The pitfalls of Jewish-Muslim dialogue

I agree largely by what is written.
However, Bataween, were not the Jews from Arab and North African countries "returnees" rather than "refugees", since they were returning to their homeland? As such, weren't the Israeli authorities obliged to help them under the provisions of the Law of Return?

All Jews are entitled to 'return' to Israel under the 'Law of Return'. However, Jews from North Africa were mostly refugees forced out by violence or the threat of violence, persecution and intimidation to leave, although this was not as bad as in Iraq, Syria and Egypt. 90 percent of Libyans left for Israel in 1948 three years after a pogrom killing 130 Jews and leaving thousands homeless. In Morocco some 40 Jews were killed in 1948 riots. Most were desperate to leave when the country became independent and emigration was banned for five years. You will find plenty of material on my blog.

I am aware of the history of North African and Arab countries' Jewry, Bataween, and your blog is an invaluable resource. However, it is wrong to call these people refugees, since they were returning to their homeland. It's not as if they had nowhere to go or were denied entry or rights by another country.

About 300,000 Jews from Arab countries did not go to Israel, so what would you call them? They cannot be called 'returnees.'
The push factors were definitely in place in their countries of birth, otherwise they would not have fled in such numbers. In Morocco, the Jewish population is only 1 percent of what it was.

Those 300,000 either stayed in place (for whatever reason) or found homes elsewhere, such as France, Canada, the UK etc. Those who stayed had the same rights as their co-citizens, while those who left for places other than Israel got rights in those countries. Either way, they were not refugees. Emigres, perhaps, but not refugees.

"However, it is wrong to call these people refugees"

To this non-stop demoniser of everything Jewish and Israeli, someone kicked out of his home with violence and having all his property stolen is 'not a refugee'.

JM becomes more absurd with each passing day.

No, Leah (or Yoni1 or JIC using a female pseudo), someone forced from their home by violence is not a refugee if they have somewhere to go, as was the case with North African and Jews from Arab countries. If they don't have somewhere to go, they would be refugees. But North African and levantine Jews who went to Israel were returnees.

Those 300,000 did not stay in place! They left, but not to Israel.

It is true that those who went to France, Canada, the UK, became citizens of these countries, so they did not stay refugees for long.

People do not leave their homes in such numbers unless they feel insecure, threatened or marginalised.

According to the UN convention on refugees, here is their definition:

"A person who owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.."

The country of destination where the person finds refuge has nothing to do with it.

Bataween, thanks, that was exactly the point I was making. It's a huge shame that some people's plight in returning to their homeland Israel is going to be used by Israel as another obstacle in talks with the Palestinians.
I hope that Jews from Arab lands learn from the experience of those who should have received compensation from Germany and not allow politicians and certain organisation line their pockets. I'd be wary especially of Shas.

Bataween, they weren't running away from their homeland since Israel is their homeland. So by the UN definition doesn't apply.

I don't see why their plight should be an obstacle to peace - in fact it is the very opposite. Recognising their rights is the key to reconciliation, as Jews are very hurt and embittered by their experience in Arab lands and that's why they vote for rightwing parties. But we are very far from Arab states behaving like Germany and giving compensation to these Jews.
Shas is actually to be congratulated for championing their rights.

I told you that 300,000 did not go to Israel. Should they be denied their rights?

No, of course not, Bataween. But they aren't refugees.

Bataween, those who returned to Israel were not denied any rights. So why should they get more rights?

Those Jews who escaped from Germany and ended up in Israel were given recognition and compensation by the Germans. Those Jews who escaped from Arab countries were not. These are the rights we are talking about - rights to recognition and compensation by the states which persucted and abused them, not the rights they now enjoy as citizens of their new countries.

Good luck with that. It's a shame that such a cause is likely to be abused by politicians seeking to create obstacles to peace or use the returnees as pawns. And just be careful if Shas gets its grubby paws on the money.

In response to Mr Millis, the term "Jewish Nakba" is used to refer to the persecution and expulsion of Jews from Arab countries in the years and decades following the creation of the State of Israel. Israeli columnist Ben Dror Yemini, himself a Mizrahi Jew, wrote: However, there is another Nakba: the Jewish Nakba. During those same years [the 1940's], there was a long line of slaughters, of pogroms, of property confiscation and of deportations against Jews in Islamic countries. This chapter of history has been left in the shadows. The Jewish Nakba was worse than the Palestinian Nakba. The only difference is that the Jews did not turn that Nakba into their founding ethos. To the contrary.
Professor Ada Aharoni, chairman of The World Congress of the Jews from Egypt, argues in an article entitled "What about the Jewish Nakba?" that exposing the truth about the expulsion of the Jews from Arab states could facilitate a genuine peace process, since it would enable Palestinians to realize they were not the only ones who suffered, and thus their sense of "victimization and rejectionism" will decline.
Additionally, Canadian MP and international human rights lawyer Irwin Cotler has referred to the "double Nakba." He criticizes the Arab states' rejectionism of the Jewish state, their subsequent invasion to destroy the newly formed nation, and the punishment meted out against their local Jewish populations: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.
However it must be said that a number of Israelis whose roots are in the Arab Middle East consider that they left for ideological reasons. This cetainly cannot be said of the Egyptian Jews who were forced out by Nasser during the Suez crisis and left with just the clothes they were wearing.

Advi3er, all well and good, but it still doesn't make those who fled Arab and North African lands refugees. It makes them returnees under the Law of Return. So their situation is quite dissimilar to that of the Palestinians who did not have anywhere to go once they fled/were forced out. So, no, your "Naqba" is no worse than their's, since they had nowhere to go.
Also, slightly disingenuous to co-opt the term Naqba when Israel has just made it an offence to mark it.
Also, seems to me that while in the past "the Jews did not turn that Naqba into their founding ethos", some people now want to abuse its memory for personal and political gain. Which is a bit grubby to say the least. Not that it ever happens, of course, but it would be like Israeli politicians of a certain bent using the Holocaust as their founding ethos.
So while I have a lot of time for Ben-Dror Yemini, he is way off the mark by inventing this phrase.

Of course the Palestinians had somewhere to go. Most of them were internally displaced within Palestine, many moved just a few miles away. The vast majority remained within a predominantly Muslim, Arabic speaking environment in Arab countries. These countries should have had no difficulty assimilating these refugees. But all except Jordan refused to grant them citizenship, a basic human right.
I personally have no objection to the term Jewish Nakba to describe the destruction of ancient Jewish communities, many in existence well before Islam, and the uprooting of their population.
I don't know where you got this idea that people want to abuse its memory for personal gain when the Arab states have not paid out one dinar in compensation to Jewish refugees from Arab countries now in Israel.

Bataween, why should the surrounding Arab countries assimilated the Palestinians? They weren't obliged to and those countries were not the Palestinians' homeland.
And it's disingenuous to claim that some were displaced "just a few miles away", without mentioning that "just a few miles away" was another country.
Certain organisations will abuse the memory for personal and political gain.
Take a look at this
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/holocaust-survivors-compensati...

It's all very well to deplore Holocaust denial, but when did you hear Arab and Muslims admit to their widespread complicity in the Holocaust

I don't like seeing such unsubstantiated and almost throw away remarks. I am well aware of the foolish statements of the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem during WW2. However, such comments are not the same as "complicity." Albania was the only country where the Jewish population rose during WW2, and many Muslim rescuers have since been recognised by Yad Vashem.

@Joe Millis your comment 30 March 2011 at 17:24
I think you are confusing two issues that is the status of Jews who lived in Arab countries after their expulsion and their status on their arrival in Israel.
Most of the Jews who came to Israel from the Arab countries did not come here of their own free will they were forced out of their countries of origin. It matters not a jot that Israel was prepared to take them in, the minute they were expelled from their countries of origin they became pursuant to Article 1A, paragraph 1, of the 1951 UN Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, a “refugee”.
The Convention offers a general definition of the refugee as including any person who is outside their country of origin and unable or unwilling to return there or to avail themselves of its protection, on account of a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular group, or political opinion.
The refugee must be “outside” his or her country of origin, and the fact of having fled or having been forced out, of having crossed an international frontier, is an intrinsic part of the quality of refugee, understood in its ordinary sense. However, it is not necessary to have fled by reason of fear of persecution, or even actually to have been persecuted. The fear of persecution looks to the future, and can also emerge during an individual’s absence from their home country, for example, as a result of intervening political change.
Accordingly, the Jews refugee status terminated only when they were taken in by and made citizens of the countries to which they fled.
This is important because UN Resolution 194 states:
“Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible;”
Notable in this wording, is the fact that a "right of return" was not mentioned, and the reference to "refugees," rather than "Arab refugees" and "governments," rather than just the government of Israel. This implies that the framers had in mind the rights of Palestinian Jewish refugees disposed from their property in Palestine as well, and would also be applicable to Jewish refugees forced to flee Arab countries as a result of the conflict. The number of Jews who were forced out of Arab and Muslim countries because of the conflict was equal to or in excess of the number of Palestinian Arab refugees.
This is therefore the basis on which Israel justifiably considers that the question of compensation for those Jewish refugees should be part of the overall settlement (and not as you suggest an impediment to a settlement) of the competing claims of both sides. It is estimated that Jewish property in the hands of the Egyptians alone is today worth over US$1 billion.
The Arab countries to which the Arabs who left the Palestine mandate on the establishment of the State of Israel did not give citizenship to nor did they resettle or make any attempt to resettle those refugees as they quite easily could have been cynically it would appear to perpetuate an ongoing refugee problem.
As to Mohammed Amin I think you will find that the Grand Mufti made more than a few ill judged statements. he was instrumental in the formation of a Muslim Brigade that fought alongside the SS in the Balkans. I suggest you do some research before you try to whitewash that gentleman. No one disputes that some Muslims went out of their way to help the jews especially in Tunisia when the Vichy government took control and passed anti-Semtic laws but unfortunately that was the exception.

Advi3er, you've just contradicted yourself. Yesterday, at 17:15, you wrote that " it must be said that a number of Israelis whose roots are in the Arab Middle East consider that they left for ideological reasons". Now, it seems they did not go to Israel of their own free will. What's it to be? Ideological or forced? Personally, I think it was forced, but at least they had somewhere to go.
And it's no use using the UN definition of refugee for the Jews of Arab lands, since as Israel stipulates it is the national homeland of the Jewish people, Israel is their country of origin. If you adopt the UN definition, then every oleh who ever made Israel their home is a refugee if he/she is "unwilling to return" to their country of birth.
I still don't understand why Israel feels the Arab countries should be obliged to sort out the Palestinian refugee problem to Israel's liking. It's a nonsensical demand.
And I still think that there are those in the Israeli body politic who have raised the issue of compensation for the returnees from Arab lands just as an impediment or as a means for personal and political gain. That's very grubby.

No I have not contradicted myself. There are certainly a number of Israelis whose origins are in Arab lands who consider they came for ideological reasons but they are a small minority most of them as you agree were forced out. I added that paragraph for completeness - but of course you do just read what you think I wrote and seized on a sentence out of context to try and demolish the argument - but you have not. As I said and read it for yourself just Google 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees being outside of your country of origin for the reasons stated in the convention makes you a refugee it does not matter in the least that there is a country willing to take you in. Accordingly any one who comes to Israel of their own free will is not a refugee. It is not a point of just being unwilling to return to a country of origin but being unable or unwilling to return for fear of death or persecution - read the convention and stop making blithering comments. Israel has taken in Sudanese refugees they are still refugees even if their lives are a thousand times better than they ever were in the Sudan.
As to your asinine comment about sortin g out the Palestine refugee peoblem to Israel's liking may I remind you that in 1947 there was an even greater problem on the creation of India and Pakistan and that was sorted out by a transfer of populations whose numbers were considerably greater that those of the Arabs who left Palestine. The Arab States however were not interested in a settlement if that left the State of Israel in place and that unfortunately to a greater or lesser extent remains the case today.
I consider your comment that Israel in seeking compensation for the loss of property when members of the Jewish communities in Arab lands were evicted from Arab lands as grubby or as an impediment to peace to be wholly improper and unacceptable. I trust you do not deny that Israel was right to seek compensation from Germany and those countries aiding it in respect of Jews who suffered in the holocaust to obtain recompense for lost property so why question Israel's motives when it seeks the same rights for Jews from Arab lands?

Advi3er, you didn't stipulate minority or majority and if you read your sentence again, you will see that you make it clear that with the exception of Egyptian Jews, the others consider themselves going to Israel for ideological reasons.
They aren't refugees, because their country of origin is the Jewish state, Israel (the national homeland of the Jewish people). They were in exile, the galut, before going on aliyah. And now they are in their homeland.
As for the Sudanese and other refugees, Israel isn't their homeland - so it's not like with like. I believe also that Israel is building a huge, welcoming wall along the Sinai border to prevent more refugees coming in.

It's a bit rich (pardon the pun) to compare the compensation given by Germany when Israel was a poor, small country to possible compo now when Israel is such a rich country, a member of the elite OECD, noch.
And didn't Menachem Begin think compensation from Germany to be even worse than grubby ("blood money" is the term I think he used). Didn't one of his lieutenants lob a grenade in the Knesset over the issue?
Different, wonderful days, eh?

I read what you write but I have difficulty in believing that you could have written it."They aren't refugees, because their country of origin is the Jewish state, Israel (the national homeland of the Jewish people)." Are you serious? Are you wiping out thousands of years of Jewish heritage in Iraq Kurdistan Tunisia Morocco Yemen etc etc? They were refugees blow as hard as you like but the US Senate has passed a resolution, an identical version of which was introduced into the House of Representatives, which called on the Bush administration to instruct all US diplomats, including the US ambassador to the United Nations, to include mention of "multiple refugee populations" in any text or resolution alluding to Middle East refugees, and to ensure that "any explicit reference to the required resolution of the Palestinian refugee issue is matched by a similar explicit reference to the resolution of the issue of Jewish refugees from Arab countries."
In any event the Jewish Homeland is not the State of Israel which is a modern manifestation of a section of the Jewish Homeland whose borders are set out in the Bible and ratified by the League of Nations.
As to Menachem Begin being a bit selctive aren't we? Public debate at the time of offer by Germany was among the fiercest in Israeli history. Opposition to the agreement came from both the right (Herut and the General Zionists) and the left (Mapam) of the political spectrum; both sides argued that accepting reparation payments was the equivalent of forgiving the Nazis for their crimes. In the present case we are talking about property reparations not reparations for the six million Jewish souls that perished.

Advi3er, are you saying the Israel isn't the national homeland of the Jewish people? Bibi is demanding that the Palestinians recognise it as such, or else...
So, how can a Jew be a refugee in his or her own homeland? Returnees, certainly - refugeees, obviously not. Especially since they were welcomed with such opened arms and so many perks.
No, I'm not being selective about Begin (I don't remember reports of Mapamniks lobbing hand grenades). Merely pointing out that there's a huge difference between the eras.

Mohamed Amin:
There are plenty of instances of Arab complicity with Nazism: the Mufti of Jerusalem did not just make statements, he collaborated in the project to exterminate the Jews. Many hundreds of Jews died as a result of his incitement, not just in Palestine but in Iraq (1941 Farhud) and he was responsible indirectly for the deaths of tens of thousands of Jews.
The Mufti was was not a lone figure or maverick, as revisionist historians now like to portray him. The Palestinian Arabs were solidly in sympathy with him, as the German consul General in Jerusalem reported in 1937:

"Palestinian Arabs in all social strata have great sympathies for the new Germany and its Führer. These are sympathies that should be deemed even more valuable since they are on a purely abstract level.… If a person identified himself as a German when faced with threats from an Arab crowd, this alone generally allowed him to pass freely. But when some identified themselves by making the “Heil Hitler” salute, in most cases the Arabs’ attitude became expressions of open enthusiasm, and the German gave ovations, to which the Arabs responded loudly. "

Yes, Albanian Muslims did save Jews (but so did Christians). On the other hand, 20,000 Bosnian Muslims joined the two SS divisions set up by the Mufti and 90 percent of Bosnian Jews were exterminated.