Talk:Jewish refugees

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Jewish history (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish history on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Palestine (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic :Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Wikipedia. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

[Untitled][edit]

I added the sentence about post-1991 emigration out of the ex-USSR to Israel, the US and Germany. The US figure of 250,000 with "refugee" status is accurate, but are there cites anywhere for more accurate numbers to Israel and Germany, and for non-refugees to the US? 13:51, 03 Jun 2005 (UTC)

#REDIRECT Talk:Immigration_to_Israel_from_Arab_lands

Until recently, this was a redirect. If there is a controversy, I'll just turn it back into a redirect. My guess is the focus on the Arab lands is because they focus on Palestinians. Humus sapiensTalk 04:54, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I see. That history explains alot, especially the Talk page from the original link. In that light, you have done a very creditable job of listing the long history of cases of Jewish refugees. The intro just needs to be NPOVed. I don't think the focus on Sephardim in Israel is appropriate for the page title which is much broader. Thanks. Alberuni 05:04, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

2500 year old communities[edit]

The fact that Jewish communities lived (thrived?) as Arabs in Arab countries for 2500 years UNTIL the (mostly European/American Zionists) established a Jewish state in Palestine should tell you something about the reasons why these Arab Jews suddenly became Jewish refugees. Alberuni 05:36, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The Arabs/Muslims allowed the Jews to live in their midst as dhimmis only until the Jews expressed their wish for self-determination and sovereignty (as did many peoples at that time - including 22 huge Arab nation-states created in the territory of the former Ottoman Empire). Hope you are not trying to push the same cause for the Palestinian Arabs but deny it for the Jews? BTW, most of Sephardi Jews did not thrive and had to leave behind all their property when they were expelled. Humus sapiensTalk 08:51, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The Jews living in Arab countries were Arabs, just like their Christian and Muslim fellow citizens. Self-determination and sovereignty applies to nations, not religious groups. Many Arab Jews worked to liberate their countries from European colonialism. The Jews are not a nation unto themselves despite the Zionist propaganda. The Jews are a religious group. Zionism is religious nationalism, a political movenment. Judaism and Zionism are two different things. You claim that Sephardi Jews did not thrive for 2500 years living in Arab countries then in the same sentence you complain that they were forced to leave behind all their property when they were expelled. Which is it? If they did not thrive, why did they have so much property? Alberuni 14:15, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Jews are a people, not just a religion, and have always considered themselves as such (including Sepharadi and Edot haMizrach Jews). Some Jews in Arab lands were wealthy, but they accumulated this wealth when Arab countries were under English and French rule, when the dhimmi restrictions and persecutions were largely lifted. Jayjg 01:03, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Sorry Alberuni, I think by writing "The Jews living in Arab countries were Arabs... The Jews are not a nation" you have just disqualified yourself from editing any articles on the subject. Humus sapiensTalk 07:00, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
No, he hasn't disqualified himself, he merely expressed an opinion on a talk page, which IS permissible. That being said, I consider Jews to be a nation with its own religion (and possibly room for more than one religion as well). Judaism, like other nations, has laws for citizenship and for naturalization, and the country of Israel (which is essentially run by Jewish people) does pay some tribute to those laws (although the Israeli government also has some rules of its own, caused by modern politics). The Jews in Arab countries are Arabs, yeah, and they are also Jews. I am Jewish, and I am American. It's a dual nationality. I fail to see Alberuni's point on this matter. Rickyrab 20:59, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Jews are very special people who have suffered alot because of anti-Semitism. That doesn't make Zionist crimes acceptable. Alberuni 01:05, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Um, ok. I'm not sure how that's relevant. Jayjg 02:01, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Your gratuitous reversions of comparison between UN aid to victims of Israel and refugees to Israel is irrelevant. Please stop your childish reversions until this is resolved. Alberuni 04:37, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)


Please stop your off-topic digressions. This article is not about condemning the Jews of Israel for "crimes". Please restrict your commnents to specific edits for the specific article. This is not a discussion forum. RK 02:00, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)
Please stop telling me what to do. You are extremely arrogant and condescending. I was responding to your off-topic anti-Arab hasbara propaganda about Jewish wealth that was accumulated in Arab countries but that you credit to colonial powers. The point is that Jews, many of them wealthy, lived in Arab countries alongside their fellow Arabs until the Euro-American Zionist creation of the Jewish state on Palestinian land created a conflict between Arabs and Jews that made Arab Jews unwelcome in the land they lived on for 1000s of years. You want to have it both ways, always. YOU are the one who is not discussing your reverts. Why the gratuitous slap at the UN and UNRWA? Why compare Jewish refugees from Arab countries who were absorbed by Israel to Palestinian refugees who were dispossessed by the creation of Israel? It's totally irrelevant and petty. What makes you think you own these pages? Why are alternative, let alone opposing, points of view edited out? These are relevant questions for a Talk page. Alberuni 02:36, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Jayjg you are not discussing the issue[edit]

Your gratuitous reversions of the comparison between UN aid to victims of Israel and refugees to Israel is irrelevant. Please stop your childish reversions until you have discussed the reason for this. Alberuni 04:48, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Please get the history straight; the comparison was in there originally long before you discovered the article. You have been deleting it, and reverting your deletion. Please provide a rationale for doing so before deleting it again. Jayjg 04:50, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I have provided a reason, you are just not listening, as usual. The comparison between UN aid to victims of Israel and refugees to Israel is irrelevant. What is its relevance to Jewish refugees? Alberuni 04:56, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The two population movements are corollaries, one set of refugees leaving Israel for mostly Arab countries, and another larger set of refugees leaving mostly Arab countries entering Israel (and some other countries). Their respective treatments are worth comparing. Jayjg 05:04, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
They are not corrolary cases. Israel confiscated the land of Palestinians for the use of Jewish refugees. Palestinians did not receive the Arab Jews' land when they immigrated to Israel. Palestinians remained refugees. Jews were absorbed by the new country built on Palestinian land. This line looks more like a petty complaint that the Jews did not get money from UNRWA aid "unlike the Palestinians" - as if the Palestinians got the better deal. Is there any use discussing issues with you? Alberuni 05:11, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
You have highlighted it exactly; although they are corollaries, the two groups were treated quite differently. Jewish refugees from Arab countries were absorbed into the countries the arrived in (primarily Israel), whereas Arab refugees from Israel were refused absorption and instead turned into permanent political pawns by the Arab countries they arrived in and by the UNRWA. The article reflects these relevant facts. The Greco-Turkish War, the transfer of Sudeten Germans after World War II, and the transfer between Muslim and Hindu populations after the 1947 Partition of India might also make interesting reading. Jayjg 05:21, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
There is no reason, not even for your beloved Jewish state, why Palestinian refugees should have been displaced from their homeland and forced to be absorbed by Arab, European, American or other countries. The article does not reflect those facts. The article makes a swipe at UNRWA as if to say that Jewish refugees with a country to settle were more industrious than Palestinians who were kicked out of their country to make way for those very same Jews. It's your typical Zionist propaganda. Do you ever look in the mirror and question why you are the way you are? Alberuni 05:32, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Alberuni, you have just exceeded the RV limit of 3. Your attempts to turn any article concerning the Jews into an area of Israeli-Palestinian conflict or a discussion about Zionism (a political movement which you also misunderstand, as it is not an expletive) are duly noted. Humus sapiensTalk 07:15, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Treatement of refugees[edit]

You have the following statement under the entry Jewish Refugees: 'Unlike Palestinian refugees, Jewish refugees had no assistance from U.N. bodies such as the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East.'

Now why is this relevant? If it is relevant that Palestinian refugees received UN assistance, surely it is relevant that Israel met its obligations towards Jewish refugees by relying on reparations from Germany and financial aid from a number of other countries?

Israel had no "obligations" towards Jewish refugees, and this article is about the treatment of the refugees, not about Israel. Jayjg (talk) 15:49, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
On the topic of 'obligations': Israel passed the Law of Return on July 5th, 1950. This law provides right of immigration for Jews to Israel (i.e. an obligation for Israel).
My main objective is however that the statement as it currently stands seems to imply the following: Palestinian refugees received help from the UN (and by extension the international community). Israel on the other hand did it all on her own. As such it is biased in favour of what can be termed official Israeli history: In a sea of Arabs the Israeli state against all odds succeded.
Now I believe this leaves two options: Either the comment on Palestinian refugees is removed (it is not needed), or the issue of German reparations is included.
I fail to see how the Law of Return creates an "obligation" on the part of Israel; allowing someone to immigrate does not imply any particular obligation to them, and in any event the Law of Return did not refer to refugees, nor was it restricted to them. As for the claim itself, the U.N. generally takes responsibility for refugees, and certainly did so in the case of the Palestinians. However, it did not do so in the case of the other half of the refugee equation here, the Jews. That is notable. It is about the refugees, not about Israel. Jayjg (talk) 03:50, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I think you are proving my point. First of all this is not 'an equation'. These population movements are not one for one exchanges as you imply. I would like to see your sources. Your agenda appears to be to provide a Zionist perspective and to discredit Palestinian refugees. Furthermore,this implies anti-Arab bias. In the Israeli case it does mean an obligation (recall this is the state for Jews). It has been a constant feature of the Zionist movement and the State of Israel that 'aliyah', i.e. immigration to Israel is encouraged. In any case immigration and citizenship creates rights and obligations, for immigrant/citizens and the state alike. The Israeli state played an active part in the process of moving Jews from Arab countries to Israel. This is the case when it comes to Yemen, there is the 'Lavon' affair in Egypt and there's evidence of the Mossad organizing a campaign in Iraq in order to induce Jews to leave. Will you please add that hundreds of thousands of Jewish refugees were moved into properties belonging to Palestinian refugees? It seems appropriate to make some mention of how the Israeli state could afford this project.

To begin with, please discuss the edits in question, not your suppositions about me or my motivations. Second, I have no idea what you mean when you talk about "one for one exchanges". Third, as I keep pointing out, this is about the refugees and how they were treated; it is not about the State of Israel, Zionism, etc. Fourth, the Lavon affair was about disrupting foreign relations of Egypt, not about getting Egyptian Jews into Israel, and the actions of the Egyptian government after the 1956 Suez Crisis had a far more important effect on that than the Lavon Affair. Finally, the "hundreds of thousands of Jewish refugees were moved into properties belonging to Palestinian refugees" is part of an anti-Zionist narrative that does not gibe with the fact that most of the Jewish refugees lived in tent cities for years, which this article itself points out. Jayjg (talk) 17:19, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've commented out the section, pending resolution of the issue here. Jayjg (talk) 17:27, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

An encyclopedia should dryly reflect relevant facts without resorting to propaganda or counter-propaganda. Since Palestinian refugees gained such a prominence while Jewish refugees (about the same number created at about the same time) lack adequate illumination, the existence/absense of UNWRA is totally relevant here. If there was an intl agency to assist Jewish refugees similar to UNWRA, let's hear about it. Humus sapiensTalk 01:26, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I believe I have already made some points above (the controversy re: the one for one relationship you allude to, Zionism as the basis of the Israeli State, the role of reparations and support from a number of countries, the Mossad's role in certain Arab countries etc.). I see few references to the World Zionist Organization or the Jewish Agency or the Jewish National Fund, neither are there any references to the expropriation of Palestinian property (physical and financial). I don't think you are bringing anything new to the discussion. I do of course completely agree regarding your comments on an encyclopedia. Tiller1 09:58, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Humus has ably responded to your issues below; you seem to be dealing with irrelevant issues here. Jayjg (talk) 13:40, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Remember, we are discussing here a major international effort to assist the refugees on the scale of UNRWA. Your points, 1 by 1:

  1. "Zionism as the basis of the Israeli State" - irrelevant here, unless you know something I don't.
  2. "the role of reparations and support from a number of countries" - in no way German reparations were aimed to help Jewish refugees from the Arab ME. What other countries, BTW?
  3. "Mossad's role in certain Arab countries" - Would you argue that this compensates the role of the UNRWA?
  4. "World Zionist Organization or the Jewish Agency or the Jewish National Fund" - Name any other group of people who doesn't help their own kind. Muslims? Christians? Thai? Alcoholics Anonymous? Would you argue that the help of Jewish orgs WZO, JA and JNF to Jewish refugees compensates the help of the UNRWA (read: the entire world) to Palestinian refugees?
  5. "expropriation of Palestinian property" - you are only proving my point: where was the UN and all its committees and councils when Jewish property was expropriated?

Now, my points:

  1. In 1947, the Arab leaders rejected the partition and refused to negotiate, while the Zionist leaders accepted it. Choosing Palestinian Arab and Jewish self-determination then would make a Palestinian state 58 years old today. If they would have accepted the 1937 partition, the Palestinian state would be 68 year old today and millions of Jews could be possibly saved from the Holocaust.
  2. In 1948, the Arabs freely chose (note, Israel didn't threaten them) to start a genocidal war against the Jews. Had they made a better choice, there would be no Palestinian refugees.
  3. See [1] for the role of Arab leaders in creating Jewish refugees from ME&NA.

Do you think we should mention who is ultimately responsible for both refugee streams? Humus sapiensTalk 10:14, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Your entry just proves my point: You are recycyling Zionist allegations: 'genocidal war against the Jews';'If they had accepted the 1937 (sic?) partition....millions of Jews could be possibly saved from the Holocaust'. Excuse me? Palestine was populated with Palestinians. The fact remain as I stated above, the concept of 'aliyah' is central to Zionism and thus the state of Israel. The law of return created an obligation. Much of this talk page seems to be about this issue re: UNRWA. The UNGA resolution 187 provided for the separation of Palestine in two states, ,the creation of UNRWA follows from this. The situation in terms of jewish refugees in a number of Arab countries is not as simple as you suggest (and the State of Israel was involved, consider the cases of Yemen, Iraq and Libya). A final point, you are consistently talking about 'Arabs', indicative of your bias. So you want to mention UNRWA but not the billions from Germany to Israel, the billions from the WZO or the Jewish National Fund?
All countries have immigration laws, and they do not create "obligations". Countries have all sorts of sources of income as well; should we mention that Israel exported Jaffa oranges, and that also supported the country? You seem to have dropped your claims about other countries besides Germany paying reparations, and as for Jewish charities supporting Jewish causes, it hardly seems relevant, much like your other comments. Must we now mention every charity that ever supported a Palestinian as well? Any outside source of income to a country which ever housed a Palestinian refugee? Refugees are an international matter; the UN set up a special department to support Arab refugees, but did nothing for Jewish refugees. That is notable. And by the way, at the time both Arabs and Jews were "Palestinians", it was only afterwards that the Arabs evolved into "Palestinians", while the Jews became "Israelis"; there's nothing biased about recognizing that. Jayjg (talk) 20:19, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Jayjg already responded re: aliyah and reparations, here are other points you need to work on:

  • regarding 1937 partition plan - see Peel Commission
  • "Zionist allegations about genocidal war against the Jews" - Azzam Pasha, secretary-general of the Arab League, May 15, 1948: "This will be a war of extermination and momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the mongolian massacres and Crusades." President Nasser of Egypt, May 27, 1967: "Our basic goal is the destruction of Israel". (Laqueur, op. cit., pp. 175-185). [2], [3] I can bring more quotes and sources if necessary.
  • "Palestine was populated with Palestinians." - The area designated for the Jewish state had Jewish majority.
  • "you are consistently talking about 'Arabs', indicative of your bias." - please reread my text. I say "Arab leaders" on purpose.

Finally, please do not repeat arguments that were already refuted earlier and sign your messages with 4 tildas: ~~~~. Humus sapiensTalk 21:53, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

My arguments have not been 'refuted'. You avoid the whole issue of 'aliyah' and Zionism as the basis for the Israeli State, thus the obligation. You provide no information on Yemen, Iraq or Egypt and the reasons why jews left. I notice you consistently refrain from commenting on the Law of Return. I concentrate on German reparations as these are by far the largest, it is a well known fact that support was received from other countries. Much can be said about jewish refugees, I suggest you concentrate on these other issues. 'Christianactionforisrael' is not an unbiased source. You still seem to claim that Palestinians bear some kind of responsibility for the murder of millions of jews during the second world war? Palestine was populated with Palestinians, this is not controversial, they were in a clear majority in the whole mandate area. The Jewish National Fund is hardly 'a charity', neither is the WZO. One question for you, did Israel as the representative of world jewry ever ask for a UN organization to be established for jewish refugees? As I have mentioned above the Palestinian refugees where ethnically cleansed subsequent to the UNGA resolution, UNRWA follows from this. Tiller1 23:06, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Side note: you don't seem to read the responses and keep repeating the same arguments, most of them irrelevant.

  1. "Zionism as the basis for the Israeli State, thus the obligation.", the "Law of Return" - see above (this article is not about the State of Israel, and Zionism or the Law of Return are not "obligations" for someone to turn/be turned into a refugee). Also, check the title of this article.
  2. "Yemen, Iraq or Egypt and the reasons why jews left" - glad you asked. See JIMENA link I provided earlier and learn what happened to 150,000 Iraqi Jews (a community that survived there for 2,600 years). Are you saying that ALL Jews in Arab/Muslim countries voluntarily decided to become refugees and move into tent cities? I personally know a few of them, perhaps we need to elaborate more on pogroms/farhuds they were subjected to by their authorities and neighboors. Thanks for this suggestion.
  3. "it is a well known fact that support was received from other countries" - facts please, preferably on the UNRWA scale. Germany is also irrelevant here.
  4. "'Christianactionforisrael' is not an unbiased source." - I provided only quotes by Nasser and Azzam with the refs that I quickly found. See also Benny Morris, Righteous Victims p. 219 (the same quotes, plus more similar ones by Ahmed Shukayri and Amin al-Husayni). All of them are very well documented, your denial is revealing.
  5. "Palestine was populated with Palestinians" - see above (Jewish majority in areas designated for Jewish state). Check the title of this article. Also, how is this relevant?
  6. "a clear majority in the whole mandate area" - the Jews accepted their state according to the UN partition plan. Check the title of this article. How this is relevant?
  7. "did Israel as the representative of world jewry ever ask for a UN organization to be established for jewish refugees?" - Good question. The fact is, such an org was not established, and we reflect this fact.
  8. "the Palestinian refugees where ethnically cleansed subsequent to the UNGA resolution, UNRWA follows from this", "The UNGA resolution 187 provided for the separation of Palestine in two states, ,the creation of UNRWA follows from this." - the 1947 UN Partition Plan was actually UNGA Res. 181 [4] not 187. The Arab representatives rejected it and their armies subsequently attacked Israel/Palestine. Since you repeatedly acknowledge that "the creation of UNRWA follows from this", it is only logical that the Arab side must be held responsible for the consequences of their decisions. Humus sapiensTalk 10:50, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
My question was: Did Israel ever ask for a UN organization to be created? Please respond. I encourage you to add more information to this article on jewish refugees both recent, past and distant past.
Let's bear in mind the sentence that is discussed: 'Unlike Palestinian refugees, Jewish refugees had no assistance from U.N. bodies such as the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East.' I added information on how Israel met its obligations to the jewish refugees. I think the lack of separation between the original sentence and my contribution makes this discussion more tedious than it should be.
The question is whether UNRWA is relevant for the article. The argument you are putting forward is that there was a one for one exchange of people in the middle east in 1947-48. It follows from this that you feel it is relevant to include the sentence as the jewish refugees did not get an organization courtesy of the international community.
It is clearly not correct that there was a one-for-one population exchange (look at when people left and under what circumstances: Yemen, Iraq, Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Libya, Morocco etc). Another basis of your argument revolves around 'The Arabs' as an homogenous group. This is clearly wrong as there are many states in the region, the Palestinians did not have a say in the decision making of any of these states (the states were looking after their own interests, land was a motivation). Last but not least: The UNRWA came into existence as the partition of Mandate Palestine was a result of UNGA resolution 181. For other refugees the relevant organization is the UNHCR (look at the convention). Please note Palestinian refugees are not benefitting from the UNHCR or her Convention due to the UNRWA.
Zionism, the Law of Return and Israel is relevant in this discussion (this was related to how Israel's obligations were met, have a look at the history of the entry). German reparations are a fact, so is the support of a number of other countries. The same goes for jewish refugees being housed in Palestinian property expropriated by the Israeli state. Also, has the State of Israel pursued claims on behalf of these refugees? Feel free to add information. Did Israel call for their repatriation?
I am not being patronizing when I am pointing out why this is important, Israel wanted to attract these people, they were not a burden, quite the contrary. Even today Israel encourages 'aliyah' (consider the recent argument between France and Israel). I would welcome contributions on why jewish refugees left these countries (the article is about jewish refugees). Just as I would welcome contributions on why jewish people were forced out of Spain (1492), Britain, the Netherlands etc etc. I believe there is much information that can be added to this article, the focus should not stay on the topic of UNRWA. I still object to your blatant anti-Arab bias and stereotyping. Tiller1 18:21, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
You keep confusing the topic of this article. It is about the refugees, not Israel. That Israel wanted to attract them is irrelevant; they still fled their countries of origin with the clothes on their back, and no compensation. If you want to open it up to treatment by the countries the refugees ended up in, then you'd have to expand the article to also discuss the Arab countries (aside from Jordan) intent and practice of turning the Arab refugees into pawns in their war against Israel. As for the argument about the refugees not "requesting" assistance from the UN, it was the UN that decided to create an agency to assist Palestinian refugees, they did not need to request it. Regarding the rest, you are repeating old, irrelevant, and refuted arguments. Though Israel welcomed Jewish refugees, it had no "obligations" to them. German reparations were one source of income for Israel among thousands, and had nothing to do with Jewish refugees from Arab lands. The Arab countries did indeed act in a fairly homogeneous way, as a result of their co-ordinated efforts to attack Israel via the Arab League. Please desist from re-iterating your refuted arguments and continually inserting unrelated topics. Jayjg (talk) 19:58, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
You are not responding to my questions. Please respond to my questions above (and 'with their clothes on their back'? What country is this? And when did it happen?). Please provide timelines. I believe we then agree any mention of the UNRWA is irrelevant as this has nothing to do with jewish refugees. Furthermore, Israel is relevant. I will soon start adding to this article information about the Lavon affair, the Mossad's involvement in Iraq, what took place in Yemen and the expropriation of Palestinian property to house people of the jewish religion coming from Arab countries. Thanks. Tiller1 21:33, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Your questions have all been answered multiple times; which ones remain unanswered? Aside from the clothes on their back, which was (more or less) the fate of Iraqi and Egyptian Jews. Regarding relevance, you have it backwards; UNRWA is a refugee agency, no similar one was created for Jews. However, the Israel's treatment of those Jewish refugees is no more relevant than Lebanon's treatment of the Arab refugees. The Lavon affair, another red herring, had little impact on Egyptian refugees - far more important was the 1956 Suez Crisis, but in any event still irrelevant. As for the conspiracy theories regarding Mossad in Iraq, your acceptance of them is revealing. By the way, is it your plan to document the expropriation of Jewish property in Arab countries as well, and list exactly who was housed there? Rest assured, in any event, that attempts to inject obvious and irrelevant POV into this article, or any other on any topic, are against Wikipedia policy; please stop threatening to do so. Jayjg (talk) 23:21, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Tiller1 attempts to skew the discussion by bringing Israel and Zionist conspiracy theories, but let's keep in mind that hundreds of thousands of JR from ME&NA found their refuge in other places, such as the US and Canada. Good job, Mossad. Humus sapiensTalk 03:36, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The U.S. and Canada have immigration policies which actively encourage immigration; therefore, they had an obligation to those Jewish refugees. That needs to go in the article as well, along with the various sources of income each country used to support that immigration. I propose an economic breakdown for all countries which accepted any Jewish or Arab refugees of any type, showing all inflows and outflows of funds to their respective government, analyses of immigration and naturalization policies, statistics regarding absorption of refugees. As well, the activities of any of their security agencies should be documented, particularly as regards any rumours about activities in Middle Eastern countries, or countries which accepted refugees. Thoughts? Jayjg (talk) 03:46, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)


I refer to my response 18:21, 20 Mar 2005, you are not responding to the issues I raised. Your response above confirms my argument is correct. I notice you claim the U.S and Canada had obligations , so how come Israel has none (it actively encourages immigration so does qualify according to your argument above?). There was a refugee agency, UNHCR, as I explain above this exists for all refugees (including jewish refugees), regardless of religion. The Palestinians are not covered through the UNHCR as they have UNRWA.
I will not comment on your allegations above. Tiller1 18:06, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Can you not recognize sarcasm when you see it? Your claims regarding "obligations" a specious, your issues have been responded to, and your arguments have been refuted; Canada and the U.S. have no more "obligations" than Israel does. UNRWA was created before the UNHCR, and specifically for Arab refugees, somehow managing to miss the Jewish refugees, even those in Palestine, even though the relevant UN reports discussed and enumerated them. The fact that there is a special agency for Arab refugees of the '48 war, even though every other refugee in the world is covered by the UNHCR (though not the Jewish refugees from Arab lands, as far as I know), should indicate to you that there is an imbalance here. The fact that it is by far the largest agency of the UN, and employs over 25,000 Palestinians, should be another red flag. Jayjg (talk) 18:42, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This seems very unproductive (your anti-Arab bias etc.). My arguments have not been refuted. You are not responding to my posting 18:21, 20 Mar 2005. Please do. Jewish refugees are obviously covered through the UNHCR. Tiller1 19:41, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I have no "anti-Arab" bias, and your personal attacks are quite indeed "very unproductive". Your failure to recognize the refutation of your arguments is irrelevant, as are most of your suggestions for information to be included in this article. Regarding refugee agencies, which Jewish refugees have received aid the the UNHCR, and why do only Arab refugees from the 1948 war get their own special UN agency? The fact that only one group of refugees in the entire world gets their own special (ultra large) UN agency is notable, as is the fact that it excluded Jewish refugees from that same war. Your posting of 18:21, 20 Mar 2005 was not directed to me, and in any event has already been answered at length, often in previous postings which you appear to have ignored. Is there any specific question you still have regarding the article? Please keep it to one item at a time, so I can simply copy and paste the already given response to it from comments above. Jayjg (talk) 20:22, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I asked you to respond to my posting and the arguments I put forward 18:21 20 Mar 2005. I am asking you again.
Two more issues you need to clarify: What jewish refugees are you talking about here (your posting above 'Jewish refugees from the same war')? Are you saying Jewish refugees left Iraq and Egypt in 1948? Where did they go? You need to look at UNHCR and her convention before making the kind of statements you do above. Tiller1 23:00, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)



Israel and jewish refugees[edit]

From the article I see the following: 'The State of Israel (population in 1948 was about 650,000) absorbed approximately 600,000 of these refugees'

I suggest information is added on Israeli policies relating to the refugees as it is not clear how this worked.

Another comment relates to the definition of jewish refugees in the beginning of the article. Is it not recognized that this term is used on all jewish refugees? Tiller1 23:00, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This Timeline is Very Sparse[edit]

At last count, Jews have been expelled from over 80 countries/territories that are well documented. Therefore, the fact that this page only lists a dozen instances is a shame. Hardly any ethno-religious group has been expelled from as many places as Jews have, so I think that this page should be massively expanded to reflect this long history of Jews being expelled from virtually everywhere they have lived. --172.154.4.23 19:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Your help would be appreciated. Let's keep it WP:NPOV and consider registering. ←Humus sapiens ну? 22:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree, stop complaining, start editing. Emmanuelm (talk) 15:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Is there any good reason why the timeline is in reverse chronological order?[edit]

I can't see one... most timelines on Wikipedia go from the oldest events to the most recent. I'm going to be bold and reverse the direction of this one to put the earliest events are at the top, as it's surely easier to read that way. No judgement on the content of the timeline is intended. Terraxos 00:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I support you. Emmanuelm (talk) 14:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Maabarah children.jpg[edit]

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)

Image removed to satisfy the WP copyright nazis. They even have a bot now! Emmanuelm (talk) 18:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Law of Return[edit]

The second paragraph in the lede now reads: After its establishment in 1948, the State of Israel adopted the 1950 Law of Return making Israel a home not only for the inhabitants of the State, but also for all members of the Jewish people everywhere. This law was intended to make Israel an ideal destination for voluntary Jewish repatriation. It seemed quite easy to separate the factual portions from the rest - After its establishment in 1948, the State of Israel adopted the 1950 Law of Return encouraging Jewish immigration. - but I was immediately reverted. Neither the tone nor content of what I removed complies with WP:NPOV. Is there some sort of in-between that does the job better? Jd2718 (talk) 06:13, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Is there a quote by someone involved that mentions the connection of the establishment of Israel to the many Jewish refuges at the time? Obviously people who voluntarily repatriate are not the same as refuges. Borock (talk) 11:32, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Circular reference[edit]

There was a sentence in the lede: "This law was intended to make Israel an ideal destination for voluntary Jewish repatriation" As voluntary Jewish repatriation was piped to Aliyah, the sense was "... to make Israel an ideal destination for immigration to Israel..." I left it at "encourage Jewish immigration..." Jd2718 (talk) 15:15, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

1933-1945, Misleading info about WW2 refugees to Palestine[edit]

Is there any reason why the article doesn't give numbers of Jewish refugees to Palestine from Europe during and after WW2? Does it have anything to do with the following phrase?

"The British Mandate of Palestine prohibited Jewish immigration to the Land of Israel"

Everybody knows that the British Mandate Palestine immigration restrictions were grossly violated and that hundreds of thousands Jews were clandestinely brought from Europe to Palestine despite the laws and the objections of the Palestinian people. Mentioning the immigration restriction but not saying that they were nevertheless violated, is misleading. It gives the impression that none of the Jewish WW2 refugees came to Palestine. Also, it is unfair to mention that Palestine had immigration restrictions (which were grossly violated) while the US (among many other countries) also had the same immigration restrictions and refused to accept any Jews above the quota. I know that maybe it doesn't help the zionist cause to reveal that most of pre 1948 Jews were unwanted illegal refugees, but how can you hide this kind of essential information on an encyclopedia?

One other thing that bothers me is that the article states that from 1948 on 600.000 Jewish "refugees" came to Israel from Middle Eastern, Muslim countries. It seems as if ALL of those immigrants were refugees and just barely escaped another holocaust in the Middle East. Undoubtedly there were tensions in the Middle East (Arab-Israeli war 1948) and Jews had a hard time but it is unfair to say that every single Jew that came to Israel from the Middle East was a refugee. Other regular immigration motivations like religious reasons, political ideology, poverty in country of origin, higher living standards in Israel, employment, education, business opportunities, free or cheap land or housing and general idealism might also have played a role for these "refugees". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.56.180.243 (talk) 22:11, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion for new reference 1933[edit]

Hello, I suggest, to add the following references after the 1933 persecution part:


[...]1933-1945: The German Nazi persecution started with the Nazi boycott of Jewish businesses in 1933 [1] [2] [3], reached a first climax [...]


  1. ^ Link to digitised newspaper article "The Sydney Morning Herald" 8 April 1933, page 13, Article: "Germany - Jewish Refugees."
  2. ^ Link to digitised newspaper article, "The Argus" (Melbourne) 13 April 1933, page 9, Article: "Jewish Refugees. Shelter in Britain"
  3. ^ Link to digitised newspaper article, "Northern Star" (Lismore) 13 April 1933, page 7, Article: "Jewish Refugees - Several arrivals in England"

--Martin397 (talk) 03:23, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

600,000 refugees[edit]

Galassi, please could you provide clear and reputable sourcing for the claim that ALL 600,000 were refugees? I have read in detail on this subject and can tell you that it is definitely not true, but I encourage you to research in detail to reach your own conclusion. But please can we bring the discussion here first instead of trying to force unsourced statements in to the article. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:14, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Khorasan[edit]

I can see why people get confused as to where the Ten Tribes were taken, and where they might subsequently have gone, when ill informed or misguided folks make assertions such as this. For one thing, Khorasan (any version you like) is way outside what's generally considered by historians to be even the maximal limits of the Neo-Assyrian Empire. For seconds, all the places identified in the Bible as the end destination of the exiles are in Northern Syria, east of the Euphrates (Halah, (K)habur (a tributary of the Euphrates and nothing to do with Afghanistan) and Gozan) or Western Iran (the cities of the Medes)

Mark76 (talk) 15:33, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Title[edit]

Shouldn't this page be titled Jewish Expulsions, or Expulsions of Jews? It's not about the refugees per se, it's about the circumstances which led to the refugees

Hartzl (talk) 17:11, 1 March 2017 (UTC)