Talk:Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Article listed as a source

I removed the link because the website mentioned drastically oversimplifies things (it seems to be for children rather than for adults)

It lists figures, what's wrong with that? --Uri
the figures are not the problem, the problem is the text beside the figures and maps. Would you really say the following presents a full and fair treatment of the refugee issue? Things are not as simple as this website presents: "Approximately 720,000 Arabs, encouraged by their leaders to leave, fled from what is now Israel between April and December, 1948.(1) The Arab leaders promised them that they would soon be able to return following Israel's destruction. In some cases the Jews, including Israel's first Prime Minister, David Ben-Gurion, urged the Arabs to remain, promising that they would not be harmed.(2) Those who remained became full and equal citizens of Israel, while those who chose to leave went to neighboring Arab states. Instead of welcoming their Arab brothers, and integrating them into the mainstream of their societies, the Arab states kept them in squalid refugee camps and used these Palestinians refugees as political pawns in their fight against Israel." I think, wikipedia is better off without links to this site (our own articles provide much more content)--Elian
Then we must provide equivalent content. By that, I mean refugee number listings. --Uri

What this article needs

What it needs:

  • a less victim-oriented history
??? The Jews have always been victims. The innocent peace-loving Jews came down from the hills to settle on the lands of Caanan and Philistia, only to be victimised by the evil natives, etc., etc., for 3000 years.
  • a list of the main migrations with dates, counts, and some basic information about each
  • a new name! There have been many more Jewish refugees in history than this. What about the 1492 expulsion from Spain for example? Maybe something like "Jewish refugees to Israel" or "Jewish refugees from Arab lands"?
    • May I assume this referred to an earlier name? "Immigration to Israel from Arab lands" seems unproblematic to me as an article title. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:23, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
      • The article title at the time was "Jewish refugees", I'm pretty sure. --DanKeshet
  • some NPOV. At the moment the Jews were "forced to leave" and the Palestinian refugees were merely "created". The first one actually gives a completely false impression in that readers will think the Arab states physically required their Jews to leave. It wasn't like that at all in most of the cases. Usually Jews were forbidden to leave until Israel and its allies mounted a campaign for their release. Of course the Jews usually had good reasons for leaving and may have even felt they had no reasonable choice, but that is not what people will understand by "forced to leave". zero 08:15, 10 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Do we really need all these all-caps quotes? RickK 07:53, 30 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Not happy with article

I'm not happy with this article. Referring to all Jews who left Arab countries for Israel as refugees is highly inaccurate, while the term "Jewish refugees" shoudl encompass other periods, such as pre- and post-World War II. The passengers on the Saint Louis were clearly Jewish refugees--much more than the Jewish immigrants from Yemen to Israel. Danny 08:07, 30 Aug 2003 (UTC)

So let's change the name. What about "Jewish emigration from Arab lands to Israel"? It's a bit long but it's hard to make it shorter. If the destination (Israel) is not the main issue, then the time period is need, such as "Jewish emigration from Arab lands after 1948". --zero 12:03, 30 Aug 2003 (UTC)

It's a whopper but I suggest "Jewish emigration from Arab lands to Israel after 1948" (there was an important, if small, movement of Jews from Yemen to Ottoman Palestine in the 1880s). But to me, "Jewish refugees" conjures up images of the Evian Conference and the Bermuda Conference. This is entirely off the mark. Danny 13:05, 30 Aug 2003 (UTC)

If we use "Jewish emigration from Arab lands to Israel", it will be no problem to add a section about the earlier migrations. Alternatively reverse it to "Jewish immigration to Israel from Arab lands". If you agree to either of those, go ahead and change it.zero 14:42, 30 Aug 2003 (UTC)

From the article

Points to add

periodical pogroms, particularly the pro-Nazi rule in Iraq in the early 1940s, details of which measures caused the flight and how did it happen, measures taken from Israel to save the refugees (Yemen?)


Erm, Jews have lived in Arab lands since 586 BC and almost all of this time they have been Dhimmis? I can give at least a millennium when they didn't live under Muslim rule... DanKeshet 06:46, Nov 10, 2003 (UTC)

  • Nov 2003! Wow. And no one has really addressed this.

Why do we only talk about Arab lands, ignoring the 100,000 Jews from Iran who were in the same situation? Keith from Calgary 06:21, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

  • Hmm. Probably would not be bad to treat that in same article. It would mean retitling this. Also, I believe the bulk of that migration is later (I'm not super-knowledgable on this, could someone chime in who is?). If so, combining might not be the greatest idea. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:26, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

Non-Jews

I am missing some comparison with similar exoduses like Christians (Maronites, Latin, Coptic, Orthodox) from Egypt, Palestine, Lebanon. Did they coincide in time? Had some of them higher pressures?

Moroccan Sephardim

The Morocco section should mention that by the time the Spanish troops took to conquest Spanish Morocco, they were surprised to find friendly "Moors" (the Moroccan Sephardim) that helped them and spoke something similar to Spanish. In retribution, Spain conceded some favors to Sephardim.

Why is this article disputed?

Why is there still a NPOV tag on this article? Jayjg 18:08, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Few or none of the issues addressed earlier on this talk page have been dealt with. The article as it stands is very weak and contains hardly any information about the subject. An example sin is the phrase "Arab governments ..." when in fact there were vast differences between the situations in different countries. And why the long list of advocacy groups? They should be just a link each. What about the groups that advocate for the rights of these immigrants in Israel (where they claim to be severely discriminated against)? --Zero 01:10, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I am returning a full disputed tag to this article. It reads like a propaganda bulletin. I am also placing an RFC request. Some outside editors might bring a fresh neutral perspective. I have not edited this article myself, but I prefer not to begin, before other fresh editors have studied it. --AladdinSE 05:55, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

  • Aladdin: You have not given a single fact or argument why this article is "TotallyDisputed", I am therefore removing the sign. IZAK 02:34, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Having read through the discussion here, I can not find a single argument on factual or rhetorical grounds that would indicate that this article is biased. There are some suggestions on how to improve it, e.g., less about the organizations (probably deserve their own article), and more specifics on the various migrations, but objections largely fall into the "inconvenient truths" category. --Leifern 10:09, 2005 Apr 4 (UTC)

Lavon Affair and other Jewish treason caused the exodus

Why does SlimVirgin insist on whitewashing Jewish and Israeli culpability in the plight of Arab Jews? --User:STP

Baloney, whoever you are! IZAK 02:53, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Lavon affair is a much more complex story that barely seems relevant to this article. Even if the allegations of bombings to disrupt US-Egyptian relations are true (which is debatable), they are at best lousy pretexts for punishing Jews. They are certainly not "proof" of everything. The Lavon affair revolves around the arrest, torture, conviction, and execution of Egyptian Jews who worked as spies for Israel. --Leifern 04:54, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC)

NPOV Tag is being removed by bigoted editors who disagree with content of article

The Lavon Affair and other Israeli crimes using Arab Jews as their agents contributed to the expulsion of Arab Jews from their homelands. There are a bunch of bigoted editors who cannot face the truth about Israeli culpability in this history so they censor the information and then delete the NPOV tag. -- User:STP April 4, 2005

So you're saying that it's completely legitimate for Arab governments to collectively punish all Jews for alleged crimes of a few? How does that make the Arab regimes look any better? By that standard, every Muslim in the U.S. should have been expelled after 9/11, a position I surely would reject. --Leifern 13:54, 2005 Apr 8 (UTC)

What nonsense you spout, and you sound veeerrrryyyy straaaannnnggggge if you talk of "Israeli crimes" as if there are no "Arab crimes". Hahahahahaha. There is no basis for the tag! IZAK 03:27, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

User:STP's edit is self-evidently POV. "Middle Eastern and North African Jewish communities, came to an end in the 1940s and early 1950s when most Arab governments forced hundreds of thousands of Jews to flee after ... treachery and treason such as the Lavon Affair terrorist attacks." It doesn't even make sense: whose treachery and treason are you talking about? You're also deleting a bunch of links for no reason. STP is believed to be a sockpuppet of banned User:Alberuni, in which case his edits may be reverted for any reason, and he may be blocked. The only reason I'm not doing it myself is that I can't be certain it's him. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:32, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
It is a violation of Wikipedia policy to remove an NPOV tag when the POV is being disputed on the Talk page. It is also a violation of policy to alter another editor's edits on the Talk page as SlimVirgin did by altering the heading of this section. Furthermore, the treachery exhibited by Israel in the Lavon Affair, recruiting Egyptian Jews for terrorist attacks in Egypt, greatly contributed to all Arab countries mistrusting their Jewish populations. This added greatly to the burden of the Arab Jews, especially after the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from the Holy Land by European Jews - in the name of a Jewish State. This is not easy for hardcore Zionists to accept but it is true and you should attempt to adress it rather than censor it. Read Moshe Sharret's diaries cited in Israel's Sacred Terrorism, for a needed education. User:STP
It is a violation of morality to be a scoundrel! Because User:STP has in fact been cited for vandalism by User:ElTyrant, see Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress#Current alerts#April 4 [1] and is suspected by both User:SlimVirgin and User:Jayjg of being a sock puppet of banned User:Alberuni see User talk:STP [2] and Mossad "Project"? No, it was Mossad terrorism [3]. UserSTP is also guilty of using anti-Semitic slurs, such as: "traitor Jews can't be trusted" [4] ; "Judaism is a cult but Jewish cultists, of course, deny it" and added the blood libel: ":Ethnocentric Jews killed Jesus 2000 years ago and in the past century they have killed thousands of Palestinians, Lebanese, Jordanians and other innocent victims in their quest to maintain their racist state." [5], and again repeated it "The Jews killed Jesus, among many others" [6] ! So who is this guy to "complain" when he should be booted off Wikipedia ASAP. IZAK 11:53, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I would be very careful about insinuating that other editors are dogs (your wiki link to "scoundrel" in your comment was in fact a link to the Wikipedia Dog article. That was very below the belt and a clear Personal Attack. If you have such objections to this person, it's hypocritical to stoop to such a level. It's inflammatory and gets us no where. --AladdinSE 12:04, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

I couldn't find a suitable link to Scoundrel so I chose the next best way to dab, which was "dog", and I think that it's actually unfair to the dogs to have someone who publicly exclaims blood libels as User:STP did a number of times (did you read the rest of what I wrote by the way?). It's time you stopped defending the wrong people on Wikipedia and adjusted your perspective/s so that you understand clearly that no self-respecting Jew (which is what I try to be) will take open and vile Anti-Semitism insults and not react. Or do you prefer Jews who go like "sheep to the slaughter"? Oh, and who was it that said, "beware of the wolf that hides in the sheep's ("NPOV") clothing? IZAK 13:06, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That is a spurious argument. You were not obliged to link to "scoundrel" at all. Calling someone a scoundrel even without the link is out of line in the first place, no matter how offended you are by any user's actions or political predilections. The Wikipedia:No personal attacks policy is absolute. There are no exceptions for when an editor is more than usually incensed at another editor. If you believe an editor has crossed a line and actually broken Wikipedia policy then pursue the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution steps that are afforded to you. That is the proper way to react, according to policy. Here instead of desisting, you have compounded your error by claiming that insinuating he/she is a dog is unfair to dogs. Do you really need another ban placed on you? Why give anyone ammunition to be used against you? Just stay cool. I am not here to defend any particular user, or to be told how I should reset my priorities. I did not join Wikipedia to get into pissing contests on Talk pages, to see who can hurl insults in the wittiest and most self-righteous way. I dislike personal attacks anywhere and I certainly dislike such ugly inflamatory language in a Talk section designed for consensus. I do not doubt your commitment against anti-Semitism and other ideals, but your emotionalism and knee-jerk reactions are exhausting and a constant source of distraction across several article Talk pages. --AladdinSE 03:24, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the advice, I am impressed you say it at all. However, for what it's worth, some people around here need to know that Jews and Israelis on Wikipedia are live self-respecting human beings too (and not just "objects" to "caricature" and subject to Holocausts and expulsions), and when a nut comes along and hurls violent invective at them, there is actually bleeding going on in that Jew's heart -- not just an unfeeling cyber-automaton saying "ho-hum". At any rate, how I deal with mad-hatters like User:STP and other "mad dog" Anti-Semites on Wikipedia needn't concern you, I have made my choices and I think they are are still well-within the bounds of human morality which is more important than mere "rules" (which so concern you, really are you a lawyer, you haven't told us yet?) And as for you, stick to your ways and I will continue to debate you as best I can in the spirit of good-natured scholarly rivalry, as long as you don't resort to hate speech or other such-like anti-Jewish, anti-Zionist and anti-Israel provocations on Wikipedia (unfortunately I cannot react to all those gross POV violations, but those that come my way, and I am able to respond to, I do fully...as you can tell... and I even ENJOY it!) Yet, this should in no way make you feel "...to be undergoing exhausting (and a) constant source(s) of distraction across several article Talk pages" because after all that's what Wikipedia article Talk pages are there for, to "talk" right? (especially when it concerns hot-button controversial subjects, there will always be challenges to deal with around here.) Take care and thanks again for your genuine concern (which I seem to sense, I only hope it's sincere.) IZAK 08:04, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Very well, do as you will. I have said my peace. --AladdinSE 09:30, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

UN role

Why "See also United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East" if the UN is said, just prior to that, to have had no role? -- Jmabel | Talk 05:57, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

Now moved to the bottom of the page, with the other "See also's". IZAK 10:39, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

I would suggest returning the NPOV tag to the page, since there does seem to be a POV dispute. As far as I can tell, there are no specific factual disputes, though.

Are there specific points people feel need citation? Specific statements people think are biased? (And, for that matter, are there disputed facts?). A clear list would help us move toward resolving this quickly. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:34, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

Starting list:

  • It would be useful to have something about the various refugee organizations other than their own self-descriptions. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:34, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Could we clarify the wording about Dhimmi vs. the pre-Muslim era? "Except for intermittent periods when Jews in Arab lands were able to contribute to their countries of residence..." is really confusing; the last phrase ("...able to contribute...") has no clear meaning. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:34, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • What is the relevance of "See also United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East"? -- Jmabel | Talk 06:34, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

On April 2 I put in an RFC regarding concerns for NPOV. Some fresh perspectives from editors not heavily involved in articles dealing with the Arab-Israeli conflict might prove helpful. --AladdinSE 07:32, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

Aladdin what are you really saying and asking for here? That you expect editors who know nothing about this subject to give their POV opinions? Who exactly are those "editors not heavily involved in articles dealing with the Arab-Israeli conflict" that you wish to drag into these serious topics? Do you think that science or mythology or other such contributors will come up with "different facts" about what really happened to those close to one million Jews who were kicked out or fled from their former homes in Arab lands? Why not tell us which points specifically you find untrue or false in the article and then we can take it from there instead of calling in a hoped-for "lynch mob" that will never materialze in any case. C'mon, do you really think the unkown people you want to involve here will actually help you to change the unbendable and immutable and undeniable facts of the Persecution of the Jews which is what this article is really all about? What's next...consulting oracles or such-like? IZAK 10:37, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Again, my user name is AladdinSE, not Aladdin. Editors not immersed in articles related to the conflict have a much better chance of weeding out, with a more neutral eye, POVs that the rest of us might have missed, due to possible biases that we may not even conscious of. Lastly, please try to relax. Why are your responses always so emotional and accusatory? Nobody is being dragged into this. RFC was designed specifically to help editors to solicit other perspectives. I am not "really" trying to say anything, I just say what's there. It is not just facts other editors can introduce or shed light upon, it also the Neutrality by which the information is presented which they can help safeguard. Not everything and everybody is a conspiracy. --AladdinSE 10:37, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

IZAK, while I respect your right to your concerns about some of the people who may be participating in this page, I hope you will not use your fight with them to avoid responding to me: you asked me to take a look at this page, I've done so, I've made remarks, but for the most part you are replying to others and not to me. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:43, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

Jmabel, sorry, you are correct, well I have followed up on some of your observations: By moving and putting United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East at the bottom "See also" section; I also took care of some other "POV" of concerns of some Users by now writing about the alleged role of the Lavon Affair in Jewish immigration to Israel, which means that this article has moved to a truer actual NPOV I guess, and would now not need to have a NPOV template as you suggested. Some of your other points have been addressed and edited by some other Users. The question about more information about the Jewish refugee organizations will have to wait, and in the meantime what information exists in the article is more than adequate. Again, pardon me, but it's just that some other people around here have raised their "lobbying efforts" and want to turn everything around to represent Arab arguments only which goes against all the rules about non-POV writing and editing. IZAK 06:28, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Lavon Affair is now part of the article

See Immigration to Israel from Arab lands#Lavon Affair, for more information. This should restore "neutrality" and remove User:STP's arguments for having the NPOV template inserted here....for now. IZAK 06:16, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Quality of this article

This is got to be one of the worse articles in the mideast area of Wikipedia. Neither IZAK nor STP show any sign of knowing anything at all about the subject except for their personal prejudices. Trying to fix it at the moment would only create a fight with those who don't want it fixed, but the NPOV tag stays. --Zero 11:51, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Zero: What EXACTLY is it that requires this article to have the "NPOV" tag? Please explain, the tag cannot be there without valid stated REASONS please. Thank you. IZAK 12:00, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
It has hardly any actual information and what is there is largely wrong. The Iraqi chronology, for example. Worse than that, you (and earlier writers) have been presenting it entirely from a particular political point of view. You wrote "the Persecution of the Jews which is what this article is really all about" above -- that is an explicit admission that you are here to push that POV and are not interested in a neutral position. Actually it deserves the "totally disputed" flag. --Zero 13:59, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Zero: You fail to understand the difference between a discussion page and the body of an article itself. Please don't be ridiculous, because each and every one of us as human beings has a POV within us, nobody here is a "NPOV-angel"! What I, and everyone else here, try to do is to write articles that are balanced and that will include all points of valid and relevant views based on reality to create a balanced encyclopedia article. After all, it was me (see [7] ; [8] and [9] ) who yesterday wrote and included what may even be considered to be "unflattering" information about the Israeli leadership in the Immigration to Israel from Arab lands#Lavon Affair after I considered what the objectionable User:STP was trying to convey. It's also totally pathetic of you to claim that because I view this subject as basically part of Persecution of the Jews in history, that I therefore "push that POV and (are) not interested in a neutral position". What illogical nonsense that is, because anyone is free to check my actual writing and see what the truth and the facts really are, and see if it is ultimately NPOV or not in the article itself, and not on the discussion pages which are meant for more free-dealing forums for differences of opinion or for opinion sharing because we are not "writing" the Torah here, just a plain DECENT encyclopedia based on facts...You know, a "neutral point of view" is not the same thing as having "no point of view". Think about it! IZAK 05:58, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Tell you what Zero; why don't you re-write it to be accurate and NPOV, and I'll support you and restrict my edits to the Talk: page and/or support of your version. Jayjg (talk) 15:49, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I just did a revision, but I still think it needs a lot of work. For example, those three Jewish advocacy groups should be only listed in the External Links section, not given verbatim POV entries within the article that is supposed to be part of an encyclopedia, not a blog or a mirror for partisan websites. --AladdinSE 14:17, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

I have removed the "Jewish refugee advocacy groups" section. They are listed in the external links section. These verbatim POV entries within the article are unacceptable. If an editor wants specific information from these groups to be included in the article, then please assimilate it into the appropriate areas of the article, in a neutral manner, of course. --AladdinSE 16:10, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

This is indeed ridiculous. The Jews of most Arab countries - including Yemen and Algeria - left due to fears (very probably justified) of persecution, but certainly not due to any new discriminatory laws; yet this article treats the most extreme case in the Arab world, Iraq, as if it were a typical example, and collapses all the "Arab states" into a single entity, as if most Arab states had even existed at the time. I'd love to see Zero helping, but I'm happy to work on trying to start improving this. - Mustafaa 21:07, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Anyone care to provide documentation for "some Arab governments promulgated edicts that removed Jews from public service and barred them from entering universities, traveling abroad, or buying and selling property"? Then, at the very least, we could state which governments did what. - Mustafaa 21:34, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I actually agree that the quality of the article would be improved if we enumerated the specific ways in which Jews were discriminated against and persecuted in each Arab country where they lived. And also what happened to their property when they left. I would also be in favor of listing the pretext for the pogroms, riots, etc. --Leifern 21:48, 2005 Apr 5 (UTC)
Indeed it would. After reading this article, though, I was quite surprised to realize the title was "Immigration to Israel from Arab lands"; if it's actually going to cover the much larger topic of the Jewish exodus from the Arab world, as seems likely, then the title should say so. - Mustafaa 21:55, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Good point. It may be that (with retitling?) the focus of this should be the departure of Jews from Arab lands (and possibly Iran as well, since the reasons are so similar). The camps in Israel would remain highly relevant to that, but North African Jewish emigration to France, Spain, and elsewhere could be covered in the same article. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:30, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

The Jews from Arab lands were not "going on vacation" to Israel

"Exodus"? (so who was playing Pharaoh then?), "departure" (were they going on a "trip" as tourists?), they left "due to fears"? (like fears of lynching, robbery or rape maybe?). Methinks that this article is about to become a meaningless thriller of all things, rather than addressing the reality of what really happened. Unfortunatley, judging from the type of OPINIONS and edits we are now seeing above, this article may now become a false report about how almost a million Jewish people "left" their homes in the lands of the Arabs in the 20th century (before and after there were Arab states), and oh so "merrily, merrily, down the lane" landed up in the "promised land of milk and honey", making it sound that there were no serious political, military, and Anti-Semitic factors that forced them out, because they feared for their lives, and they were in fact refugees forced to flee to Israel. IZAK 06:33, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Apparently IZAK has not heard of Zionist aspiration, the wish to return to Israel that Jews have held for millennia, since now he is saying that Jews would only go there if they were forced to. Ok, that was only a semi-serious comment. --Zero 10:15, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Yes Zero, I am glad you realize how dumb that comment was. No matter how much Jews have dreamt of returning to Zion, it has never been a "justification" to kick them out like Arab dictators did, (or agitate to have them kicked out as some Israeli agents may have done), of the homes they live in for over two thousand years in Arab lands. When did I say that "Jews only go to Israel if they are forced to"? Can you find the place where I have said this? It is you that is putting words into my mouth, so please stop. (By the way, if you live in Israel, how and WHY did your family move there?) If you would like my personal views, I will be glad to share them, but please do not assume that you can be my "spokesman" today or ever. Thanks. IZAK 11:36, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Accuracy

A good example of the errors in this article is the stuff about dhimmi status. In fact, most of the traditional restrictions on Jews were abolished throughout the Ottoman empire in 1856, and by early in the 20th century practically everything else (including the poll tax and the exemption from military service) was gone. So during the period most relevant to this article, dhimmi status simply did not exist for the Jews in Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon and Syria. [Bulletin (British Society for Middle Eastern Studies) Vol. 14 (1987), p. 254; and lots of other places]. This is just one example.

While de jure dhimmi status was revoked, was de facto status ever changed? I thought that any significant improvements had more to do with British and French control of the territories after 1917, rather than Ottoman regulation; thus when the British and French control was diminished/removed after the war, the issues resurfaced. Jayjg (talk) 15:41, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Certainly de facto status changed. Ask any Syrian Christian if dhimmi status played any part in their lives after independence (Egypt was already under British rule in 1917, of course.) Measures aimed specifically at Jews are bad, but have nothing to do with "dhimmitude" and everything to do with national paranoia about Israel. - Mustafaa 19:54, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Iraqi story

I wrote a brief account of the Iraqi affair 1950-1, which is the case I know the most about. I'll put it here for discussion first. Information about the reception of the Iraqis in Israel is yet to be added. I'm less sure about the later social debate within Israel since then (anyone heard of the Iraqi Black Panthers?) Maybe that should be a different article.

I'm basing the following on notes I made from multiple sources some years ago but I'll be happy to provide references for individual parts if asked. I think that a similarly detailed account should be attempted for each of the main countries involved, since they were not the same and can't be described in the same sentences. --Zero 12:59, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Like most Arab League states, Iraq forbad the immigration of its Jews for a few years after the 1948 war on the grounds that allowing them to go to Israel would strengthen that state. However, intense diplomatic pressure (probably combined with thoughts of plunder) brought about a change of mind. At the same time, increasing government oppression of the Jews fueled by anti-Israeli sentiment, together with public expressions of anti-semitism, created an atmosphere of fear and uncertainty.
In March 1950, Iraq passed a law of 1 year duration allowing Jews to emigrate on condition of relinquishing their Iraqi citizenship. Iraq apparently believed it would rid itself of those Jews it regarded as the most troublesome, especially the Zionists, but retain the wealthy minority who played an important part in the Iraqi economy. Israel mounted an operation called Ezra and Nehemiah to bring as many of the Iraqi Jews as possible to Israel, and sent agents to Iraq to urge the Jews to register for immigration as soon as possible.
The initial rate of registration was slow, but it accelerated after a bomb injured three Jews at a cafe. Two months before the expiry of the law, by which time about 85,000 Jews had registered, a bomb at the Masuda Shemtov Synagogue killed 3 or 5 Jews and injured many. The law expired in March 1951 but was later extended after the Iraqi government froze the assets of departing Jews (including those already left). During the next few months, all but a few thousand of the remaining Jews registered for emigration, spurred on by a sequence of bombings that caused few casualties but had great psychological impact. In total about 120,000 Jews left Iraq.
In May and June of 1951, the arms caches of the Zionist underground in Iraq, which had been supplied from Palestine/Israel since 1942, were discovered. Many Jews were arrested and two Zionist activists, Joseph Basri and Abraham Salih, were tried and hanged for three of the bombings. A secret Israeli inquiry in 1960 reported that most of the witnesses believed that Jews had been responsible the bombings, but found no evidence that they were ordered by Israel. The issue remains unresolved: Iraqi activists in Israel still regularly charge that Israel used violence to engineer the exodus, while Israeli officials of the time vehemently deny it.


Looks good in general, but references would be invaluable, if for no other reason than to avoid future editors on either side claiming the contents are false. Also, I think you mean "emigration" in the first sentence. Jayjg (talk) 15:44, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As to specifics, I think the section should note a number of other things:

  • The June 1941 Baghdad pogrom which killing almost 200 Jews and wounded almost 1,000 more.
  • Regular anti-Jewish riots from 1947 to 1949.
  • Zionism becomes a capital crime in 1948.
  • Jews once again forbidden from emigrating in 1952.
  • Jews forbidden to sell property and forced to carry yellow identity cards after 1963.
  • Jewish property expropriated, bank accounts frozen, telephones disconnected, dismissed from public posts etc. after 1967.

As it is, the view of the condition of Jews in Iraq seems a bit too rosy. Jayjg (talk) 15:55, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I've heard of the Sephardi "Black Panthers". What was the name of that guy who continued writing his novels in Arabic even after reaching Israel? But yes, this looks good. The points Jayjg mentions should probably be mentioned, if confirmed by reliable sources ("regular anti-Jewish riots", in particular, is distinctly vague.) - Mustafaa

The "Jews once again forbidden from emigrating in 1952." is already covered; the law was of 1-year duration. - Mustafaa 20:01, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

General history: [10]
Baghdad pogrom: [11] [12]
Why Jews left Iraq: [13] [14]
Personal account: [15]
Why Jews left Arab countries: [16] [17]

--Jayjg (talk) 20:47, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I was hoping for something a little less transparently partisan and POV-pushing than ME Forum or Jewish Virtual Library, but some of these links are good. - Mustafaa 23:33, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Some equally POV-pushing links from the opposite side: [18] [19] [20]. - Mustafaa 23:43, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This one is interesting too: [21]. - Mustafaa 00:22, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Naeim Giladi, mentioned in those links, is an extreme example of an Iraqi anti-Israeli activist. He was (really) a member of the Zionist underground in Baghdad, but after some time in Israel he became disillusioned and moved to the US renouncing his Israeli citizenship. Of course, by virtue of the fact that he is an activist and clearly feels quite bitter about it, his testimony has to be treated very cautiously. --Zero 11:43, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I'll add the 1941 Farhud, since it did play a large part in the process that lead to the departure of the Jews 10 years later. As Mustafaa said, "regular anti-Jewish riots" is too vague (and also not correct; there were some during the 1948 war but not afterwards that I recall). I'm not sure about the 1960s though. This is not supposed to be an article about Jews in Iraq but rather about the mass immigrations to Israel. The story of the Jews remaining in Iraq after that ought to be told in Wikipedia somewhere, but probably not here. --Zero 12:30, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Now I'll give some references. The part about the 1960s inquiry in Israel is from Israeli archives quoted by Black & Morris, Israel's Secret Wars, p93. They also quote an intelligence report from 1952 saying that many Iraqi Jews were happy about the hanging of Basri and Salhi. As additional evidence that the idea that Zionists did the bombing was very common, Mordecai Ben Porat (mentioned in one of the paragraphs that keeps somehow popping into and out of the article at a fine rate) said in 1978: "All those who know me and who know that I was sent by Israel to Iraq during this period hold me responsible for bombs thrown at this time. This is an untrue accusation, totally without foundation." (Jeune Afrique, 22 Feb 1978) One of the best sources for this story and also for Jews in other Arab countries including earlier times is Norman Stillman's two-volume "Jews in Arab Lands". I especially like his reprinting of many primary documents. Concerning the bombings, his conclusion that they are unsolved is the correct one imo. There is a lot of literature claiming otherwise, in both directions, but no proof is offered. One thing I can report is that a story that a Zionist agent Tajjar spilt the beans about Israeli complicity (told in David Hirst's book for example) is false. He did not, and Hirst's sources don't contain what he says they contain. The general sources for what I wrote, in approximate order from anti-Zionist to pro-Zionist: Shibak, The lure of Zion (1986); Woolfson, Prophets in Babylon (1980); Davis & Mezvinsky, Documents from Israel (1975) - reprints an article from Black Panther magazine; Rejwan, The Jews of Iraq (1985); Hillel, Operation Babylon (1987); Cohen, Jews of the Middle East, 1860-1972 (1973); Schechtman, On wings of eagles (1961). It's hard to give citations for each individual statement, but I'm willing to try with regard to particular items that you tell me need sources. --Zero 12:30, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I just came across the following in Ella Shohat, Rupture and Return, Zionist Discourse and the Study of Arab Jews, Social Text 21.2 (2003) 49-74:

The displacement of Iraqi Jews, for example, was not simply the result of a decision made solely by Arab Jews themselves. Even if some Arab Jews expressed a desire to go to Israel, the question is why, suddenly, after millennia of not doing so, would they leave overnight? The displacement for most Arab Jews was the product of complex circumstances in which panic and disorientation, rather than desire for aliya, in the nationalist sense of the word, was the key factor. The "ingathering" seems less natural when one takes into account the circumstances forcing their departure: the efforts of the Zionist underground in Iraq to undermine the authority of community leaders such as Haham Sasson Khdhuri; the Zionist policy of placing a "wedge" between the Jewish and Muslim communities, generating anti-Arab panic on the part of Jews; the anti-Jewish propaganda, especially as channeled through the Istiklal or Independence Party; the failure of most Arab intellectuals and leaders to clarify and act on the distinction between Jews and Zionists; their failure to actively secure the place of Jews in the Arab world; the persecution of Communists-among them Jews who opposed Zionism; the secretive agreements between some Arab leaders and Israeli leaders concerning the idea of "population exchange"; and the misconceptions, on the part of many Arab Jews, about the differences between their own religious identity, affiliation, or sentiments and the secular nation-state project of Zionism, a movement that had virtually nothing to do with those sentiments, even if it capitalized on a quasi-religious rhetoric.

It is a pretty good summary. In case you are wondering about the "secretive agreements": the Iraqi government was negotiating with Israel on a deal that would "swap" Iraqi Jews for displaced Palestinians, but the Arab League got wind of it and squashed it. --Zero 12:30, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That does sound like a good summary; as is usually the case in real life, large population movements are caused by multiple factors. Jayjg (talk) 16:55, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Rest of the Arab world

Some rather more citable sources:

- Mustafaa 23:41, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Advocacy groups

The Jewish refugee advocacy groups deserve mentions and links, but we really don't need a paragraph here of quoted mission statement on each. Want to write articles about each of these groups? Great, they each deserve one. But this article shouldn't be waited down with that much quotation from advocates. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:13, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

I entirely agree. I'm moving Subsection Verbatim quotes and citations in Wikipedia articles above from the "Quality of this article" section to this section. --AladdinSE 12:04, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

Verbatim quotes and citations in Wikipedia articles

If there is a wikipedia policy that allows whole sections of an encyclopedia article to be nothing but verbatim entries form partisan websites, then please someone point me towards where that is explained, and I will concede the point about the advocacy groups section, which I have just deleted. If it really is allowed, I will happily concede the point, although it is very strange indeed and seems anything but but encyclopedic. --AladdinSE 01:07, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

  • In response to AladdinSE's inquiry: There are no rules as such "forbidding" reasonable quotes in articles. See for example a discussion of this point at Wikipedia talk:Copyrights#Quotations for the following observations:
I presume that it is ok to make quotations from copyrighted texts, as long as it is clear that it is a quote and a reference given to where it came from? What about long quotes, is there a limit on the length of quotes allowed before it infringes copyright?
This would often come under fair use. There are no fixed rules on how long the text can be, but you should make it clear it is a quote and cite the source. See Wikipedia:fair use for more about this. Angela. 17:18, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)
Quotations are a well-recognized form of fair use - the Berne convention explicetely reocgnizes it. See Wikipedia:Copyright FAQ. →Raul654 17:22, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)
Sure, I agree to your concerns. I'll post something in that forum a bit later. Although, my question is because I have about 9 other articles waiting to be posted, all along the same lines. PZFUN 22:08, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC) [23]

See some articles that I am aware of that have always retained some lengthy quotes, such as: [24] (quote from Josephus in Destruction of Jerusalem) and [25] about Edmund Allenby, 1st Viscount Allenby#Jerusalem proclamation. There are more but, the above discussions and citations should suffice to prove to you that it can be done and respected. IZAK 02:30, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Here [26] is another example of passages inserted from primary sources, see Josephus on Jesus with quotes from texts inserted. IZAK 09:08, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Those examples you are citing are 1. (Josephus) A historical account by an ancient historian and 2. (Allenby) An official government proclamation, used in context as a historical document. What you are inserting are not at all "reasonable quotes" but verbatim mission statements taken from advocacy websites which are biased by definition. You are not just including a reasonable quote as part of a much larger detailed sub section, your entire section is a verbatim quote. Also, the Talk section you quoted above does not support your position, they are referring to an entirely different type of reference and quotation process, and even if it did support your position, it is a Talk discussion and not official Wikipedia policy. Thank you. --AladdinSE 11:18, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
Once again you want "plu-perfect" examples! Are you a lawyer by the way, because your style of "argumentation" is overly legalistic? I was providing instances where there are paragraph-size quotes from reliable sources. I did not claim it's an exhaustive list of Wikipedia examples (there are obviously lots more out there), as I don't know what is happening on all the half-million Wikipedia articles (do you?) The discussion from the talk section was meant to be instructive, not definitive, and it does not run against my words or reasoning either. Bottom line, I feel bad that you consider true victims of Arab oppression, the Jewish refugees from Arab lands, to be "partisans" (makes them sound "oh, so brave"), and that you only seek to portray the Arabs as "victims" (especially in Palestine -- when they are nothing of the sort as they agressivley blow up thousands of innocent Israelis in cafes and shopping malls) as they are the opposite of that by far! This article is about the Jewish refugees, so their words are not only needed but are crucial. Again I say, it would be like excluding the views of Holocaust victims when discussing the Holocaust. What can be simpler to understand...but who was it that said, "none is so blind as he who will not see" (or something like that)? Thanks. IZAK 12:46, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I think AladdinSE has a point about the Jewish refugee advocacy groups section. The article looks as though it's advocating on their behalf. Perhaps the quotes could be cut down to a sentence for each, or just a brief description of each without quotes? SlimVirgin (talk) 00:25, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
I've reduced that section, and have deleted WOJAC as it closed in 1999 (though I've left the link in external links). I also removed the headers for the sections that had no content. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:05, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

Looks much much better. A good compromise edit. --AladdinSE 03:25, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

Motivations of Zionists

Sephardic and Mizrahi Jews are among the most ardent Zionists and Israel, and none that I've ever met express any trust or nostalgy toward Morocco. I have no doubt that there are plenty of people who will attribute cynical "Zionist plots" for anything that ever happened in the Middle East, but this is fringe speculation that has no place here. --Leifern 14:10, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC)

Totally disputed

Zero and others are insisting on inserting apologist propaganda into this article that somehow blames "Zionists" who wanted cheap labor and Mossad for the widespread discrimination and persecution of Jews in Arab countries. Until and unless this article actually treats allegations as allegations, it's a shameful joke that panders to antisemitic tendencies. --Leifern 13:52, 2005 Apr 8 (UTC)

Given that there is barely a single word of mine in this article, your charge is pretty pathetic. --Zero 14:37, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
You are the one who keeps reverting to versions that are distortions and lies. Therefore I hold you responsible for that action, whether you wrote a word. --Leifern 14:55, 2005 Apr 8 (UTC)
Hi Leifern, regarding your recent edits about Egypt, it would probably help if you were to provide good references; in fact, if everyone could do that, there'd be less to disagree over. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:08, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

This article is being turned from one about Immigration to Israel from Arab lands to one about treatment of Jews in Arab lands. I think it should revert to its narrower purpose. Jayjg (talk) 18:13, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm okay about making it narrow, but there should be an article about treatment of Jews in Arab lands that is referenced in this article. --Leifern 18:49, 2005 Apr 8 (UTC)
I think it should be neither, but should be moved to Jewish emigration from Arab lands; emigration to Israel from Arab lands cannot be treated in isolation from Jewish emigration to the France or the US from those same countries. As for the quote given, Leifern's interpretation of it as implying that "Anti-Zionists allege that emigration was largely motivated by Zionists looking for agricultural laborers" is frankly bizarre. The quote, whose accuracy there is no reason to doubt, means exactly what it says: that Zionist recruiters were more eager to bring over working-class Jews accustomed to agricultural labor than the more urbanized Jews of the north. It says nothing about the Moroccan Jews' motivation one way or another. - Mustafaa 07:04, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
1. What most Jews of Moroccan descent will tell you is that although they have much affection for the late king, they fled widespread bigotry and occassional persecution, not that they were recruited to Israel as land laborers. Israel's policy with respect to immigration is to accept and if necessary transport pretty much any Jew who wants to enter. I don't dispute that the quote is accurate, but it does little to explain the entire situation. And the source - which is very charitable to the conditions in Morocco - explicitly states life was difficult for Jews in Morocco.
2. You may be right about changing the title of the article, but the term "exodus" may be more apt than "emigration," "Jewish exodus from Arab lands or maybe Jewish refugees from Arab lands.
"Refugees" is too narrow - it would exclude most Moroccan Jews, for instance, by any reasonable definition. "Exodus" might work. - Mustafaa 01:10, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I have moved it; I think the new title reflects the contents of the article more accurately (though others might disagree.) - Mustafaa 01:52, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Motivations of emigrants

All the available literature indicates that emigration from Arab lands was overwhelmingly motivated by a need to get away from discrimination and persecution. Yes, the extent of such hardship varied; and there are some Jews that miss the homes of their births, but there is broad consensus that neither Zionist nationalism nor economic interests motivated the moves. --Leifern 16:45, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)

I see no evidence of such a "broad consensus". The religious motivation for moving to Israel is obvious, and by all accounts I've read was the primary factor in the Yemeni Jews' exodus. Iraqi Zionist activists have already been discussed above, and you yourself have acknowledged that many Sephardim are strongly Zionist; the ideological factor cannot be ignored. Neither can the economic factor, which has been among the largest causes of all emigration from the Arab world. If economic factors alone have been sufficient to persuade something like a million Algerians or Lebanese to leave their countries, what basis is there for assuming that this failed to motivate even a single Jew? As Shohat says above, "the displacement for most Arab Jews was the product of complex circumstances". - Mustafaa 01:01, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Treatment of Jews in Arab lands

Aladdin, your efforts to whitewash the treatment of Jews in Arab lands are pathetic! All in all, Jews were horribly mistreated in all Arab lands for the most of the time they were there, or - let's face it - they wouldn't have left in droves. It was bad for everyone in these societies, but it was bad for Jews because they were Jews. It is no defense that things were even worse in Europe. --Leifern 00:57, 2005 Apr 13 (UTC)

Once again, I've corrected the several trivially obvious errors in the pocket treatment of Jews' ancient status in Arab lands - see page history. I've temporarily left "limited access to the legal systems", but will remove it unless evidence is provided. - Mustafaa 01:08, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think the issue here may be the ability of Jews to give testimony in Muslim courts. Jayjg (talk) 16:30, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Split up article

I've been thinking about Jayg's point that this article is too much about treatment of Jews in Arab lands. It would be better to focus this on the exodus itself, including statistics, timing, destinations, etc., and set up a separate article, either for each relevant Arab country, or for all Arab countries. I prefer the former with a category. As is becoming apparent, practices varied by country and by time, and a lot of arguments are about what parts to emphasize. What do others think? --Leifern 11:36, 2005 Apr 13 (UTC)

I think the issue is that their treatment was certainly one of the causes of their leaving; how would you disentangle that? Jayjg (talk) 16:32, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I would disentangle it with one simple rule of thumb: anything before the 20th century is almost certainly irrelevant. Pre-20th century stuff can more appropriately go into Jews in Tunisia, Yemenite Jews, etc. - Mustafaa 22:25, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable to me. What do others think? Jayjg (talk) 03:30, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I don't think we should limit ourselves to the twentieth century, but I'd propose that we have one section for each Arab country that has some basic facts (how many Jews lived there in 1948, how many live there now, and where the difference went, ideally with statistics), a description of the circumstances and timing of their leaving, and then a brief paragraph on how long there had been a Jewish community there, and a summary of conditions. There would then be a link to the main article. I would also propose that we provide links to articles about Jews in Arab lands where there had been Jews prior to 1948 but none at that point (e.g., Jordan and Saudi Arabia). I'm sure we'll argue about the circumstances of the departure, but what's an article about this subject without at least 300 pages of arguments? --Leifern 10:43, 2005 Apr 14 (UTC)
Sounds like a plan. Jayjg (talk) 19:38, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I see - you want to create individual articles on the exodus of Jews from each country. I thought you were referring to articles on Judaism by country more generally. I'm not against that in principle, but, as long as we sensibly keep 14th-century stuff and the like in more appropriate articles, I don't see any of them as likely to get large enough to justify separate articles (though I'd love to be proved wrong), and (like IZAK) I'd rather read one big article than a load of stubs. - Mustafaa 01:04, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
In order to split the article, you must insure that you will have enough material to fill each spin-off article, otherwise all you will be doing is creating a string of orphan stubs -- satellites of this article. There is meaning in having one general topic, no matter how diverse its geographic reach, contained within one article only for now.IZAK 04:27, 14 Apr 2005

What titles are suggested for the spin-off article? --AladdinSE 04:26, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

I strongly favor articles by country - Jews in Bahrain may not merit an article, but Jews in Morocco certainly does. However, Jews in Iraq, Jews in Morocco, etc. mostly redirect to one article, which would seem the obvious candidate. - Mustafaa 09:20, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Interesting. Is that where they should re-direct? It seems to me there is a difference between describing a historical Jewish community in a Muslim country, and describing the relationship between Islam and Judaism. On the other hand, it might be too difficult to disentangle one from the other. Jayjg (talk) 19:40, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Personally, I think none of them should redirect - each of these is an encyclopedic topic in its own right - but fixing that would be a fair amount of work. - Mustafaa 01:04, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Mustafaa: Methinks you are missing a crucial point here (and I hope it's not a case of twisting the story around so that we are attempting to " stuff the 'tail' into the 'mouth' ".) This article and any possible spin-offs of it are NOT about "Jews LIVING IN Arab lands x-y-z", RATHER, this article and any others it may spawn are about "Jews KICKED OUT OF Arab country a-b-c". Get what I mean? We will not co-operate to publish lies. We want the truth about why about one million Jews living in Arab lands were in an "Exodus"/expelled/immigrated/fled/left/etc., etc., from all those nice new Arab states founded primarily during the twentieth century. IZAK 09:36, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I think you misunderstood Leifern's point above. This article should be about Jews leaving Arab countries, but a large and increasing proportion of it deals with Jews in Arab countries many centuries before they left, and this part needs to be moved somewhere more appropriate. Oh, and histrionics about LIES really don't help the tone of this discussion. - Mustafaa 09:47, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Copyvio

The Libya section was a clear copyvio from the sources it mentions at the bottom; anyone know how to remove this from the history? - Mustafaa 02:29, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • The policy on this sort of this (copvio insertion into article with previous history) is that we just leave it there unless there is a complaint from the copyright holder, then we willingly remove it. Only developers can do these removals, and you know how backlogged they are. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:01, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

Edits

I have edited this page very rigourously. Many of the most sweeping claims are not sustained by anything at all and even the rare occasion where there is a source, the source seems at least questionable. There are also vast swaths in which the words "emigration" and "immigration" are used interchangably (which I have corrected), a clear sign that the author mainly speculated and did not know what he or she was talking about. Note that the most important authority in the field is Professor Avi Shlaim, an Cambridge-trained academic and Iraqi-born Jew, who maintains that there was no significant drive in Muslim countries to expel Jews. At this moment in time, this article contains 0% information and 100% political propaganda and if the people who took it upon themselves to write it do not deliver the sources, the article should be deleted.--Chris Camp 12:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Nobody claims that the violence that drove the Jewish exodus was committed with intent to expel the Jews. The intent was clearly oppression, not expulsion. The mobs that committed these crimes fully expected the Jews to stay and receive more of the same.

And your point, Chris Camp, is, what, exactly?

Hi Chris, I've restored the lead for the most part, because your edits significantly POVd it. Shlaim is a revisionist "New Historian"; interesting, but just one POV. Jayjg (talk) 16:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough, if you think your point of view is the official history. Bear in mind though that the majority of the claims in the article are yet to be corroberated by sources. This should be done by those who wish to support their point of view with facts, otherwise every item that is not backed up should be deleted (which is 3/4 of the whole article at the moment. Btw to call Shlaim a "revisionist" doesn't make any sense, because the field he is an expert in has hardly ever been touched by any scholar. In other words, there aren't any established notions he could revisit, he could only publicise his own findings, as there is very little scholarship on Jews in Arab countries today and in recent years.--Chris Camp 13:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Shlaim is one of the New Historians, who were famous for being revisionists. Regarding Jews in Arab countries, the expert is Norman Stillman, and Bernard Lewis has written a fair bit as well. Jayjg (talk) 21:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I just edited the page one more time, removing hopefully all of the uncorroberated claims. Please do not re-insert them unless you have got sources to back them up with.--Chris Camp 13:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Please don't mass remove material again. While sources should be added, this information has been long standing and is correct, and should be expanded not removed. What you do especially citing anti zionists as sources, could be construed as attempts to whitewashing this terrible ordeal Jews went through in arab occupation. Thanks. Amoruso 16:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
To say that unfounded claims "are correct" just by virtue of them having been "long standing" (i.e. nobody has yet bothered to delete all the nonsense) is tantamount to saying that if a falsehood goes unchallenged for a period of time, it then becomes the truth. I do not cite "anti-Zionist" material. In fact, I have only edited all items that were not backed up. Around 33% of these were claims that could be interpreted as "pro-Arab"(e.g. the one about the Jewish community in Bahrain). It is fair to say that I have been very timid with my edits. I really only deleted claims that had no source to fall back on at all. Other claims are "backed up" by sources that aren't credible, i.e. neither a university website, nor academic text, nor a dictionary, but blatantly POV websites. But I left those claims alone, because there would be nothing left if one were to delete all the nonsense in this article. It goes without saying that quoting a newspaper opinion piece or one of the various "middle east information" websites carries with itself the same amount of credibility as a doctoral dissertation that bases its main thesis around what is scribbled on the walls of a public toilet. It's a POV.--Chris Camp 23:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Chris, here's something for you to mull over. Jayjg (talk) 22:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Here is one of the many claims in the article which I deleted and which should stay out from now on. It is just one of many examples in the article where the author tried to use speculation to make up for the absence of hard facts.
It would not be difficult to put together the names of a very sizeable number of Jewish subjects or citizens of the Islamic area who have attained to high rank, to power, to great financial influence, to significant and recognized intellectual attainment; and the same could be done for Christians. But it would again not be difficult to compile a lengthy list of persecutions, arbitrary confiscations, attempted forced conversions, or pogroms.
Not only is there no source at all to back up this statement, but it is just complete nonsense. What is the purpose of it? To counterweigh one speculation with another and make it seem like a "balanced statement"? It's like saying, "it would not be difficult to come to the conclusion that Stalin pretty much saved Eastern Europe, but he also suppressed it and killed many people." To call this kind of piffle unscientific would be an understatement. The whole article is just full of this stuff at the moment. Numbers and facts should come from credible sources. They should not be invented and they should not come from propganda websites.--Chris Camp 11:18, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
It's a summary from a historian writing on the subject. Please stop POVing the article; Jews were certainly expelled from some Arab countries, and persecuted in most. Did you read the article I linked to? Jayjg (talk) 02:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Which serious "historian" would make such a clumsy and inaccurate statement? If you can back it up with a reliable source, then do so. If not, leave it out. As it stands, the whole article represents a personal point of view and not the factual situation. Yes I did read your POV article and what I said about it in my last statement refers exactly to that sort of POV source.Note that von Grunebaum does not go further into his claim, he just leaves it at that. For a more thorough refutation of Grunebaum's claims read Edward Said "Orientalism". (and on a side note, the "source and page number" that you hurriedly filled in to back up the silly statement does not match the original source). Please try to keep the debate honest in the future.--Chris Camp 14:28, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Said was an English professor and a polemicist, not a historian. The article reflects reality, not your revisionist view of it. I have no idea what "source and page number" you are talking about, but please remain WP:CIVIL; that is policy. Jayjg (talk) 22:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Said's degree does not have anything to say about his field of expertise. His expertise on orientalism was and is unquestionable. Please also note that pointing out that your edits are POVed is not an infringement of Wikipedia's requirements of civility. It is, however, a requirement to follow up claims with reliable sources, which has not yet happened as far as this article is concerned.--Chris Camp 22:47, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Said's polemics regarding orientalism were unquestionably influential, but that doesn't make him a historian. Claiming that a person is not being "honest" violates WP:CIVIL. What were you talking about when you claimed to the "source and page number" that you hurriedly filled in to back up the silly statement does not match the original source? Jayjg (talk) 23:17, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

This doesn't make any sense

"It was following the Holocaust that the demographic potential of Arab Jews for consolidation of the Jewish state was first recognised." And why is it part of WikiProject Syria? Fourtildas 02:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

You're right. I'm deleting the sentence. --GHcool 20:44, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


The introductory paragraph

I have tried a couple of times to alter the introductory paragraph and present a more neutral point of view. But people keep reverting it to the original propaganda method of mixing something which is uncontroversial (i.e. the modern state of Israel attracted many immigrants, in particular Jews, from around the world) with something that is very controversial indeed, (namely, the allegation that there was massive and widespread discrimination against and subjugation of Jews in Arab countries which compelled Jewish citizens to emigrate to Israel).

The first point is not backed up by any facts in the text, but I suppose it is uncontroversial and does not need to be changed. The second point is very controversial indeed and is also not backed at any point. In fact, the various instances in the article where the point is "proven", the "proof" isn't backed up by any sources. On the rare occasion where there is a source, the source is, at best, spurious, provided by obscure German orientalists who have long since been debunked by more serious scholarship. Sources and page numbers are made up, historical ramifications are speculated upon and most of this article is POV guesswork. The only serious academic who has written to some extent about the topic is professor Avi Shlaim of Cambridge university. Unsurprisingly, he is not mentioned at all in the article.--Chris Camp 16:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, as explained before, the only serious academics on this subject are Stillman and Lewis. I'm not sure why you keep repeating incorrect claims; they won't become true simply by dint of repetition. Jayjg (talk) 22:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Lewis has not written enough about the subject to be considered an authority on the subject. Besides, unlike Shlaim, he does not speak or read any Arabic (precluding any qualitative research.--Chris Camp 22:43, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Um, I'm pretty sure Lewis reads Arabic: It was vintage Lewis--reading the sources, in this case a marginal Arabic newspaper published out of London, Al-Quds Al-Arabi, in February of 1998--to come across a declaration of war on the United States by a self-designated holy warrior he had "never heard of," Osama bin Laden. He's also the most influential post-war historian of Islam. Jayjg (talk) 23:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Possible mistake in photo caption

As User:Emmanuelm has pointed out, the photo in Image:Maabarah camp city.jpg is identified in UNRWA website as the Baqua'a Palestinian refugee camp (Jordan) in 1969, not a Jewish refugee camp.--Doron 17:39, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Islam and antisemitism

Can someone justify what this article has to do with the "religion of Islam"?Bless sins 05:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Note

I encountered the POV sentence:-

Further Arab-Israeli wars were sustained by, and in turn exacerbated, anti-Jewish sentiment within the various Arab-majority states.

which means that wars between Arab countries and Israel were sustained by anti-semitism, more or less. I don't know how this extraordinary subjective POV got through so many editors, but you cannot put on a page under NPOV guidelines the insinuation that Israel's conflicts with its neighbours are reducible to anti-semitism among Arabs. Well, you can actually, but it would still constitute OR, or EOR (extremely original research) Nishidani 15:49, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

(2) 'Excluding the Land of Israel, and omitting the Biblical account of the Jews' slavery in Egypt, Jews have lived in what are now Arab states at least since the Babylonian captivity (597 BCE), about 2,600 years ago.'

I.e. what are now Arab states, (Morocco, Algeria, Qatar, Libya, Tunisia, Yemen etc.etc.) have been inhabited at least since 597 BCE. Apart from the error in the date (the Babylonian captivity is dated 586) what are we to make of this extraordinary and meaningless statement? There is no alternative than that of expunging a hopelessly confused remark. I leave it to other editors to restate whatever was intended to be stated here.Nishidani 15:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

(3) The table's calculations will have to be adjusted because Iran and Turkey have been eliminated. They are ot 'Arab' countries, but countries with an Islamic culture, which is quite another thing. Nishidani 16:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Iran

What about Iran? Why is Iran not mentioned anywhere on this page?? Perhaps there are other blatant omissions as well... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.119.1.160 (talk) 21:56, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Because of a problem with the article's name. Unfortunately, the article's name reflects poor naming on the part of the majority of authors who cover this subject...namely, a continuing confusion between the terms "Arab" and "Muslim". The situation with the history of the Jews who have left non-Arab Muslim-majorities has, in most cases, been parallel to the situation with the Jews who fled Arab countries, but has not been, in most cases, concurrent. For example, while many Persian Jews (40-45%) left Iran in the period of 1948-1979, they left piecemeal and often with more than just the clothes on their backs. The situation after the Islamic Revolution was much different, and a far closer to parallel to the situation for the Jews from Arab lands, but 30 years later. As far as I'm aware, the situation with the Jews of Pakistan is that they left during the wars between Pakistan (East and West) and India, not as a result of persecution, but just to get out of the war zone. Keep in mind also, that India is a non-Arab and non-Muslim-majority country which has lost 90% of its Jews in the past 60 years, primarily to Israel. I've fixed the table for Jews from non-Arab countries, but I think it should probably be removed altogether, and put into an article somewhere else that discusses the subject of Jewish depopulation of various countries, and that this article here should be an extension of ... that one. (Did I lose anyone there? :-p) Tomertalk 18:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
No, impeccable reasoning. I originally removed the reference, within a table of Jews in Arab lands, to Iran and Turkey, because of the elementary confusion between Islamic and Arab. As you note the reconstituted table and its details (fascinating) should not be on this page, unless the title is changed. Nishidani 21:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

>"Did I lose anyone there? :-p)"
Partly me.
700,000 Jews settled in Israel between 1949 and 1951. (source : Morris, victims)
136,000 came from DP camps in Europe (source : official website of DP)
Where did the others come from ?
I think they must have come mainly from arab and muslim lands...
Alithien 21:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand how this is related to what I said above. Tomertalk 00:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
I understand you mean most of numbers given in this article refers to jews who -in fact- did not flee in '48
That is also what can be decuded from some references.
So my question is : where did come from the 700,000 Jews who settled in Israel between '49 and '51.
Alithien 20:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Most of them came from the Arab countries. I don't think there's any dispute about that. But I still don't understand what your question has to do with anything I said above. Tomertalk 21:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Disputed, maybe not but even if this was not your aim, this is questionned by me at the reading of your own reasonning emphasing on events that arose after the '48 period.
It seems that more Jews settled in Israel in '48 than emigrated from Arab and Muslim lands.
The link between what I question and what you write is simply that you emphasize on the talk page dedicated mainly to this '48 immigration on events that are not link with that.
Is this more clear ?
Alithien 07:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

No. Clearly the problem here is a language barrier. Could you try restating what you're saying in a different language, and maybe someone will be able to translate your question? Tomertalk 16:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Google searches for "Jewish exodus from Arab lands" pulls lots of Google hits, even excluding Wikipedia and Schulewitz's book; so it probably is an appropriate title.

On the other hand, exodus from other Muslim countries, such as Iran and Turkey is clearly related, and should be discussed in the article -- if only to quantify how far this actually is a specifically Arab phenomenon. One might also put up figures for proportions of survivors emigrating from eg France, Germany, and Central Europe, etc since the war for comparison.

One might also add a line at sentence 2 right up at the top of the article, "Substantial migrations have also occurred from non-Arab countries, for example Turkey, Iran, India...

This wider view and context ought to find a place in the article, IMO. Jheald 16:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

actually, there are noticable differences, because of the israeli-arab conflict. the numbers speak for themselves, actually - the communities in iran and turkey are still viable (size-wise) while jews are nearly extinct from all arab countries, morocco and the island of djerba being an exception. so, while migrations have occured from other muslim countries, it's a somewhat different phenomena. 212.29.208.226 (talk) 08:07, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Picture to add

I think this could be useful : [27] but I will never be able to undersand licences related to these pictures. So, if someone could upload or take care of the issue... Ceedjee (talk) 07:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Some Problems

It is ahistorical to conflate the situation of Jews in every Arab country. The emigration of Jews from Algeria, Morocco, and Tunisia (500,000 in total) was not prompted by persecution but by uncertainty about the future. Jews in Algeria were already French citizens and they simply followed the the other one million French settlers to France. [28] This attempt to liken the voluntary emigration of Jews from the countries of the Maghreb smacks of a distasteful attempt to trivialize the suffering of the Palestinian people.Krasna (talk) 01:31, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the link with the "suffering of the Palestinian people" here.
Concerning the motivation of the Jews to leave maghreb, Benny Morris points out that in April 1948, in Oujda and Djerada, in French-rules Morocco, Arab mobs killed dozens of Jews, including some 20 women and children (Benny Morris, 1948, p.413). He adds (p.414) that most Jews left maghreb in the 50's - 60's, despite the protection (sic) offered by Mohammed V; he points out elite left to France and the remaining to Israel. According to him, the turning point was a pogrom that occured in august 1955 near casablanca where 8 jews were killed and 40 houses destroyed. The second turning point was the death of Mohammed V in '61. Ceedjee (talk) 08:50, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
To reinforce Ceedjee, here's something for you to consider: [29]. Albert Memmi details the background of the departure of tunisian jewry. 80.179.69.194 (talk) 10:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Criticism of refugee theory

Not to stifle or censor anything, but the entire section was copyright violation. furthermore, while shenhav is a reliable source (although preferrably a secondary one, as he's not a historian), care should be taken to use his scholarly works and not non-scholarly ones, while maintaining proper weight. i tried to edit this section and rewrite it, but found it a futile task. if anyone will start a better phrased one based on better sources, we can complete this section. MiS-Saath (talk) 04:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

It is not copyright violation, inasmuch as all materials literally transcribed are put inside quotation marks. Most of them are verbatim statements from prominent Mizrachi Jews speaking at the Knesset, which are directly quoted without any scholarly or non-scholarly interpretation added. Moreover, surely Shenhav writing in Haaretz is as good a source as the highly partisan Jewish Virtual Library, a collection of nonscholarly articles which is given as a source elsewhere in the article? The estimate of the value of the property left behind by Mizrachi Jews comes from a statement from an interested party to the Jerusalem Post, not from a scholarly source.
In the context of an article with so many reliability issues, rejecting an article by a university professor in a respected newspaper indeed looks like stifling and censoring.--Abenyosef (talk) 06:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
I liked your new version.--Abenyosef (talk) 06:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Here's the thing. I'm not a fan of Shenhav's work, but he does have scholarly merit and prestige. I never claimed he's not a reliable source. That being said, i'd much rather prefer to base that section upon his scholarly work (he's done a lot of it in 'Theory and criticism', for example, or one of his books) than upon his columns at ha'aretz, which are (at times) prone to polemicism as is often the case with newspaper columns. we're ending up with a lot of statements which (in this delicate case) should be better sourced in order to allow for verifications. just as an example, shenhav himself rejects the theory that jews came as zionists and postulates that they were conned out by zionist emissaries (MST bombing affair et al). I want this section to be a good one, it's a multifaceted topic and i don't want it to degrade into zionist-antizionist allegation exchange. 132.66.52.149 (talk) 06:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
The big problem is the general tone of the article, which looks more like a propaganda pamphlet than an encyclopedia entry. Here's a to-do list:
1. All figures given come from Jewish refugee advocacy groups, and seem to be wild exagerations, e.g. $300 bn in left-behind property or 100,000 sq km in real estate assets lost. Other sources must be quoted to confirm this.
2. Certain personalities, like Regina Bublil-Waldman, are defined as refugees without a scholarly source to confirm such status.
3. The advocacy groups' profiles are copy-pasted from their sites, or from their statements to the press. No criticism of these groups is cited, and no analysis of their goals and methods by impartial sources is quoted.
4. Diverging figures are given for the number of Arab Jews absorbed by Israel: 586,269 and 680,000. A neutral source must be quoted.
5. No effort is made to distinguish those emigrants who went to Israel by their own will and those who fled under pressure or persecution.
In general, the article takes the advocacy groups' word for most of the claims, which is not healthy when dealing with such a contentious issue.--Abenyosef (talk) 15:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree. The article seems to be primarily based on the works of Norman Stillman, who is a respected researcher specializing in the issue.

1. the 100,000 sq. km and 300$bn assets figure is well sourced, references 1 and 3, see WP:V. 2. As for Ms. Bublil-waldman, we have good reason to believe she falls under the criteria debated by the article. we don't need to add "alleged", it would suffice to establish the context of controversy, as is done now. 3. As for advocacy group profiles, these are one-line quotes and not block-copy. there's not much to say about opposition to each group per se as there is in the criticism section. 4. as for the contradictory numbers, i agree that one should be picked indeed, although both sources are reliable and these are quoted. it also makes some sense to leave both as an estimate, perhaps. 5. I believe that this issue is already being address via the 'criticism' section. i don't recall ever seeing a survey or a distinction, for the most part scholars lump everything together, which is a shame, but both 'camps' do it, for their own political ends. overall, i think the article has withstood rather well both zionist and anti-zionist attempts of ownership. the issues you pointed are anyway not so critical to the article, the main content deals with the different country narratives anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MiS-Saath (talkcontribs) 18:41, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

P.S. i'm still very unhappy about the basis for the criticism section. i'd much rather have it based on some scholarly work, perhaps Shiblak's book "lure of zionism". as is, it invites the I/P battleground squad. gah. MiS-Saath (talk) 18:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Source 1 (Haaretz) does not address the 100,000 sq km and $300 bn figures. Source 3 (JPost) does not claim that Mizrachi Jews left behind those amounts of land and money; it only quotes Heskel M. Haddad as stating so. The accurate wording would not be "They left behind property valued today at more than $300 billion," thus, but rather "They claim to have left behind...". JPost is a reliable source for quoting Haddad, but does not endorse his figures, and Haddad is not a reliable source. You seem to have read quite a bit about the subject -- have you ever found any scholarly estimate for the Mizrachi Jews' property loss? It would be more convincing than a statement to a newspaper from an interested party. You know, I'm quite dissatisfied myself with the sources used in the article.
I understand your unhappiness about the basis for the criticism section, but it would be even worse if the important fact that the Jewish refugee theory is disputed were omitted from the article. Let's not deceive ourselves: the ones who will try and disrupt the section will be those interested in concealing the criticism, not those concerned with source soundness.--200.3.123.85 (talk) 00:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Note that the article doesn't say Mizrahi property, and rightly so, for i believe that land bought by the rotschields in syria constitutes a large part of it. I don't think it's wrong to chide someone who wants to add content to do it in the best way possible. i'm putting a cn tag on it and trying to find a decent estimate. MiS-Saath (talk) 05:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Actually the article is correct as is. it says 'has been estimated at', which is exactly what happened here. it also links to the article detailing the estimation. Considering Dr. Haddad's position, there seems to be good reason to believe he is worthy of making an estimate, although it wouldn't be unreasonable to expect it to be biased. but biased sources are okay, if they're reliable. (for example, Journal of palestine studies). using the word 'estimate' preserves neutrality. i'll add WOJAC to the estimate, though. MiS-Saath (talk) 05:54, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Further issues:

1) "Jews Indigenous to the Middle East and North Africa (JIMENA) publicizes the history and plight of the 900,000 Jews indigenous to the Middle East and North Africa who were forced to leave their homes and abandon their property, who were stripped of their citizenship." There are two problems with this. First, it adopts JIMENA's language and narrative: reading the description, the reader is left with the impression that it is a fact that the Jews were forced to leave their homes, rather than a claim by JIMENA. Second, if we have 881,000 emigrants, only 741,000 were stripped of their citizenship (if they were, which I don't know), because the 140,000 Algerian Jews never had Algerian citizenship; they had been French nationals all along and went to France as such, not as Algerian refugees.

2) "One Palestinian sociologist has commented that the loss of Jewish property in Arab lands fulfills the conditions of a sulha, or reconciliation, since Jews as well as Palestinians have experienced a catastrophe, and that publicizing this knowledge would pave the way to a true peace process." This is misleading, since it would appear that the Palestinian is a notable sociologist making this claim in a published article or, at least, in an interview. Actually, he was a student at a course who verbally expressed that opinion to his professor, who happened to be the president of the World Congress of Egyptian Jews. An unrecorded informal statement from an unknown and unnamed sociologist belongs in the realm of anecdotes, not of reliable sources. Hey, the least one can expect from a source is to have a name.

3) "The pace and direction of this absorption was directed by three main factors: (...) The International Community." The three factors seem to be missing.

4) History of the Jews in Bahrain, History of the Jews in Egypt, History of the Jews in Iraq, History of the Jews in Lebanon, History_of_the_Jews_in_Morocco, History of the Jews in Qatar, History of the Jews in Syria, History of the Jews in Tunisia, Yemenite Jews: All of these are Wikipedia articles, they can't be used as references. Wikipedia is not a reliable source for its own contents.

5) Is Heskel M. Haddad a reliable source? He's an eye surgeon making statements on financial matters. Where do his figures come from? I'm not disputing them, I'm actually curious.

Overall, I continue to view the whole article as extremely biased and POV-pushing, but I won't edit it save for "my" section, lest you get the impression that I'm aiming at article-owning.--Abenyosef (talk) 07:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

(1) is the description of JIMENA's accord of the events. if we're going to write 'alleged' next to everything, we're not going to have an encyclopedia. it's trivial to see that JIMENA's accord relies on the interpretation of the exodus as refugee problem.
(2) indeed suffer from WP:UNDUE. i'm removing that.
(3) i'll investigate that and see where that content went to. i remember seeing content there once.
(4) You don't need to repeat sources for every article. It is a fair assumption that other articles are well-sourced and that edits are done in sync. Wikipedia can refer to itself as a secondary source indeed, to my best of knowledge.
(5) Heskel M. Hadded, in capacity as president of WOJAC, seems to me like a fair source with regards to a claim or estimate. he's not presented as a fact-finding historian, thus maintaining neutral POV.

there is no 'my' or 'yours' section or article. go ahead and be WP:BOLD. but then again, few I/P related articles (even in the radius of "collateral damage" like this article might be) won't look 'extremely POV' to any of the belligerants. so unless you make edits, there's not much anyone can do about it. MiS-Saath (talk) 08:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, keep in mind that the various disapora groups seem to have rather differing experiences, with deviation in between the personal accounts in each country. a prudent scholar would be careful not to mix between experiences and generalize only when appropriate. MiS-Saath (talk) 08:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
As for the number discrepency, 586,000 refers to jewish immigration between 48-52. 680,000 is probably a grand total including those who left later and those who immigrated to israel after leaving to another country. 132.66.169.10 (talk) 12:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

There. I've just been WP:BOLD.--Abenyosef (talk) 00:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Very well, but i have a reservation. Cesarni specifically refers to JJAC. not all advocacy groups take an explicit stance as to what a proper resolution to the grievances of the Jewish refugees is. it is not criticism against the advocacy groups or even the idea of compensation, but rather against the 'palestinian equation'. i'll try to rephrase this section accordingly. 132.66.169.10 (talk) 09:35, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The "diverging numbers" are the result of IP editors modifying existing numbers, not some fundamental flaw in the sourcing.[30] All that needs be done is revert arbitrary changes like this, which I have done. Jayjg (talk) 00:40, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

removal of 'international community'

As the section regarding the direction and pace of the exodus was eroded into nothing (rightly so imho, it was poorly referenced and concentrated on a very specific POV), the third supposed component ("International Community") stood out alone. unsurprisingly as it turns out, it suffers from the same malaises, the most important of which is that it fails to show a direct link between its claims and the exodus and rather deals with its influence on israel. that point is also inherently moot because it presupposes that israel orchestrated the exodus, a postulate not supported by the majority of resources (and our primary sources). it best serves as an 'alternative theory', that is if it passes WP:FRINGE (and in that case, do make note that as presented this was an all-encompassing claim and specifically refers to the state of israel and not the various local zionist undergrounds, whose complex relationship with israel is well documented). Either on its own and especially without a 'mainline' explanation, this section needed to be removed and totally rewritten. MiS-Saath (talk) 08:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Yemenite Baby Affair

The yemenite baby affair has nothing to do with the exodus. It belongs in a subsection of 'Yemenite Jews' or preferrably an article of its own, which should be linked from here. A more prudent thing to do would be to create a section of integration woes, which should mostly be pointers as it's (again) not material to this article. 132.66.201.179 (talk) 05:56, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The fate of the Jewish emigrants is relevant to the article. We're tracing what happened to them once they left or were forced to leave their original countries. That's why we have a section called "Absorbing Jewish refugees." Now if you believe a section of integration woes would be a better place to discuss the Yemenite babies, please create it, by all means. Wikipedia encourages improving on what has already been done, rather than blanket deleting.--Abenyosef (talk) 06:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
No, this article is about the Jewish exodus from Arab lands, not the many different things that happened to those Jews in other countries. Wikipedia encourages additions that are on the topic of the article, not irrelevant material inserted for polemical reasons. Jayjg (talk) 00:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
I do think that a short 'stub' reference to another article is in place, and i've done so. but i do believe that what was added was too much in relation. Abenyosef, you'd be more than welcome to start an article on the Yemenite children affair, or a general article on Mizrachi-Ashkenazi relations, but make due note to keep it balanced. MiS-Saath (talk) 05:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Map?

I recall seeing a detailed map from the New York Times from 1948 or so, detailing the thousands of Jews emigrating from their countries. Where is it now? Can a substitute be uploaded, if publishing that map posed problems? Dogru144 (talk) 22:18, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Sources

This article needs more sources in certain areas. Some sections have been marked unsourced since months.

In other section we need to use sources that are relevant to the topic, i.e. Jewish exodus from Arab lands. We should be careful not turn this article into one on general Jewish history under Arab rule.Bless sins (talk) 04:12, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

There was only one section marked as unsourced, and it had 21 citations. Jayjg (talk) 01:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Aden Riots

At the time Aden was a British colony and the rest of the former Southern Yemen was divided into emerites protected by the British while Northern Yemen was an independent kingdom. Saying that the riots in Aden had any effect on Northern Yemen needs evidence. The sentence stating that there were increasing hostile conditions needs a reference because there are no other major incidents after Aden riots.Wikiarabia (talk) 16:47, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

See [31] or, if the link doesn't work, look for the book "The road to redemption: The jews of yemen 1900-1950. MiS-Saath (talk) 06:40, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Objectivity

This article gives Wikipedia a bad name. I believe a note should be made regarding its objectivity and political agenda. This article is biased and based on questionable one-sided research by modern Zionist 'historians' who make uncorroborated claims and try to create an analogy between the expulsion of Jews from Europe under Nazi occupation and the migration of Jews from Arab countries to the newly formed Israel. There is little evidence that Jews were in fact expelled from Arab countries and although the clashes between Zionists and non-Jews in Palestine and the creation of the Jewish state created tension between the Jewish communities in Arab countries and the non-Jewish populations, which sometimes resulted in riots and the failure of Arab governments to provide security to their Jewish citizens resulted in some cases in the killings of Jews, this article creates the false impression that expulsion orders were issued and police went door to door in Arab countries and ordered their eviction, whereas such thing never happened. Jews in Arab countries immigrated to Israel on their own will and with the encouragement and help of the government of Israel. None ever even claimed to be refugees. Out of 22 Arab countries, at most in 2-3 countries, as happened in Iraq, Jews who wished to immigrate to Israel were given a time frame to renounce their citizenship if they wished to and were not allowed to take property with them. However, the facts are that in all Arab countries remained a Jewish community (how come not all were expelled?), the fact that no Jews from Arab countries in Israel claimed refugee status and Israel never sued on their behalf to claim compensation like it has done against European countries, combined with the obvious reasoning that Arab countries who would be expelling Jews into Israel would obviously be helping their enemies with manpower and soldiers - an unreasonable act - is enough of a proof that Jews were not expelled by law or decree, otherwise there would be none left. In addition, there were known incidents of Zionist operatives who perpetrated terror attacks on Jewish communities in Iraq in order to scare the Jews into leaving to Israel, for the obvious reason that the migration of Jews from Arab countries to Israel was in fact very much a Zionist interest and a part of the Zionist vision. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hpymondays (talkcontribs) 19:59, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


I concur. In fact 3 years ago I did extensive searches about the exodus of Jews from Arab lands and found not a single page on the entire Internet.

A look at the references confirms the political agenda of this article, almost every 'reference' is from Jewish sources.

It is time to eliminate or heavily edit this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Fifth Column (talkcontribs) 00:40, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Maabarah children.jpg

The image Image:Maabarah children.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --11:20, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Islam and antisemitism

Why is the link to Islam and antisemitism made at the very top of this article? Certainly the arab countries in question are Muslim. Yet that certainly doesn't implicate Islam in any way. The countries also had (at the time of exodus) quite a secular leadership. Just because Muslims do something, doesn't mean Islam is automatically involved. By comparison, do we put Christianity and antisemitism at the top of the Holocaust, just because it happened in Christian countries?Bless sins (talk) 02:08, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

The countries were officially Muslim. The exodus was prompted by antisemitic actions. QED. Jayjg (talk) 02:12, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
"Officially Muslim"? If you mean the populations and the leaders were Muslim, then yes, that's true. But then again the leaders of European nation, as well as the people have been Christian as well. It doesn't make those countries any less Christian than Arab countries are Muslim. Are you trying to say that Arab countries at the time had an Islamist, and not secular, leadership? That doesn't appear to be true.
Finally, and most importantly, do you have a reliable source connecting the Islamic faith with the exodus and with antisemitism?Bless sins (talk) 02:17, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
The Islamic faith is a reliable source connecting the Islamic faith with antisemitism.Товарищ (talk) 05:57, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

One-sided article

All sources:

  • Arieh Avneri - Jewish
  • Hayyim J. Cohen - Jewish
  • Mark Cohen - Jewish
  • Renzo De Felice - Jewish
  • Moshe Gat - Jewish
  • Sir Martin Gilbert - Jewish
  • George E. Gruen - Jewish
  • David A. Harris - Jewish
  • Itamar Levin - Jewish
  • Bernard Lewis - Jewish
  • Yehuda Nini - Jewish
  • Ilan Pappe - Jewish
  • Nissim Rejwan - Jewish
  • Maurice Roumani - Jewish
  • Malka Hillel Schulewitz - Jewish
  • Kristen Schulze - Jewish
  • Rachel Simon - Jewish
  • Peter N. Stearns - Jewish
  • Norman Stillman - Jewish
  • Joseph Zargari - Jewish


There is no even one non-Israeli historian on this planet who calls Jewish emigration as exodus or ethnic cleansing. --93.142.157.143 (talk) 21:50, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Anon, what's you point? Are Jewish and Israeli historians biased? Do you support using the term exodus? Are you suggesting that using it here by pro-Palestian editors is to justify using it on the Palestinian exodus article? --Shuki (talk) 19:18, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Precisely, very biased. You can not compare Jewish emigration with Palestinian ethnic cleaning - all historians around the World use term "Palestinian exodus", but NONE of them are using term "Jewish exodus" (except Israeli, of course). --94.253.243.58 (talk) 22:40, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


While it may be true that the above sources are all Jewish, that is not the important point to be made. The important point, is that the above scholars are all conservative and rather pro-Israeli/Jewish, therefore that is why the sources should be called into question. It would be good to see Edward Said, Noam Chomsky, Norman Finkelstein and Benny Morris incorporated into this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tipapig (talkcontribs)

While all the sources are jewish it seems no real arab sources even want to open this jar in large numbers , as for your examples most of them aren't really credible with their comments on things, find an arab historian if you want a counter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shiftadot (talkcontribs) 07:31, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

heavy bias

At anonymous below... Yes it's biased because, it doesn't talk *enough* about my own Jewish family members who were kicked out of Iraq and Yemen, not to mention the habit of some of the Muslim populous in these lands kidnapping Jewish women as "wives" at the time. This article could go much further into the subjugation of Jews and dhimmi laws. I didn't write the page but I've been linking to it a lot and sometimes in forums that are Iranian or anti-Israel. *So, please expect a lot of those people trying to delete this or modify it.* To the person below- If you have Israeli friends who left Arab lands and are not refugees then invite them to correct this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.237.243.199 (talk) 06:26, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

This article is heavily biased and is clearly written by Jews in accordance with the Jewish victimhood narrative in an attempt to draw a parallel between the fate of European Jews and Arab Jews and between Nazi Germany and Arab states. It is frequently used as a political weapon by Israel apologists to try to justify the ethnic cleansing of Palestine. The word Exodus by itself is derived from Jewish slavery narrative and is there to invoke empathy for Jewish sufferings and a feeling of persecution. In short, this article needs a more even-handed rewrite with less political agenda, less Jewish victimhood and more objective facts. As a side note, I have met plenty of Israeli Jews who immigrated from Arab countries. Not a single one claims to have been a refugee or having been expelled. They immigrated out of religious beliefs and many were ardent Zionists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.148.239.49 (talk) 19:59, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Some of the comments here that are critical of this article show themselves to be biased and even antisemitic. The use of the term exodus is completely cultural appropriate given the way many Jews, particularly religious Jews view their history. One cannot simply disregard this account on the basis of anecdotal 'evidence' and informal discussion with "Israeli Jews". That is also not a source that should be used by wikipedia and if someone wants to use it to delete this article then the standards for sources needs to be completely thrown out the window. The original article does show some bias, but the comments here and in the other comments related to this article are even more bias. If you are interested in learning about the Jews of the Arab world I suggest you do some reading of sources, in addition to informal conversations. Here are some places to start: Zafrani, Haïm. Two thousand years of Jewish life in Morocco. New York: Sephardic House in association with KTAV Pub. House, Jersey City, NJ, 2005. Stillman, Norman A. The Jews of Arab Lands. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1979. ———. The Jews of Arab Lands in Modern Times. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1981. Laskier, Michael M. North African Jewry in the Twentieth Century The Jews of Morocco, Tunisia and Algeria. New York: New York University Press, 1994. Gerber, Jane S. Jewish society in Fez 1450-1700 : studies in communal and economic life. Leiden: Brill, 1980. Tobi, Joseph. The Jews of Yemen: studies in their history and culture. Leiden: Brill, 1999. Keourie, Elie. "The Break Between Muslims and Jews in Iraq." In Jews Among Arabs Contacts and Boundaries, edited by Mark R. Cohen and Abraham L. Udovich, 21-64. Darwin Press: Princeton, 1986.

There were complex push and pull factors in the exodus of Jews from Arab lands. A desire to return to Zion was one pull factor and a desire to not return to the dhimma status of pre-colonial times was another. In addition, Jews did lose property and were attacked. Jews lost citizenship in Egypt, Libya and Iraq and there were attacks against Jews in countries throughout the Arab World. In general the situation for non-Arabs and non-Muslims was and isn't exactly one of tolerance. While the tone is indeed polemical vis a vis the Arab Israeli conflict, the basic facts in this article are correct. Bizbuzzeman (talk) 03:15, 24 June 2010 (UTC) --Bizbuzzeman (talk) 03:15, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jenkinsear (talkcontribs) 18:18, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

-jenkinsear —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jenkinsear (talkcontribs) 18:19, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

complete rewrite

I have begun doing this. A compilation of useful sources might be helpful. There is a lot fo unreliable material i this article and we need to tighten it up aand improve it.

Given your dubious writing/spelling skills and the fact that this re-write hasn't occurred, I think it would be best to completely re-write this article. Frankly I feel it should have a tone of being another Jewish propaganda event.

If no re-write is complete within a month, I will delete the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.238.217.129 (talk) 18:34, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


It is time to completely delete this exercise in Jewish propaganda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.238.217.129 (talk) 19:19, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Delete this article? Who the hell do you think you are? You don't even sign your comments! Can an admin please lock this article? TFighterPilot (talk) 12:14, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

The term(s) "Jewish exodus" was modified to "Jewish emigration and expulsion" to remove the religious tone and Jewish exceptionalism behind the word "exodus." Further, to more accurately reflect that which common sense surmises: that many Jews would voluntarily return to country made for them. The newness of this article (this subject didn't exist on the Internet or in any scholarly publications 5 years ago) suggests political reasons are at play in the creation of this issue some 60 years after it happened.

Further, the article's title should be changed to "Jewish emigration and expulsion" for reasons stated previously. The Fifth Column (talk) 10:41, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

  1. Spare us your "Jewish exceptionalism" bullshit.
  2. If you want to change the article name, start an RfC.
  3. The first sentence of the article is in compliance with WP:LEAD. Do not change it again without discussion.
  4. This article is under WP:ARBPIA discretionary sanctions. Disruptive editing will get you banned. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 11:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Title of the Article is PC

In some cases it was a voluntary "exodus," such as those from Morocco, but from others, such as Jews from Egypt, it was an outright expulsion and robbery. Elsewhere, such as in Meshad in modern Iran, the Jews were so badly oppressed that they simply fled. The title of the article should be "Jewish Exodus and Expulsion..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.111.71.197 (talk) 08:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Jews were not 'indigenous' outside Israel Is wrong to write jews were 'indigenous' in countries BEFORE arab date conquest. The diaspora shows any country reached by jews expelled from Judea by romans was populated before they arrived. In helenistic Egypt lived a jew community before Diaspora and even had its own Temple located at Leontopolis. Before jews, others peoples lived and settled in North Africa, Spain, Arabia, Persia, Syrya, Bizantyum, Yemen, etc. Jews were forever the last ones to arrive in any place. But more: biblics jews never lived in Neguev desert, and ethiepic jews never lived in Israel and so never were 'diaspored' from it for anyone. Etnics 'arabs' are not far from Egypt fatherland or Saudi Arabia borders, even 'caliphat' was located once in Damascus and once in Bagdad or Cordoba (al Andalus in Spain). 'Muslimizing' people who were not 'arab' make easy Islam to do a fast run from Medina to Poitiers in France in less than 100 years, but is a so 'european ethnocentric point of view' mistake to think 'arabs were defated at Poitiers' indeed the defated ones were a mixed troop of ancien spanishs and berberes tribes. So in anyway author can't state something as 'jews were the fist inhabitants...' indeed jews outside Israel never founded any state or kingdom in circa 3,000 years of jew history. Its atonishing why not, when in ancien times were so easy to found a state from nothing more than ashes and by refugees as Rome, Carthagus, Venetia, Genova, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.201.84.254 (talk) 13:20, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


You have made a valid point and I will correct the text, though your historical points are inaccurate. There have been Jewish states outside of Israel: the kingdom of the Khazars in modern day Azerbaijan and there was a Jewish Berber state in North Africa (http://www.whoosh.org/issue85/klossner6.html). Many Jews especially in areas that were formerly part of the Roman Empire are also descended from converts. I guess the term indigenous people is problematic. Telaviv1 (talk) 09:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

how does one decide indigenity indeed? are Turkish cypriots indigenous? for the most part, jews have had thousands of years of history in these places, well enough to be considered indigenous for all practical purposes. 85.64.221.163 (talk) 20:18, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Basically Jews are indigenous everywhere round the Mediterranean, including in Europe but I remvoed the term as it is not really relevant to the issue. Telaviv1 (talk) 20:26, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

It is very relevant as this term is heavily used in discussions about refugee status and inferred rights due to indigenity. 85.64.221.163 (talk) 18:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
The phrase "Next year in Jerusalem" is commonly used by Zionists to prove that Israel was the ancestral home of the Jews. It would be difficult for the same people to simultaneously argue they're indigenous somewhere (or anywhere) else. I'd be confident Telaviv1 is a Zionist and wonder what Conflict of Interest he has. 86.157.128.63 (talk) 17:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Emigration, not "exodus"

I have read tons of books about Middle East history, and I never saw anything called "Jewish exodus from Arab lands". Can you please name me JUST ONE neutral (non-Zionist, non-Israeli, non-Jewish) source which mention it? Of course not. Name of article mentioning "exodus" is just one-sided political propaganda with purpose to justify Palestinian exodus by equalize it with Jewish emigration. Although all scholars agree they were isolated causes of forced emigration (mostly after Israeli-Arab wars), NONE of them call all Jewish emigration by terms of "exodus", "ethnic cleansing" or anything similar. Emigration from Arab lands is similar to Jewish emigration from SSSR (Russia and Ukraine), because no one forced them to move to Israel; it was their free will. Please note ALL references, external sources and bibliography refers to - Israeli and Jewish authors. Sounds neutral to you? It's like writing an article about War in Yugoslavia with using exclusivity only Serbian (or Croatian) source. --93.142.157.143 (talk) 19:17, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Even if I ignore all your fabrications, the Palestinian Arabs got the exact same title. TFighterPilot (talk) 09:08, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

"neutral non-zionist, non-Jewish, non-Israeli". Doesn't that strike you as a problematic- possibly racist - statement? I suggest you name your sources before asking others to do so (the article provides sources). The Biblical exodus was voluntary - You may recall that Moses was demanding that the Israelites be allowed to leave, so the term would appear appropriate. Finally what is a "voluntary departure"? One could argue that most Palestinian-Arabs left voluntarily, the question is why they reached that decision. I agree that there is a debatable issue regarding the use of the word "ethnic cleansing" but that would apply to the Palestinians too. The article makes it clear that the situation varied from country to country. In some cases at least it was not a simple departure. Telaviv1 (talk) 19:41, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The role of Israel/Jewish agencies

I think this is an important issue must be cleared in the article. What is the role of such agencies in forcing, supporting or encouraging the Arab Jewish to leave to Israel. Akatsha (talk) 16:00, 5 January 2010 (UTC)akatsha