Court ruling gives Jewish exiles hope and Coca-Cola problems

Ray · 04-12-2007, 11:42 AM

Quote:

Court ruling gives Jewish exiles hope and Coca-Cola problems

By Ron Grossman
Tribune staff reporter
Published April 11, 2007

A little-noticed U.S. Supreme Court decision has reopened a forgotten chapter in Middle East history with far-reaching implications for the torturous, often violent politics of the region.

The court recently declined Coca-Cola Co.'s request to review a lower court's decision allowing a Canadian Jewish family to sue the soft-drink giant for trespass. The case was brought by the heirs of Joshias Bigio, a businessman in Egypt until the government expropriated his enterprises in the 1960s.

Thirty years later, Bigio's son, Refael, discovered that Coke was using one of his father's factories as part of its Egyptian bottling operations and asked for compensation. When that was not forthcoming, he filed a lawsuit—Bigio vs. The Coca-Cola Co.—in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The Bigios, who eventually settled in Canada, are Sephardim—Jews whose ancestors lived in Muslim countries for centuries before fleeing a wave of anti-Semitic violence and intimidation that began at the founding of Israel in 1948. Many had to abandon homes, businesses and life savings. The Bigio family hung on longer, heavily invested in factories and other enterprises and hoping to somehow weather the storm. "You had to leave with only five Egyptian pounds per person," said Refael Bigio. "Our family wound up eating in a soup kitchen in France."

Now some Jewish organizations see the Bigios' lawsuit as a way to get the Sephardim case into the court of public opinion.

"Why is it that the issue of Palestinian refugees is always talked about and the issue of Jewish refugees isn't?" asked Morton Klein, national president of the Zionist Organization of America.

Hoping to redress that imbalance, Klein's group is calling for a boycott of Coca-Cola products until the company settles accounts with the Bigio family. Klein says the ZOA, which is the nation's oldest pro-Israel group and claims a membership of 30,000, will picket a meeting of Coke shareholders next Wednesday in Wilmington, Del.

"The Egyptian government's actions were part of a campaign of anti-Semitic discrimination and persecution that caused almost a million Jews in Arab/Islamic countries, like the Bigios, to lose their homes, properties, businesses and livelihoods," the group said in calling for the Coke boycott.

The Bigios and other Sephardim are the counterparts of the hundreds of thousands of Palestinian refugees who fled their homes during the Arab-Israeli wars of 1948 and 1967.Indeed, Refael still has a document designating his mother, Bahia, as a refugee according to the United Nations' criteria. The plight of displaced Palestinians, many still living in refugee camps in nearby countries as well as in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, is well known. Acknowledging their "right of return" has consistently been a precondition of the Arab powers to negotiating a peace treaty with Israel. But the story of the Sephardic exodus from Arab lands has gone virtually unnoticed even by many American Jews, the vast majority of whom are of European, not Sephardic, origin.

"This year I decided to tell the story of exodus 1956 at our Passover table," said Isaac Cohen, referring to the annual commemoration of the ancient Jews' escape from bondage in Egypt. Cohen, a retired Northwestern University professor of medicine, and his parents had to flee their Egyptian homeland in the wake of the second Arab-Israeli war of 1956. A younger, American-born generation knows the story of the original Exodus, Cohen noted, but is largely unaware of the 20th Century exodus of Egyptian Jews.

The ZOA's estimate of nearly a million Jewish exiles from Arab and Muslim countries at that time might be a bit high. Martin Gilbert, biographer of Winston Churchill and author of many books on Middle Eastern history, estimates that 580,000 Jews from Arab countries took refuge in Israel, where they and their descendants constitute the largest segment of the Jewish state's population. An additional 260,000 Sephardim settled in Europe and North America.

By comparison, the United Nations estimated that more than 725,000 Palestinians fled their homes during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. (Palestinian organizations claim a higher figure, the Israelis a lower one.)

In part, support for the Jewish refugee cause stems from a sense of equity and hopes of getting redress for a rapidly aging generation of Sephardim. The American Sephardi Federation has collected thousands of affidavits of refugees documenting their material losses, in case a legal venue is found to adjudicate their claims.

But the Sephardic cause also has become a part of the war of words accompanying the battles of tanks and bombs in the Middle East. It allows Israel's supporters to move beyond the moral defensive—having to answer the criticism that the Jewish state's founding brought misery to the Palestinians. The Bigios' case enables Zionists to point out that Arabs weren't the only ones to lose their homes; Arab hostility to the Jewish state made Jews homeless, too.

The American Sephardi Federation is pressing for congressional legislation "to make it U.S. policy to mention 'Jewish refugees' whenever there is a mention of Palestinian refugees in any official documents or resolution at the UN."

The Jewish experience in Arab countries goes back thousands of years, the Jews having lived in foreign lands as well as their ancient homeland since biblical times. But the condition of Jewish communities in the Arab world started to change with the emergence of the modern Zionist movement. As Jewish immigrants from Europe settled in the Holy Land, the resentment they provoked spilled over into other Arabic-speaking Arab countries.

In two days of rioting in June 1941 in Baghdad, for example, 180 Jews were killed and 240 wounded.

Seven years later, Iraq and four other Arab nations invaded the newly born Israel. When the Iraqi contingent did not fare well on the battlefield, the blame was laid at the feet of Iraq's 150,000 Jews.

Moshe Zamir's father was riding on a Baghdad bus when mobs started pulling off Jews. His seatmate was killed, determining the senior Zamir to get his family out of the country. Others made similar decisions, even after the Iraqi government proclaimed that Jews who left would have possessions confiscated. The Zamirs quickly sold their property for whatever it could bring, recalled Zamir, who was 9 at the time and now practices medicine in the Chicago area.

"We got $1,000 for our house," Zamir said. "It was an enormous house."

By 1952, only about 6,000 Jews remained in Iraq.

The exodus from other Arab countries was of equal proportions, inspired in part by mob violence, for example in Egypt, where 150 Jews were killed, and Aden, now part of Yemen, where 82 Jews were killed.

Yet the Sephardim's success in their new homeland of Israel has skewed the political debates between Israelis and the Arabs and their respective supporters.

"Whatever their condition when they arrived in Israel, the Sephardim aren't refugees today," said David Wasserstein, a Vanderbilt University professor of history and Jewish studies. "Palestinians are still living in refugee camps, so with the Arab-Israeli conflict still on the front page, the issue of Palestinian refugees remains alive."

Not all the Sephardic exiles left at once, Wasserstein added.

Refael Bigio recalled that his father was arrested in 1956 and again in 1961. He was lucky; others never returned from detention, which often was inspired by nothing more than an official's desire to squeeze a bribe out of a Jew or steal his property, Bigio said.

"They would knock on the door at 2 a.m. and take a man away in his pajamas," Bigio said. "Sometimes he'd never be heard from again."

Still, the Bigios stayed on. They were well to do and cultured, speaking French at home. But in the 1960s their factory was nationalized, and shortly thereafter the family left Egypt.

Then in 1993, Refael saw a newspaper item announcing that Coca-Cola had entered into a joint venture with its Egyptian franchiser—and was basing one of its operations in the Bigio family's factory. In 1997 he filed suit, and the case has been passing through the court system ever since.

Coca-Cola Co. has not disputed that the Bigios' plant was seized by Egypt's government because the family was Jewish. But through a spokeswoman, Crystal Warwell Walker, the company said it resents being scapegoated by the lawsuit.

"The Coca-Cola Co. is appalled by statements linking us to any anti-Semitic act," Walker said. She added that while the company thinks the issue should be resolved by an Egyptian court, it expects to put up a strong defense when the case is heard in a U.S. court.

For Refael it comes down to a matter of having his property and his family's experience—and by extension, that of other Sephardic families—trespassed upon.

"Coke wants us to go to an Egyptian court?" he said. "Are they kidding? Don't they know how miserably we were treated by the Arabs?"

rgrossman@tribune.com

Chicago Tribune news | Registration

A very interesting question has been raised.

Are the Jews also not refugees?

Have they no right of return?

Or are the Arabs the only ones to have been displaced?

A moral question indeed!

Where does this Right of Return, be it for Jews or Arabs, take the Palestinian Question?

n21 · 04-12-2007, 15:03 PM

Ray Sir,
There is a interesting discussion going on PakistaniForces.com with a Bangladeshi author who has apparently penned down a book called "India Doctrine".

Wonder if you like to put across your views.

http://www.defence.pk/forums/showthread.php?t=2704

I apologize if the not the right mechanism of putting a message across to you or if I have broken any rules by posting a link from external forums.

Ray · 04-13-2007, 14:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by n21

Ray Sir,
There is a interesting discussion going on PakistaniForces.com with a Bangladeshi author who has apparently penned down a book called "India Doctrine".

Wonder if you like to put across your views.

Book Review : “The India Doctrine” | Pakistan Defence Forum

I apologize if the not the right mechanism of putting a message across to you or if I have broken any rules by posting a link from external forums.

Nothing usual for the neighbours to use their imagination.

As for as the Indians being quoted, some are well known hawks.

If India followed the tripe these hawks spewed, then there would have been a greater India something on the line of the Islamic dream of a Caliphate.

India has to exists with its neighbours and those who chalk out the foreign policy are well aware of it. If it were not so, AB Vajpayee, as the ultra nationalist Prime Minister of the right wing BJP, would not have been the first PM to actually take the bold step of initiating a dialogue with Pakistan and which others are now following!

So that much for India Doctrine.
.
But then writers have to also exist and feed their family.

What could be better to have the cash till ringing than being outrageous and sensational?

Ray · 04-13-2007, 14:07 PM

Quote:

Apr. 12, 2007 22:45 | Updated Apr. 13, 2007 14:09

Have we become afraid of peace?

By DAVID KIMCHE

Vernacular English has some lovely phrases. "Gift of the gab," and "too clever by half" are good examples. How better can one, for instance, describe our prime minister than by saying he has the gift of the gab or that he is too clever by half? His tongue-in-the-cheek offer to meet with moderate Arab leaders in the wake of the Riyadh summit was a typical example of his too-cleverness. "A wonderful spin," he must have thought to himself. "This will get all those well-wishing peaceniks off my back." He must have known that his offer was a nonstarter, that it could be considered only after his acceptance - in principle - of negotiations on the basis of the Arab peace initiative.

He has, of course, an all too convincing excuse for not accepting that initiative. If there is one subject in Israel that enjoys a wall-to-wall unanimity, from the most radical left-wing member of Meretz to the most extreme of the Right, it is rejection of the notion of the "right of return" for the Palestinian refugees. The negotiators of the Geneva Accord would have called off the negotiations if the Palestinian side had insisted on including the "right of return." One of the Israelis present put it very simply: "You want us to commit hara-kiri?"

The Arab peace initiative refers to UN General Assembly Resolution 194 in connection with the refugees. That document asserts that "the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbors should be permitted to do so at the earliest practical date," something that is, of course, completely unacceptable for us. This was understood by the coauthors of the initiative, the Saudis and the Jordanians. The first version of the plan did not mention 194, but did stress that the solution for the refugees had to be "agreed." That word was specifically incorporated into the text to assure the Israelis that the resolution on refugees would not force the "right of return" down their throats.

The draft text was circulated among all the members of the Arab League in order to obtain unanimous support for it. All but one accepted it. It was not the Syrians, as the coauthors had feared, that objected to it, but, surprisingly, the Lebanese. The late Rafiq al-Hariri, then prime minister, told the initiators of the plan that unless 194 was mentioned, Lebanon would not sign. He explained to them that this was not his idea, but was the adamant stand of President Emile Lahoud who, above all else, wanted to get rid of the Palestinian refugees on Lebanese soil.

So Resolution 194 was, reluctantly, added to the text in order to uphold the principle of unanimity of all Arab League members. I asked one of the former Arab prime ministers present at the recent Madrid peace conference how he thought we could accept 194. "You don't have to," he replied. "The key word in the refugee article is still 'agreed.' You can say you are willing to negotiate on the basis of the initiative and state your reservations about 194. We would understand it and accept it. No Arab leader believes you are willing to accept the return of the refugees."

The too clever by half Olmert knows that he could easily have circumvented Resolution 194. He could have said that we, too, believe there has to be an agreed solution to the refugee problem, and on that presumption we are willing to enter into negotiations on the basis of the Arab peace initiative.

That initiative, we should remember, is the very antithesis of everything we have been led to believe about the Arab position on Israel. The Khartoum conference's three no's - no to recognition, no to negotiations, no to peace - were replaced at Riyadh with four times yes - yes to recognition, negotiations and peace with the addition of yes to normalization if we make peace.

We don't like the opening demands of the initiative? So what? The opening demands of every negotiation are hard-line, with each side beginning with maximal demands. Neither side attains all that it seeks in negotiations - it they did, it would be surrender and not a negotiation.

The Arab leaders have now decided to make great efforts to "market" the plan in Israel, and it certainly is not too late to respond to it in a more positive manner. We have had prime ministers who were not afraid to lead the people into new, uncharted waters - David Ben-Gurion, Menachem Begin with his historic peace with Egypt, Yitzhak Rabin recognizing the PLO. Prime Minister Olmert has, it is true, to contend with enormous internal problems. Winograd's sword of Damocles is hanging over his neck. His popularity is at an all-time low. His government is the weakest in Israel's history. Yet his coalition is stable and he might well survive till the end of his term. He can either limp along with only one strong agenda, to survive as prime minister from one day to the next - or he can act as a leader and walk in the footsteps of Ben-Gurion, Begin and Rabin.

The opportunity is there. Olmert can sidestep the Hamas government and pick up the gauntlet that Riyadh presents - negotiations for peace with the Arab world. I have no doubt that the majority of the Israeli public would applaud such a move. His call to meet with the Arab leaders would then take on a completely different connotation.

Could it be that our government is afraid to enter into peace negotiations, because of the price tag that is inevitably attached to peace? Have we become afraid of peace?

Jerusalem can either replace Khartoum to become the capital of the word "No" - no to the Arab world, no to the Syrians, no to the Palestinians, no to our own citizens who yearn to see some hope on the horizon for a better future. Or our prime minister can display initiative, courage, and leadership and meet the challenge of Riyadh head-on.

Which is it to be, Mr. Olmert?

The writer is a former director-general of the Foreign Ministry.

Have we become afraid of peace? | Jerusalem Post

The view of a top govt functionary of Israel!

Quite an input!

Ray · 04-13-2007, 14:14 PM

Quote:

Posted on Fri, Apr. 13, 2007

FOCUS ON ISRAEL
Go behind the facade of peace
BY URI DROMI

dromi@idi.org.il

JERUSALEM -- A few days ago, in a big ad in Israeli newspapers, dozens of retired Israeli generals and colonels called upon the government of Israel to accept the Saudi Peace Initiative. The retired officers are members of the Council for Peace and Security, a well-respected, nonpartisan body that believes, according to its credo, that ``peace is a necessary component of the Israeli National Security.''

I believe in this as well and I also belong to the same Council, and still, I didn't sign that open letter. Why not? After all, the Saudi initiative, which is based on the Beirut Declaration of 2002, calls for a comprehensive peace with Israel within the pre-1967 borders. Isn't that what Israel has dreamt of for four decades since the Six Day War?

Refugees flooding Israel

Indeed, except that this is not so simple. Go one step behind the facade of peace, and there lies the catch: The original Beirut Declaration rejects ''any proposals aimed at settling the refugees anywhere else than in their original homes.'' In other words, with the millions of Palestinian refugees flooding Israel, that would be the end of the Jewish state.

My fellow generals and colonels were not blind to that. ''While we don't endorse all the elements of the Saudi Initiative,'' they wrote, ''it could still serve as a basis for negotiation.'' This is exactly what my wife has been telling me all along. ''Forget about what people were saying before,'' she says. ''You just sit down at the table and talk, and then you see what happens next.'' She really means it, despite the doubts she sometimes has about the wisdom of men.

Battle against terror

Yet the people who signed the open letter are the finest men of Israel. I look at the list with respect and admiration. Here a division commander, there an admiral, some fellow airmen -- all of them, who have seen bloody battles and lost many dear comrades, can surely appreciate the value of peace.

Peace between states, they believe, will facilitate the common battle against terror. Therefore, these people, who have given their best years in the service of their country, are now advocating a daring peace move. I still think it's risky, but I can't remain indifferent to the wealth of experience and good judgment that springs out of this magnificent list.

Not that they all have suddenly become soft. Last summer, the same people supported the war in Lebanon. If they were critical, it was not of the war itself, but of the way it was handled. They supported the war because they thought it was an act of self-defense, but at the same time they voiced their opposition to the exaggerated reliance on air power and technology and to the flaws in strategy and tactics. However, their criticism was measured and their tone was always mellow.

What a far cry, it seems, from the voices coming from the American veterans. Ever since the ''Revolt of the Generals'' erupted a year ago, retired high-ranking officers have been leveling accusations at the administration that, even by the standards of cut-throat Israeli discourse, were mind-boggling.

I remember reading an Op-Ed piece in The New York Times in which Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton, who had helped train the Iraqi Army, charged that his former boss, then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, ''has put the Pentagon at the mercy of his ego, his Cold Warrior's view of the world.'' That is nothing, however, compared to retired Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni, who accused the administration of ''negligence and irresponsibility.'' And, listen to this: ''lying, incompetence and corruption,'' and even ''true dereliction,'' which sent me scrambling to my dictionary, suspecting that this might not be a great compliment either.

Meaning of victory

Tone aside, I wouldn't brush off these remarks only as the grumblings of frustrated have-beens or people who desperately want to promote their books. When you can't decide whether your troops in Iraq are fighting ''insurgents'' or ''terrorists,'' and you can't define the meaning of victory, you're dooming your military to a sure failure.

We should listen to retired generals, then, because it seems that they know what they are talking about.

So next time the Council for Peace and Security plans on running an open letter, I want to read the text carefully. I'm not signing anything yet. I'll just sit down and read it, and then I'll see what happens next.

Uri Dromi is the director of outreach at the Israel Democracy Institute in Jerusalem.
Go behind the facade of peace - 04/13/2007 - MiamiHerald.com

Yet another view.

And still no views from WABbers!

Jews and Israel seems to have lost its importance as an international subject unless there is violence!

One has to realise the complex issues that confront Jewry and how they are struggling to find peace.

In fact, the ME is a pawn of various agendas!

High time Israel is legitimately given its due and the Arabs theirs with the realities of the situation.

zraver · 04-14-2007, 03:24 AM

Its a dead issue. Unless Olmert says yes to talks this won't go anywhere. For Olmert to accpet talks, he would need a brain ( I some times think him and Bush each share a 1/4 sized brain of mentally retarded sheep), something Lebanon proved he did not have in any great quantity.

Ray · 04-14-2007, 04:24 AM

The right to return demanded by the Palestinians can boomerang since the Jews can also demand right to return in many places and those govts won't be amused!

Blademaster · 04-16-2007, 00:59 AM

I totally disagree with the US Supreme Court's decision. They are effectively deciding how to decide other countries' cases and laws which are entirely their domain.

This is very dumb.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

04-12-2007, 15:03 PM	#2 (permalink)
n21 Patron Join Date: 11-04-06 Posts: 154	Ray Sir, There is a interesting discussion going on PakistaniForces.com with a Bangladeshi author who has apparently penned down a book called "India Doctrine". Wonder if you like to put across your views. http://www.defence.pk/forums/showthread.php?t=2704 I apologize if the not the right mechanism of putting a message across to you or if I have broken any rules by posting a link from external forums.

04-14-2007, 03:24 AM	#6 (permalink)
zraver Contrary by nature. *Military Professional* Join Date: 10-22-06 Location: Arkansas Posts: 3,381 Country:	Its a dead issue. Unless Olmert says yes to talks this won't go anywhere. For Olmert to accpet talks, he would need a brain ( I some times think him and Bush each share a 1/4 sized brain of mentally retarded sheep), something Lebanon proved he did not have in any great quantity.

04-14-2007, 04:24 AM	#7 (permalink)
Ray Postmaster General *Military Professional* Join Date: 08-20-03 Posts: 28,269 Country:	The right to return demanded by the Palestinians can boomerang since the Jews can also demand right to return in many places and those govts won't be amused!

04-16-2007, 00:59 AM	#8 (permalink)
Blademaster Military Enthusiast *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 08-15-03 Posts: 3,259	I totally disagree with the US Supreme Court's decision. They are effectively deciding how to decide other countries' cases and laws which are entirely their domain. This is very dumb.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)