´óÏó´«Ã½

The core reason is very simple, the Arabs have never accepted the existance of a Jewish state in their midst. They fought to destroy it from the very beginning of its existance saying they "would drive the Jews into the sea" and have continued up to this very day nearly sixty years later. Arab governments fought four wars to destroy it and the last one in 1973 almost ended in a nuclear attack by Israel when it was losing and likely would have escalated to worldwide thermonuclear war between the US and USSR. Subsequently, attacks have been by non-governmental entities from ad hoc terrorist groups to well armed militias. The original Israeli invasion of Lebanon was caused by a rash of such attacks. Israel expected to return the territories it won in 1967 in exchange for peace but the Arabs chose to fight another war instead. The settlements on the West Bank of the Jordan River are now populated by over 400,000 Israelis and serve as a geographical buffer, the pre 1967 borders being militarily undefendable leaving the country only about 8 miles wide at one point. There was never such a thing as a palestinain state or people before 1967, Gaza belonged to Egypt, the West Bank of the Jordan and East Jerusalem to Jordan, and the Golan Heights to Syria. It was only afterwards that this artificial entitity was invented. The Palestinians have been convinced by their leaders that Israel exists on their land, all of Israel is their land stolen from them. When Yassir Arafat choked back the tears on American television saying in English that he recognized Israel's right to exist, the Arabs were ready to kill him. It was only when he spoke to them in Arabic that they understood that he was not selling them out. And he didn't, he continued his efforts to destroy Israel all through the Oslo peace process. And when confronted with the fact that he was harboring terrorists who kept attacking Israel and asked why he didn't arrest them as he had agreed to, he said he "wasn't going to do Israel's job for them." During the negotiations in Washington DC just prior to the end of the Clinton administration, Ehud Barach offered the Palestinians virtually everything they asked for much to the astonishment of everyone. He offered them an equivalent amount of land so that many of the existing settlements could remain but Palestinians would get 97% of the total territory they asked for. Arafat then demanded the right of up to 5 million Palestinian refugees and their families to return to Israel and when the answer was no, he walked out and began his second armed uprising or intifada. When asked on American TV why he had made such an offer, Barach sad because he knew Arafat wouldn't accept it. The theory behind the peace process was a return of captured land for peace. In 2005, the Israelis abandoned Gaza without any preconditions. The Palestinians have used the land only to launch rockets against Israeli towns and villages. In the recent elections of a year and a half ago, the Palestinians replaced their corrupt government led by Fatah which said publicly it wanted to negotiate peace with Israel with a Hamas led government which denies Israel has a right to exist, will not renounce violence, and will not recognize any treaties signed by the PA prior to Hamas coming into power. The seige against Israel also consists of the Hezbollah militia which recieves 400 million dollars a year from Iran and from Iran itself which has a thinly disguised program to build nuclear weapons, denies the holocost ever happend, and says Israel should be "wiped off the map." Widespread anti-semitism and anti-Israeli sentiment thoughout Europe whether because of ignorance of the history of the conflict or because of longstanding cultural prejudice doesn't help. In fact, it has made Europe an unacceptable negotiator in the conflict to the Israelis Is there any prospect for peace on the horizon? No, I think the majority of Israelis now understand that their Islamic neighbors will never accept their right to a state and I think they are preparing themselves for more wars, with Hezbollah, with Syria, and above all with Iran. The United States which will always back Israel is probably preparing itself for war with Iran too. This one will make Iraq look like a picnic.

This appeared on Yahoo.com today by coincidence;

And a link;

I think the biggest myth about the holocaust is that the average European in general and the average German in particular didn't know what was going on, only a select few who worked in the concentration camps. This myth was exploded about 15 years ago when an American Jewish author wrote a book with considerable evidence to the contrary including that of many German soldiers who worked in those concentration camps sending souvenier photos back to their families. The book was hotly debated in Germany itself. It wasn't until the late 1970s early 1980s that Germany began to openly discuss and accept its dark past. When I lived in France in the early 1970s, the subject of the Vichy government was taboo.

The only time I've actually seen overt anti-semitism in my life was in 1973 at an industrial trade fair at Le Lac in Bordeaux France. The group I was with was refused service at a German hofbrau because some of the people in our group were Jewish. It made me wonder why we were defending Germany instead of obliterating it. It seems to me that many European who advocate the Palestinian cause wish the Moslems would finish off the job of annihilating the Jews that Hitler started. Europeans make it very easy for Americans and Israelis to be disgusted with them, even to detest them. People like to look for the similarities between cultures but I think the differences are far more profound. Between Europeans and Americans, we see the world and life through very different eyes.

I do not understand the argument that Palestine did not exist prior to the creation of Israel. It seems to imply that prior to creation of Israel there was nothing and that no-one was displaced or dispossessed. It is a variant of the Zionist slogan quoted by Golda Meir, "A land without a people for a people without a land". A blatant lie. The British Mandated Territory of Palestine had borders and inhabitants. The British carried out a census which showed that Jews constituted less than 10% of the population - the old Jewush stock who got on well with their Muslim neighbours. It was the hundreds of thousands of immigrants pouring into Palestine from Russia, Eastern Europe, Germany, etc, throughout the 1920s and 1930s that soured relations between the Muslim inhabitants and the newly arrived Jewish settlers. The British tried to control the flow and were attacked by Jewish terrorists - Irgun and the Stern gang. It was the bombing of the King David Hotel by Jewish terrorists (91 killed) which finally forced Britain to give up and hand over the problem to the UN.

The UN was exceedingly generous to the Jews when it created Israel out of Arab lands. Jews accounted for only a third of the population of Palestine but they were given 55% of the land to make Israel. Of course the UN could afford to be generous - they were giving away other people's property. No doubt they wanted to be generous to the Jews because of the Holocaust, but that barbaric extermination policy had nothing to do with the Palestinian Muslims. It was a racist ideology invented and implemented in Europe. Why should the Palestinians have to bear the punishment?

700,000 Palestinians were driven out and have been living in refugee camps in neighbouring countries ever since.

Israel has expanded relentlessly. The 1967 borders are greater than the 1948 borders. Effectively Israel now controls 100% of the old Palestine since it mans the checkpoints and it issues the passes. Jewish settlements keep advancing into Muslim areas.

Israeli politicians and generals keep saying that Palestinian leaders and Arab neighbours refuse to recognise Israel, but which Israel do they mean? The 1948 borders, or the 1967 borders, or the de facto 100% Palestine which the Israeli army controls?

The Israelis have been badly led by aggressive politicians who have only been concerned to create "facts on the ground" (ie. grab more territory) rather than look for ways to resolve the issue of the 700,000 refugees in the camps and to remedy the injustices of the past. Brute force can win territory, but festering injustice will never bring peace.

Israel and the Arab World never accepted each other since the days of Abraham in the Old Testament in Genesis. The only time I remember seeing Arabs and Jews conexisting were in Venezuela in the 1970's.

Because both sides have their hearts hardened.

Les reid

can I also correct a serious error you have made.

Israel does not control 100% of the original Palestine.

Palestine before 1948 also included Jordan, which the UN granted to the Arabs.

Have a look at a map, Jordan is about three times the size of modern Israel.

So how can Israel now control 100% of Palestine when Jordan is still a sovreign state?

You need to check your facts a bit better.

PB

You are referring to Transjordan. The British Mandate Territory consisted of two regions, Palestine and Transjordan. In September 1922, the British government presented a memorandum to the League of Nations stating that Transjordan would be excluded from all the provisions dealing with Jewish settlement, and this memorandum was approved by the League on 11 September. From that point onwards, Britain administered the part west of the Jordan as Palestine, and the part east of the Jordan as Transjordan.

But the important issue is still the refugees. Hundreds of thousands of them were driven out of that part of Palestine which was later called Israel. They and their descendants are living in the camps. They are displaced persons. Israeli policies of advancing further into Muslim lands and building more Jewish settlements are creating more displaced people all the time. Such policies are provocative and aggressive.

The Israelis have never conceded that the refugees deserve some consideration and have rights which should be enacted. You should read about Ariel Sharon's part in the massacres at Sabra and Shatilla. That was his attitude to the refugees.

Les Reid

You are caught out. You are not actually disputing what I said;-

Jordan was a part of Palestine before the creaion of Israel, so only around a quarter of the land actually went to the Jews. Period.

lets bring a little balance to this (very serious) debate about refugees.

A similar number of Jews were expelled from the Arab world as left Palestine in 1948. Where did most of these Jews go? little choice but israel of course; the Arab world actually helped create the Israeli people/state they were trying to destroy!!!

These Jews were forced out of the Arab world with only their shirts on their backs, leaving bank accounts, properties and businesses behind.

Are you also campaigning for justice for these dispossed refugees or just Arab ones? Are you discriminating on the basis of race or religion???

Well Les, which is it?

The "state" of Palestine is a modern invention. Before 1948 it had always been considered a region of Syria.
There was never a Palestinian flag, leader or national anthem before that.
Try as they might, nobody can invent history that doesnt exist.

Many contend that the Arab world has refused to take in Palestinian refugees to manufacture a media crisis at Israel's expense.

I wonder;-

How many immigrants does the UK take in every year?

And how many Palestinian immigrants can the Arab world not handle?

remember Israel is about the size of NI and the Arab world is a massive landmass. As I understand it any Arabs that did not flee when the Arab states attacked in 1948 still have their land. While I cannot contest that some were intimidated out, neither can I disprove claims that many fled in collusion with the advancing Arab armies.

It is also worth noting that the average GNP per capita in Palestinian areas today is very similar to that in the other Arab nations bordering Israel.
Check it out yourself here;-


So the lifestyle of poverty of Arab Palestinians is entirely consistent with that of other "free" Arab nations in the area.

The bible is clear that God promised Israel "for ever" to the jews in spite of their sinfulness, not because of their righteoussness.

I have no problem accepting validity in much of the criticism against Israel. My problem is that when I see people who refuse to be fair in their analysis, I see the hand of darkness operating.

It is established beyond any contradiction that the Israeli media is generally as reliable as that in the US or Europe, when recounting these matters.

in contrast, the Arab media in the reigion is accepted as being on a par with the most censored and manipluated of any despot in the world.

In all this the poor Palestinian people are expendable pawns who suffer. Anyone who thinks this is purely Israel's fault is disregarding a fair reading of the facts.

PB

PS Does anyone care that the Lebanese army attacking Palestinians in Lebabnon at present has cost 100 lives?

Or is this sort of death total only "useful" to bring up as a beating stick when the Israelis are involved???

BTW Les

Did you ever protest about the 25 year military occupation of Lebannon by Syrian troops which only officially ended in 2005, but which many still see as continuing through the terrorist group Hamas and assassinations of opposition elected politicians. (Terrorist here is a term affirmed by ´óÏó´«Ã½ Governors).

I am sure you are also equally sympathetic to the 200,000 refugees from N Cyprus who are still displaced due to the illegal Turkish invasion and occupation since 1974.

I mean, as a good humanist, you wouldnt want to discriminate between middle eastern refugees on the basis of religion, would you Les?

I mean, good humanists would campaign equally for displaced and dispossessed Palestinians, Cypriots and Jews ejected from the ARab world in 1948, wouldnt they Les?

I mean, anything else might appear to sceptics as being religious discrimination for the purposes of furthering an anti-semtic agenda.

But I know you wouldnt for a second tolerate such a worldview, Les, would you.

Les?........Les?

PB

PS I am sure you *will* do justice to all these qualifiying angles of your viewpoint in your public discussion!

You ask if I support the rights of other refugees. Of course I do. And I support the interventions of the UN to try and return displaced peoples to their homes. Unfortunately Israel ignores all UN resolutions and tramples on the rights of all non-Jewish citizens, whether within the state of Israel or in the open prison which is the Occupied Territories.

You talk about the "poor Palestinian people", but your sympathy does not amount to very much. Your basic argument is that the Israelis own the land because it was given to them by the spirit in the sky and therefore the Palestinians should clear off and settle in some Arab lands somewhere else.

That's obviously a Christian approach to the problem!

Still, it is better than the actions of Ariel Sharon in the massacres at Sabra and Shatilla. He was clearly attempting a Final Solution.

The Jewish philosopher, Yeshayahu Leibowitz, refused all the highest awards Israel offered and wrote: "Who will want to be known as a Jew in 100 years, unless we stop doing to another people what was done to us?"

In post 8, pb wrote:"A similar number of Jews were expelled from the Arab world as left Palestine in 1948."

700,000???

Who has verified these figures?

The UN has confirmed that 700,000 Palestinians were driven out of Palestine in 1948. The refugees and their descendants are still living in the camps today. So there is no doubt about that figure.

The idea that an equal number of Jews were forced out of Arab countries at the same time would be very convenient as a justification for holding on to Palestinian lands. So convenient that it smells fishy from the start. It smells of Zionist propaganda.

But let us have the evidence. Have the UN registered 700,000 Jewish refugees from Arab lands in 1948? (not to be confused, of course, with the thousands and thousands of voluntary immigrants who poured into British-controlled Palestine in the 1920s and 1930s despite the protests of the local inhabitants).

Les

I find post 10 highly offensive.

My argument is not that the land was given to Israel "by a spirit in the sky and that Palestinians should scuttle off to Arab nations".

My argument is that around 20 % of the land was legally given to Israel by the United Nations, the rest to create Jordan (which did not exist before 1948), and that for a fair solution to emerge we need a much more balanced view of *all* the facts.

I nowhere suggest Palestinians should go off to other Arab lands.

I dont consider myself qualified to give solutions - but I am certainly qualfied to spot danergous propaganda a mile off Les. It only worsens the problem.

Not a breath of whisper of concern for Cypriot refugees from you? Or the Syrian occpation of Lebannon?

And you acutally smell like a holocaust denier when you imply it is a myth that Jews were mass evicted from the Arab world in 1948.

A good starting point might be the Washington Post photostat to be found here;-

I have spoken to senior ´óÏó´«Ã½ journalists working in the region and they certainly dont dispute it.

You are pouring forth dangerous half-truths Les, please go and inform yourself better.
PB

Les

The numbers of Jews evicted from Arab lands is certainly disputed, though substantial by all accounts.

You can see the ´óÏó´«Ã½ reporting the official Israeli position here;-

You will also notice that the ´óÏó´«Ã½ reporter appears to have made a mistake in reporting UN article 194 about the right of return.

Unless I am mistaken it was deliberately drafted to actually include the right of return for Israeli refugees back to the Arab world as well as that for the Palestinians.

PB

Les

Here are some UN reports you could chase up if you feel your other sources are lacking.

I have not personally verified the content of these reports;-

Mr. Auguste Lindt, United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, recognized the refugee status of Jews from Arab and Muslim countries in the report of the UNREF Executive Committee, Fourth Session – ‎Geneva 29 January to 4 February, 1957.

Dr. E. Jahn, Office of the UN High Commissioner, United Nations High ‎Commissioner for Refugees, Document No. 7/2/3/Libya, July 6, 1967, recognized the refugee status of these Jews.

I also checked - the UN resolution 194 was dleiberately agreed NOT to refer to Palestinians, but was also intended to refer to Jewish refugees from Arab lands.

Here is an interesting article from a peace activist on this subject;-

PB

The Forgotten Refugees:

Jews From Arab Lands

By ADA AHARONI and ALAIN ALBAGLI

It is inevitable that a Palestinian state will be established, if only because the 1947 United Nations resolution establishing Israel also established Palestine. The nature of this new state, the process of its establishment and its eventual relation to Israel represent awesome challenges. Peaceful relations between theses two states will not happen unless there is grassroot reconciliation. But there cannot be grassroot reconciliation unless past wrongs are acknowledged. One wrong that has been ignored for far too long is the plight of Jews from Arab countries.

Few political leaders in Israel or the Arab world acknowledge that the number of Jews who were forced to leave Arab countries, 856,000, surpassed the number of Palestinians who were ousted or fled the newly formed State of Israel, 650,000. As almost half the Jewish citizens of Israel, together with their descendants, are from Arab countries, any peace effort must, of necessity, acknowledge this exodus. We suggest that to acknowledge the story of the Jewish uprooting from Arab countries can facilitate reconciliation, as it shows that there was forced migration and claims of restitution on both sides.

Jews from Arab countries are angry and hurt, and they object to a reconciliation that does not include their own heritage and history. They express their frustrations by voting for right-wing parties who promise them recognition, although they are ideologically and traditionally neither extreme right nor extreme left. Their intransigence toward their Palestinian neighbors and the establishment of a Palestinian state is a touchstone in reconciliation. Putting their claims in the balance could enhance the promotion of the establishment of a Palestinian state.

During the 1947 U.N. debates, the head of the Egyptian delegation warned that "the lives of a million Jews in Muslim countries will be jeopardized by the establishment of the Jewish state." The chairman of the Palestine Arab Higher Executive, Haj Amin el-Husseini, told that body: "If a Jewish state were established in Palestine, the position of the Jews in the Arab countries would become very precarious... Governments have always been unable to prevent mob excitement and violence." Indeed, soon after partition, riots broke out throughout the Arab world. Jewish homes, shops and synagogues were burned and looted; hundreds of Jews were murdered, thousands were imprisoned and many were deprived of their citizenship.

Jews in Arab countries were confronted with a political and social climate of unbearable hostility. Although many had been prestigious members of their country of birth, they were removed from government agencies and their admission to public office was severely restricted. They became hated outcasts in their own land, terrorized, imprisoned and often banished.

Where once Jewish communities flourished and thrived, as in Iraq and Egypt, their traces have been erased, as they were compelled to leave and abandon centuries of established culture and tradition.

The outline of a lasting settlement ‹ or at least absence of hostilities ‹ is becoming clearer. The vision includes a full Arab recognition of Israel's legitimacy and not another colonial enterprise to be tolerated momentarily like the Frankish kingdom of Jerusalem. Other considerations include the establishment of a politically viable Palestinian state, the rollback of Jewish settlements, the termination of Palestinian and Arab incitement to hatred and terrorism, the full acceptance and integration within Israeli society of its Arab citizens and the indemnification of Palestinian and Jewish refugees.

Because of deep-rooted mistrust, the comfort zone within which both parties can negotiate is at present non-existent. Deep societal changes have to occur before political leaders have room for negotiation. Regrettably, one of the lapses in the Oslo process has been the absence of avenues for reconciliation at the community level.

Fortunately, both Palestinian and Jewish refugee communities are familiar with Sulh, the Middle Eastern rituals of reconciliation . Sulh rituals, used to resolve long-standing vendettas, incorporate cultural elements and stress the link between the psychological and political dimensions of reconciliation.

It is high time that emphasis in the peace process be redirected to community leaders and away from top-down conflict-resolution processes. Community leaders in the civic, religious, education and media realms need to assume their responsibility in pursuing reconciliation. They must acknowledge explicitly the legitimacy of their opponent's claim and commit themselves to rebuilding the image of the opponent. Espousing a perverted image of the opponent even in the heat of debate negates efforts at acknowledging legitimacy. Western support should be limited to those that pass this test.

This reciprocal acknowledgement is the cornerstone upon which future political leaders will be able to build a viable peace process. Putting the claims of Jewish refugees from Arab countries into the balance would encourage both populations to favor a two-state solution and the election of pro-peace political leaders on both the Israeli and Palestinian sides.

In conclusion, a more objective and balanced approach to the tragedies of both Jews from Arab countries and Palestinians could have a moderating effect on both populations. Jews from Arab countries would have their history and heritage restored and would become more open to a peaceful arrangement. In turn, the Palestinians would realize that they are not the only ones who have suffered, making them more prone to reconciliation. This conciliatory effect could lead to a beneficial promotion of peace between Israel and the Palestinians, and in the Middle East in general.

Ada Aharoni is a professor of cultural sociology at the Technion Institute of Technology in Haifa and founder of the International Forum for the Culture of Peace. Alain Albagli is a consultant in international development and a freelance journalist. Both were born and raised in Egypt.

In fact there were more Jewish refugees from Arab countries than Palestinian refugees - some 870,000 - but not all went to Israel. UNCHR did recognise the Jewish refugees as bona fide but did not spend one cent to resettle them. This was done entirely with Israel's fully- stretched resources.Some Jews spent up to 12 years in camps. A special agency, UNWRA, was set up for the Palestinian refugees: the Jewish refugees got no such special treatment, nor was a single UN resolution passed drawing attention to their plight.

I endorse the plan proposed in the above article (with some amendments in square brackets):

1. the establishment of a politically viable Palestinian state [not controlled by the Israeli army nor sliced into pieces by Israeli roads and checkpoints]
2. the rollback of Jewish settlements
3. the termination of Palestinian and Arab [and Israeli] incitement to hatred and terrorism
4. the full acceptance and integration within Israeli society of its Arab citizens
4. the indemnification of Palestinian and Jewish refugees
5. a full Arab recognition of Israel's legitimacy [which Israel? 1948 borders? 1967 borders? Occupied Territories?]

Sadly, however, as President Carter has shown in his book, "Palestine: Peace or Apartheid", Israeli policies have shown no regard for the rights of non-Jewish people, whether inside Israel or in the Occupied Territories. Instead they rely on their military strength to keep a stranglehold on the Palestinians. The proposals above bear little relation to the policies that Israel has followed for years.

Les

I take my hat off to you for your climb down, albeit, quite a face saving climb down. ie point 4 where you now acknowledge the existence of c.800,000 Jewsih refugees from the Arab world.

You could have ignored my postings but at least you had the guts to acknowledge your error; respect!

How can such a lie (by ommission) perpetuate itself among so many people around the world, who think only the Palestinans suffered and suffer since the creaion of Israel?

I checked my enclyopaedia britannica last night and in two different articles it says that antisemtism grew throughout the world, and arab world in the 20th century.

It states that Jewish refugees from Arab lands who settled in Israel were around 550,000.

The Washington Post page on the wiki link I gave above said 900,000 jews in the aranb world were in danger in 1948 and the ´óÏó´«Ã½ link quotes the Israel Govt as saying some 800,000 Jewish refugees from the Arab world were made homeless after 1948.

From that it appears to me that while 800-900,000 Jews were made refugees from the Arab world since 1948, some 550,000 of them settled in Israel while the rest settled in the US and Europe.

Can a humanist not accept the fact that the world (UN) took a **democratic** decision to turn 23% of Palestine into Israel in 1948 with the rest becoming Jordan?

BTW, I have met many Americans who had solutions for Northern Ireland over the years, even though they had just arrived.

Considering your grand confidence in your solutions for the middle east problem, Les, may I timidly asked if you have ever spent any time their understanding the culture?

PB

PB

So that's that then. The Palestinian refugees lose the right of return guaranteed by international law because there were also Jewish refugees. I, like Les support the right of all refugees and their descendants to return to lands they were expelled from. I don't see that this should be controversial or a political scoring point - I rather think that it is a humanitarian issue which is, as I said earlier - guaranteed by international humanitarian law.

On a separate issue - whilst I deplore the facts that the Arab states acted in such a cruel and mindless manner towards their own Jewish minorities I don't see why the Palestinian refugees are expected to pay the price for those policies - as far as I am aware it was not the actions of Palestinian refugees which led to the expulsion of Jewish communities. Indeed, to pursue this issue further, I believe that it was in Israel's interests to encourage the Middle-Eastern Jews to leave their homelands and come to Israel to help build up the state. Evidence for this can be found in the manner that Zionist agents planted bombs outside of Jewish targets in Baghdad in order to stampede the Iraqi Jews into leaving the country. A policy Ben Gurion called "Cruel Zionism." Further to this of course was the Lavon Affair which made all Jews in Egypt suspect, and I believe, though I am not certain, (it is one of the things I am seeking to find out about), that in the case of the Yemeni Jews, Israel and Yemen signed an agreement to transfer the entire Yemeni Jewish population to Israel whether they wished to go or not.

My reason for writing this is not to defend what happened but merely to put the case that some responsibility for the Jewish refugee exodus lies at the feet of Israel, who, it would appear, in at least some cases colluded with the Arab states in their persecution of Jewish minorities because it was good for Israel in the long run. In other words, please spare me the self-righteousness.

Also, I repeat, none of this nullifies the claims of the Palestinian refugees or indeed any other refugee.

As for your repeated statements about only 23% of Palestine being assigned to the Jewish homeland, that is legalistic mumbo jumbo and has nothing to do with the rights of the indigenous population - and you know that. In any case how dare the newly arrived colonial power agree to give away someone else's land.

Finally, this conflict is about people, Jewish, Christian and Muslim, and their rights to live in peace, security and justice. So before you suggest I am a closet anti-Semite, or smell like a Holocaust denier I don't want to turn the clock back, and I don't want to drive the Jews into the sea, all I want is what justice demands -the granting of a right of return for the refugees and an end to the 40 year Occupation. What is unjust about that?

You repeat the lie that Israel 'colluded with Arab states' to get the Jews to leave Arab lands and the old canard about the bombs in Iraq.If that was Israeli policy how do you account for the fact that a third of the Jews did NOT go to Israel? There is no doubt that the Jews, like other non-Muslim minorities, were ethnically cleansed from Arab countries by Arab governments, the last wave of persecution unleashed in 1967 with arrests of Jews as 'spies', dismissal from jobs, freezing of bank accounts, executions and imprisonment. See here for a debunking of common myths:

just to clarify a point, when I talk of the Arab world's refusal to take in all the Palestinian refugees it is not actually to imply I think they should.

I dont think I have the right to make that call.

Why I make the point is that it seems to me that this is normal practise in all other conflicts. eg the Cypriot refugees? The Jewish refugees?

in other words, how many other states in the world today create refugee camps for people in the way the Arab world does for Palestinians?

Can anyone think of any examples?

Why are such refugee camps still running?

My point is to clarify how I understand the situation of the refugees if being exacerbated for political gain.

I have yet to hear a credible argument as to why I am mistaken on this.

By the way LJ. You are obviously well informed - why cant Israel take the refugees back, in your view.

I understand Israel says it is on security grounds?

PB

Richard

Where did I ever say Palestinians should have no right to return?

I have no right to and havnt done it.

I point out the manipulation of the refugees because it is inhumane. How many other refugee camps exist for the 200,000 cypriot refugees or the 800,000 jewish refugees?

This is deliberate exacerbation of the palestinian problem as a pretext to attack Israel.

And if I am wrong then why doesnt anyone care about the 200,000 cypriot refugees? I tell you why, there is no anti-semitic value in campaigning for them.

What I would be very interested to see is exactly how you would get all the Arab states involved to admit liability for 800,000 jewish refugees and then change culture in those countries to such an extent that it would be safe for them to return - or get them compensation.

Similarly, how do you actually propose to house and support all outstanding Palestinian refugees in their former homes and by what process would you evict the existing tenants and gte Govt support to do same?

Both seem laudable aims but you need to bridge the gap a little between a few lines on an internet blog and the harsh world of realpolitik.

THAT, my friends is why I am hesitant in proposing solutions, aside from this, as a start only;-

Abraham, father of Arabs and Jews, was promised a Messiah that would bring peace to the world. Many Arabs and Jews in the middle east are now coming together behind this messiah, genuinely loving each other as themselves.

PB

PS Imagine if this had happened; The Arab world embraced Israel in 1948, which was created legally by the UN and is recognised internationally.

There would have been no refugees, no properties lost, no wars, no deaths, all Arabs in Israel would -as they do now - have full citizenship rights equal to Jews.

All Arabs in Israel would -and do- have full religious and political freedom, freedom of speech and political representation.

And they would benefit from the standard of living in Israel which is much higher than in the Arab world.

The only other option was an all out war on a statelet that was legally and democratcially created with a 2/3 majority of the UN.

This is what displaced the Palestinians in the first place.

I dont pretend I would have found it easy to accept had I been a Palestinian Arab there at the time.

But in retrospect the alternative to peace, freedom and prosperity that would have been there for the taking for Palestinian arabs has been turned into a nightmare.

PB

PB
Nowhere is the'The right of return' claimed by Palestinian refugees enshrined in international law. As you say, there is no precedent for refugees to go 'back to their homes' FOUR generations later. Realising that they could not very well claim a 'right of return' for the Palestinians and deny the same right to Jewish refugees, several Arab states did invite their Jews back in the 1970s, even though Egyptian and Iraqi Jews had their passports stamped 'no return' when expelled. I think one Jew did go back to Iraq, was paraded on TV and was never seen again.
An exchange of populations has taken place which has a kind of rough justice to it. But the Arabs have not even admitted liability for driving their Jews out, let alone agreed to pay compensation. (Well, Libya and Iraq have agreed in principle to pay Jews dispossessed after 1967, but no Jew to my knowledge has yet received a dinar from either country)

Hi LJ,

I enjoyed your linked article de-bunking the myths about Israel and the Jewish refugees. It mentioned some accusations I hadn't even thought of. Needless to say you and I probably aren't going to agree about the role Israel may have played in the creation of this crisis, but hopefully I will give a more detailed reply in a few days; however, life is short and this is a huge issue, which, I think you will agree with me on this, has for some reason been written out of the conflict's history. Neverthless I appreciate your response for it has made me start doing some research I was planning to do anyway. By the way you mentioned Tom Segev's research into the Baghdad bombings, have you got a reference for this? Also, I would welcome your interpretation into why the narrative of the Jewish refugees has, until very recently, been marginalised. Finally, perhaps you could also explain what Ben Gurion was referring to when he spoke of "Cruel Zionism."

On your assertion that the right of return is not guaranteed under international law I merely quote:

"Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own and return, to his country."

Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 13

I don't believe there is a time limit.

PB

Whilst I admire the happy picture you paint of what could have been in 1948 this was never going to be a feasible option, and everyone knew that. Afterall, would you have accepted the partition of your country and the handing over of 54% of it to people who made up only a third of the population, and who for the most part had only immigrated there in the last 25 years?

On the issue of the right of return again, the reason why this is such a hot potato is not because of the security or economic consequences of implementing the return, but because it would fundamentally change the demographics of the Jewish State. (For an essay on implementing the right of return see Salman Abu Sitta "Implementing The Right of Return" (2001) published in "The New Intifada: Resisting Israeli Apartheid" edited by Roane Carey. I don't know if the essay is available online but several interviews by Abu Sitta are if you care to find out more.) In other words, if all the Palestinian refugees returned they would make up an equal number, or even surpass the number of Jewish Israelis. Given this is the case Israel/Palestine would definitely have to change its character from being a Jewish state to becoming a state for all its citizens. However, given how Israel treats its Arab minority this might not be a bad thing, you might wish to look up the "unrecognised villages," or the statistics on education, healthcare, etc, I haven't got the references on hand but you can find them yourself or look for work by the British journalist Jonathan Cook or glance at the Israeli Commitee on House Demolitions website.

In any case, I don't feel able to deny the right of return to Palestinians while Israel has a Law of Return giving the right of citizenship and residency to any Jew any where in the world, and settled in the 1990s up to a million Russians, many of whom weren't even Jewish. However, I do think as part of a final peace settlement that along with Palestinians being granted the right of return, that the Arab states - whose record towards the Palestinian refugees is shameful - should also live up to their responsibilities and at long last grant the Palestinians citzenship - then at least Palestinians would have a choice. Indeed, I think the Arab states should grant those Palestinians who wish to have it, citizenship straight away. This would definitely help ameliorate the longest running humanitarian sore of the conflict. To my knowledge only Jordan has so far given them full citizenship whilst others have given limited rights. Also, not forgetting the Jewish refugees, I also think that they too should be offered compensation and the right of return.

Finally, bearing in mind what has just happened in Gaza this all seems like fantasy land - peace, justice and human rights for Israelis and Palestinians - but on the other hand, when Herzl said after the first Zionist congress in 1897 that he had established the Jewish state and in 50 years the world would know it, that too sounded like fantasy land.

Hi Richard
The link to the Segev article is here:

The blog has much interesting material. You are right, the Jewish refugees have been written out of the conflict. There are several reasons: unlike the Arabs, Israel did not want to politicise the issue. It just got on with the job of resettling them. Another reason is that until the 1990s efforts were still going on to get Jews out of Syria, for instance, and secrecy needed to be maintained. But now that there are hardly any Jews left in the Arab world so it is safe to talk about them.
You say that both sets of refugees should be given the 'right to return'. The Jews were invited to return to several Arab countries, but none have taken up the offer. (Would you return to Hitler's Germany?) So there is a fundamental asymmetry between the Palestinians who say they want to return, and the Jews who don't want to go back to places which persecuted them, even though their presence in these countries predates the Muslim presence by 1,000 years.
In fact if the Palestinians now living in Arab countries were granted full rights, including rights of citizenship,I think you will find the problem would disappear overnight. A Palestinian born in Lebanon has no right to a Lebanese passport, to own property and is excluded from 75 different jobs. But the idea is to keep them from assimilating into Arab societies and artificially maintaining them as a thorn in the side of Israel. They can do this because UNWRA gives refugee status to Palestinians in perpetuity. It is interesting that 400,000 Palestinians were expelled from Kuwait in 1991, but no-one is advocating their 'right of return' to Kuwait.
I don't know why you should have a problem with the Jewish 'right of return' to the Jewish state. After all, many states - Greece, Japan, Germany - give priority to their people abroad applying for citizenship. if a state of Palestine existed no-one would object to it setting its own immigration policy.

Richard

I agree it is uptopian of me to speculate what might have been if the Arab world had accepted the creation of Israel in 1948 - probably as utopian as trying to return the Jewish refugees to the Arab world!

If you read my post again I freely admitted I probably would not have found it easy to accept had I been an Arab in the area in 1948.

In a longer posting that was lost I compared to a forcible united ireland.

I am not an expert in the middle east but I do know that Arabs have all the legal rights of Jews in Israel.

I do hear many reports about discrimination in practise which I have not investigated.

To be fair to the situation, it might be helpful to outline how fairly Jews treated in the Arab world! Any ideas how this pans out?

Given your views, i dont easily accept that 1m Russian immigrants were not Jewish.

I welcome your honest appraisal of the Arab world's record towards the Lapestinians.

But I would also ask you to address why other refugee populations never get the time and energy Palestinians do.

Isnt this at bottom anti-semtic opportunism?

As I understand it the Muslim world cannot by definition allow a formerly Muslim area be taken by infidels, so by definition, acceptance of Israel cannot happen.

The political and media opposression in the Arab world has contempt for western democracies such as Israel.

My point is, I am pretty convinced that the agenda of most of the Arab world is to destroy Israel.

That being the case, it could be genuinely understandable why Israel could not accept the Palestinian refugees on security grounds.

As you see, I dont profess to know all in this field or have solutions.

But one thing I am sure of; anti-Israel sentiment, propganda and actions are certainly hurting the Palestinians.

If they stopped terrorist attacks on Israel I cant see why Israel could not scale down its military actions and defences and thus ameliorate the situation for ordinary people in Gaza.

your thoughts?

PB

Hi PB,

Here goes. I do not advocate the return of the Sephardic Jews to the Arab countries they came from, nor do I expect them to take up any offer that may be or has been made to them, I merely say they should have that right, if they so chose. All of which is again in acordance with international law.

As for your suggestion that it would be fair and balanced to compare how Jewish communities are treated in Arab countries, I first at all suggest that discrimmination is discrimmination wherever it happens, and I secondly suggest that one injustice does not excuse another injustice. But I would also make the point that continually dragging the despicable Arab regimes into this debate and then saying look they are less democratic, less tolerant, or more terrifying than Israel does not in anyway help ameliorate the injustices commited by Israel, in fact it does the opposite, it gives a licence for Israel to keep commiting them.
If I take your line of arguement seriously then I really should just shut up, in fact all human rights activists should shut up because whatever abuses I campaign against the accused country will always be able to point to another country and say they are worse than us - why don't you go and do something about that before you come and campaign against us?

As for your specific question, how are Jewish communities treated in Arab countries, my short answer is I don't really know. (Please don't regard this as anti-Semitic because outside of Jordan and Lebanon I don't really know how Palestinians are treated either, or for that matter the Druze, the Assyrians, the Turkomen, the Yazidis, the Arminians, the Kurds, the Shia and so forth).

As has been extensively covered in this blog, the Sephardic communities have by and large been destroyed though some communities do still exist in Morrocco, and I believe that together with Bahrain offer a model of what is possible, see below:

Sadly however, it is much too late for most of the Sephardic communities to regenerate themselves, I found the following article particularly touching:

So for the record, and given what you suppose my views might be, I state again I deplore what the corrupt Arab governments did to their Jewish communities, and I mourn the passing of a whole way of life. But in the interest of balance I would also point out that anti-Semitism as a political phenomena was born in Europe and it was European nationalism that produced anti-Semitism in its most virulent form. I would also point out that for many centuries the Sephardic Jews enjoyed a protection and rights that were unknown to the Ashkenazi Jews of the eastern Europe. My point in making this clear is that Islam, despite its hi-jacking by extreme fundamentalists who have confused anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism, was not historically anti-Semitic, and certainly the discrimmination that was practised up until the twentieth century was no where near as lethal as that practised in Christian Europe.

Your question as to why the Palestinian refugees recieve so much attention as opposed to other refugees is a valid one. I would suggest that it primarily is because they have destablised the countries that they have resided in - witness Black September in Jordan and Fatahland in south Lebanon, and that their attacks upon Israel have in turn led to retaliation out of all proportion to the original offence - witness the 1982 invasion of Lebanon, or last year's assault on Hizbollah, or last year's operation Summer Rains in Gaza. In other words, whilst the issue of the Palestinian refugees remains unresolved the whole region will continue to go through bouts of periodic crisis. By the way, this, for some Palestinian factions has historically been the whole point of military/terrorist action against Israel. George Habash, the Christian former-leader of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) writing in the 1970s freely admitted that there was no prospect of the PLO defeating Israel but thought that if they could cause enough chaos then the international community would have to step in and address their grievances - this was the strategy that gave birth to the internatonal terrorism of airline hi-jackings and the murder of the Israeli athletes in Munich, and many other atrocities.

The other reason of course that this conflict recieves so much attention is that it is taking place in the Holy Land which is a major fault line between all three great monotheistic religions. Further to this there is something in what you say about Islamc Arabs regarding all of Palestine/Israel as Muslim land and therefore not negotiable. A few weeks ago I read an article about Hamas and its stand on the recognition of Israel. What the Hamas spokesman argued was that as historically Palestine/Israel was Muslim land no Palestinian organisation or government had the right to give it away. He further said however, that such a concession could be given if a college of the most senior Islamic clerics from throughout the Arab world approved it - so all hope is not quite dead.

The issue of whether the whole Arab world would like to destroy Israel is rather easier to answer - of course they would. I think if you asked any Arab whether they think Israel should have been established they will all say it shouldn't have been. Indeed, the easiest thing an Arab politician can do to gain popularity is to stand up and denounce Israel. However, that being said the Arabs are all well aware that what they would like to do and what they can do are two very different things. Indeed, early Zionists realised that this would be the case and that the Arab States could only be brought to peace by, in the words of Viktor Jabotinsky, erecting an "Iron Wall," by which he meant that Israel's deterent power would be such that no state would risk attacking it and so the arabs would have to despair of ever getting rid of Israel.

Beginning with Anwar Sadat in the 1970s and King Hussein in the 1990s that realization has I think been now reached. Both peace agreements with Egypt and Jordan have held through numerous crises and since 2002 the Arab League has offered Israel peace, recognition and full normalisation in return for Israel's withdrawal to its 1967 borders. Israel has said the offer is interesting but has continued building settlements and to date no negoiations have begun. None of this means the Arabs would like Israel but they would accept her. The alternative seems to be endless war.

Interestingly I think the threat to Israel's long term existence comes not from the Arab States but from its demography. Already about a fifth of Israel's population are Israeli Arabs, and if Israel continues to hold on to the Occupied Territories pretty soon the number of Palestinians and Israeli Arabs combined will outnumber Israeli Jews - how then Israel can remain stable or still be counted as democratic state I don't know. For more on this see work by Gideon Levy - a regular columnist in Ha'aretz.

What else? Oh yes, you showed disbelief about the immigration to Israel of Gentile Russians. Well first I did not say that all of the one million where non-Jewish, but that a substantial amount weren't, and secondly that wasn't really my point, my point was that if a million Russians can be settled then returned refugees can also be settled too. Anyway, on the Jewish/Gentile backgrounds of these immigrants I enclose this link, I am sure there are many others but by now I'm getting tired:

For more information on this you might also pick up, "How Israel Lost," by Richard Ben Cramer (2005).

Finally, given my views I would like very briefly to state what these are:

1. That Israel should withdraw to its 1967 borders in return for full peace with its Arab neighbours.

2. That Palestinians and all other Arab states should stop all military/terrorist activities against Israel.

3. That Palestinian refugees who wish it should be granted the right of return whilst others not taking it should be given citizenship of the countries they reside in and that all refugees be given compensation.

I'm sorry if you find these views extreme, or disingenuous, as far as I can tell they are entirely in accordance with international law, and to my mind anyway, the more abstract principles of justice. And to finish, all I want to say is that this is not a zero-sum game, being pro-Palestinian is not the same as being anti-Israeli, or vice-versa. I like to think you can be both and I think there are enough good Israeli peace groups to prove it.

Sorry LJ that I haven't responded to your post but I will get round to it.

Best wishes and let's hope this post doesn't get lost.

thanks Richard

I dont agree that it is not relevant to examine how Jews are treated in the Arab world.

The whole study of oppression in the middle east is largely one of discrimination in favour of focussing on palesitinians and ignoring others including Jews, as far as I can see.

If you seriously give roughly equal time thought and action to different groups of refugees as you do to the palesitinians then you are on the right track.

That goes for all human rights groups and campaigners and is a fair argument. Otherwise you are duilty of discrimination, on grounds of race or religion.

I nowhere suggested you stop campaigning for Palestinians that is a straw man argument; just that you give proportionate time to others such as the 200k Cyrpriots and 800k Jews.

If you pick out the palestinians and constantly bash Israel as being solely responsible for their plight then that is anti-semitic, and I dont want to hear any quibbling about the term, you know what I mean.

I have personally made a study of all the OT prophets and to a man they all explicitly state that the land is Israel's forever. So whether you take that seriously or not, you cant deny it is a central part of their historical faith.

No, dont stop doing what you feel needs to be done for Palestinians, not for a second, but if you are singling them out for special treatment you are at least submitting to an anti-semtic agenda.

I appreciate your thoughful and lengthy response. But if you concede the arab world wants to destroy israel and it we see the poipularity of hamas in Gaza, then surely it would indeed be national suicide to take in over one million potential suicide bombers who have vowed to destroy you???

I appreciate your time and input into understanding other sincere views on the matter.

One other thing. I am concerned about data gather regards atrocities committed by Israel. I have shown on the RSF link above that Arab media are very heavily censored, while Israel media is as free as Europe or the US.

But in practise it appears more trust is usually placed on Arab sources.

sincerely
PB

Richard, forgive me for pre-empting your reply to me in any way, but I just wanted to comment about your statement:
"...Islam, despite its hi-jacking by extreme fundamentalists who have confused anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism, was not historically anti-Semitic, and certainly the discrimmination that was practised up until the twentieth century was no where near as lethal as that practised in Christian Europe."
This is simply not true. Although Islam was not THEOLOGICALLY antisemitic it tolerated Jews purely because they were useful to Muslims. But according to a system of semi-apartheid known as 'dhimmi' Jews had to defer to Islam's supremacy by submitting to various humiliations and handicaps. They were confined to ghettos and did not have the same legal rights as Muslims. As dhimmis they had to buy the ruler's protection by paying a heavy tax. The ruler did not, or could not, always protect them from mob violence and massacre and these were quite frequent.
I agree with PB that Israel's so-called 'injustices' towards the Palestinians are often false, exaggerated or have to be seen in context(e.g the Jenin massacre that never was, the shooting of the boy Mohammed al-Dura and countless other examples).Seehttps://www.theaugeanstables.com/

Apologies LJ for my tardiness in getting back to you, I was away and my mind elsewhere. So if you're still out there, here are a few thoughts on the issue of the Sephardic exodus. Firstly, I think I was wildly optimistic in my belief that I could get back to you in a few days. The evidence appears to be disputed at every level - not really surprising given that every aspect of this conflict is endlessly disputed - at one level we have an article from Ya'akov Meron which entirely fits the classic Zionist narrative -

On the other hand we have the exact opposite view put by Naeim Giladi on the JewsnotZionists website. Then we also have the views of the Chief Rabbi of Baghdad who blamed Zionists for the exodus, see "Iraqi Jews: A History of a Mass Exodus," by Abbas Shiblak. This is also the line David Hirst takes up in his "The Gun and the Olive Branch."

Then there are the Sephardic Jews and MKs who reject the claim that they are refugees and not Zionists. Whilst other academics view the exodus as a mixture of push and pull factors.

In other words the circumstances in which the Sephardic Jews left differed fom country to country and I still haven't got a full understanding of what happened and will need to keep digging.

By the way the links you give in support of your arguments do not refute the thesis that Israel played a role in encouaging the exodus - they only say they do. Saying that something is untrue and proving it are quite different things. Indeed the article you put forward by Tom Segev only muddies the waters more. In any case I am still concerned about your comparison of Arab lands to the Nazi regime - if you are interested in this line of thought you might wish to pick up Robert Satloff's "Among The Righteous: Lost Stories From The Holocaust's long reach Into Arab Lands." If anything this work effectively dispels the idea that persecution of the Jews was a popular activity widely carried out by the Arab people.

Oh, and finally, from what I can discern no one blames the Palestinians for the exodus, from what I can gather they actively opposed it.

Anyway, I intend to start reading "Last Days In Babylon: The Story Of The Jews of Baghdad" later this week.

Best wishes,

Richard

Dear Richard
Just discovered your reply and hope that you’re still around to see mine! I value the chance to debate with you intelligently and rationally.
Of course Arab writers will want to dispute or muddy unpalatable facts. This does not mean that they should be allowed to rewrite history. Unfortunately they have had a head start on the Jews in this regard, but more and more accounts written by Jews in English of what happened, such as Marina Benjamin’s, are beginning to appear. Incidentally you will see that Benjamin does take the view that the Zionists were not responsible for the ‘bombs’. The chief rabbi of Baghdad’s statement should be discounted as it was one of many made by Jewish community leaders in the Arab world under duress.
Naeim Giladi is one lone embittered individual whose experience is entirely at odds with that of my parents and their friends– and I humbly suggest that their first-hand experience of life as Iraqi Jews driven out of Baghdad in 1950 should have more credibility with you than his. That experience was without a doubt that of refugees whose property was sequestrated and who were stripped of their citizenship overnight. Some 300,000 Jewish refugees who fled Arab countries (about a third) DID NOT go the Israel. This should put paid to they myth that they were all Zionists.
See

You only have to read Bernard Lewis’s ‘Semites and antisemites’ to see the very real influence of Nazism on Arab regimes. Don’t forget the Nazis were viewed as the Arabs’ allies in the struggle for Palestine and against the British and French colonialists. In 30s Iraq – well before the creation of Israel, discriminatory laws reminiscent of Nuremberg were introduced against the Jews, there were quotas on Jews in higher education, the B’aath party was modeled on fascism, there were paramilitary youth groups and finally a full-blown Nazi-inspired pogrom (Farhoud) in 1941 killing 179 Jews. How anyone can blame Israel for such antisemitism is malicious and ahistorical. In the Maghreb countries and Yemen the Jews were not expelled, but they suffered to a much greater extent from historic handicaps and restrictions of ‘dhimmitude’ under sharia law.
Read Albert Memmi ‘s article here

I have read Robert Satloff’s book and I find that his book misleads precisely because he does not mention the all-pervasive impact of Nazi propaganda in the Arab world, Nazi influence in Egypt and Iraq and among the Palestinian Arabs (The Grand Mufti). Of course there were brave individual instances of Arabs rescuing Jews ( as there were righteous Germans, Poles and Dutch in Europe) and Satloff is to be commended for bringing these to light. Many Muslim neighbours also saved Jews in the 1941 Farhoud but this does not excuse the acts of those who raped, mutilated and pillaged.
best regs
lj