever conflate or confuse my position with anyone elses, again.
Gentlemen, adieu.
September 10, 2009 at 8:25 am
Eliyahu
“exiledlondoner” is just too much. He is no longer ignoring me, now he does the other thing that he accused Foxman of. Now he smears me. I am “demented.”
Zamalek reminded him of the reality of the Mufti’s Holocaust collaboration. Yes, the Mufti Husseini collaborated in the Holocaust, urging the Germans and their eastern European satellite states not to let any Jews, not even children, to escape the Holocaust.
He wrote that Jewish children ought to be sent to Poland where “they are under active supervision.” He knew very well what happened Jews, adults and children both, in Poland.
The Mufti is still significant because the Palestinian Arab political movements still look up to him as a former leader.
September 10, 2009 at 9:59 am
SickFrogman
The Mufti was actively involved in organising the SS Einsatzgruppe Egypt which was to implement genocide against the Jews of the Mideast.
He also had his hand in the Iraqi pro-Nazi coup and subsequent farhud.
Finally, he made sure to use violence and intimidation to suppress those Palestinian clans, such as the Nusseihbehs, more disposed to peaceful co-existence with the Jews.
Arafat was his nephew.
September 10, 2009 at 10:12 am
SickFrogman
Hmmm, blue threw a few insults at Justathought, Tasty, and Sababa, then dodged their points, then ran away. Hehe.
September 10, 2009 at 10:48 am
blue
@sickfrog – I did no such thing (throw insults??) but we had gotten off topic, and that was that. By the way, Arafat wasn’t el husseini’s nephew, “hehehe” .
lemme help you out here, you’re struggling, honey – Yasser Arafat: Mohammed Abdel Rahman (was his first name)., Abdel Raouf, (his fathers) Al Qudua is his families name and Al Husseini is the name of the clan to which the Al Quduas’ belonged. It’s true Arafat often referred to al Husseini as, “uncle” but he wasn’t – (Arafat also said he was born in Jerusalem – another lie. Arafat was born in Cairo on 24/08/1029) however, the relationship between the two is documented, for those interested in those things called, “facts.”
Well..I gotta..err, run… Catch you later, frog :-)
September 10, 2009 at 10:59 am
blue
PS – typo correction before Frog gets me.
“Arafat also said he was born in Jerusalem – another lie. Arafat was born in Cairo on 24/08/1929 – obviously not 1029 – I shouldn’t type and laugh at the same time!!
September 10, 2009 at 12:05 pm
Bluefool
Blue has got it as wrong as Frog.
http://www.danielpipes.org/comments/122645
From the forthcoming study, Icon of Evil, by David G. Dalin and John F. Rothmann: “Arafat’s mother was the daughter of the mufti’s first cousin.”
Blue is accumulating quite a record of being both off-topic and factually misinformed.
September 13, 2009 at 9:36 pm
John Brown
Blue – the Arafat story is a conflation of two or three different things designed to legitimize him as a “Palestinian”
He was born in Cairo, but his mother was from Jerusalem and father from Gaza. Arafat’s father’s mother was an Egyptian, and his father worked and lived in Cairo, but Palestinian “historians” have insisted on calling his father a “Palestinian” even though there were no “Palestinians” till Arafat created the Palestinian myth in about 1967. Similarly, because his mother was born in Jerusalem, she has been made into a “Palestinian” evene though thee was only the British Palestinian Mandate at that time, nand of course there never has been a country called Palestine.
Since obviously there will be those that dispute the idea that Arafat and his parents were not “Palestinians”, I might point out that Arik Sharon and Ehud Barak, for example, born in “Palestine”, could be called Palestinians with greater reason than Arafat, who was not born in Palestine. Many Israelis have Palestine stamped on their birth certificates if they were born before Israel’s independence, but don;t call themselves Palestinians.
The “born in jeruslaem” part of the story has two antecedents. One is the obvious attmpt to give Arafat credibility as a palestinian, though in fact every Palestinain knows he was an Egyptian, and his Egytpian accent was frequently mocked by those who disliked him.
Second, I suspect this is confusing his story with that of Edward Said, another of the great Arab myth-makers, whose mother traveled to Jerusalem to give birth to him sine the medical facilities there were better than in Egypt.
September 14, 2009 at 12:46 am
blue
@John Brown
I absolutely agree, in fact, on cif I’ve been lambasted by certain loons for writing about Arafat’s birth (in Cairo) detailing that his father was half Egyptian who had been a textile merchant and a policeman during the Ottoman administration.
Arafat and his younger brother, Fathi, were born in Cairo – their mother was Zahwa Abdul Saoud, who was as you agree from a known Jerusalem family, died in Cairo in 1933.
But anyway, as I rightly stated, Arafat was not the mufti’s nephew nor was he related – I gave the break down of Arafat’s real name, trying to explain that the (Gaza) Al Husseini part refers to the clan which the Al Qudua family, belonged. The Gaza Al Husseini’s were not related to the Jerusalem Al Husseini’s (the mufti’s line) nor the same namesakes of Safed, Lydda or Nablus. That said – the Al Qudua family have the notability of having a street named after them in Gaza – I walked down it before Sharon had his brainwave !
I also made posts on cif (which didn’t go down very well) explaining Arafat’s close relationship to the mufti with whom he had access from age seventeen onwards, this was facilitated via Sheikh Hasssan Abdul Saoud who was the head of the Abdul Saoud family of Jerusalem, he was a distant maternal relation of Arafats’ and of whom Arafat also called “uncle.”
So despite being factual, I was lead off topic, hence we better leave it there.