Ironduke

Israel cautiously welcomes Arab Peace Plan, but rejects resettlement for Palestinians abroad:
Source: Voice of America

Source: RIA Novosti

__________________
The Buck Stops Here

ZFBoxcar

If they dropped the refugee demand and got Hamas (which would require Hamas not being Hamas) to agree to it, I'd be all for it.

Stan187

The refugee demand is so lame in the first place. There was more Jewish refugees in the aftermath of the 1948 war then Arabs. It was an exchange of populations. Arabs moved to Arab countries, Jews from said Arab countries moved to Israel. Israel resettled their own, and paid for it themselves. The Arab countries should do the same. Maybe the Arab League should put that on their agenda, then at least those petro-dollars would be going toward something useful instead of lining the pockets of corrupt/inept leaders.

__________________
In Iran people belive pepsi stands for pay each penny save israel. -urmomma158
The Russian Navy is still a threat, but only to those unlucky enough to be Russian sailors.-highsea

Aranthus

What's interesting is the question of why the Arabs are pushing this plan as a take it or leave it deal when they know that demands for the return of Jerusalem and the refugees are non-starters. Were they hoping that Israel would do something like Olmet did (invite the Arabs to talk)? Or were they simply trying to position themselves against Iran? I suspect the latter, but who can be sure.

astralis

stan,

i don't know. the jews moved to israel from the arab countries out of their own volition. whereas some of those palestinians had been living there for generations- and so i doubt they went quite as gladly.

__________________
Never let the future disturb you. You will meet it, if you have to, with the same weapons of reason which today arm you against the present.

-Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

ZFBoxcar

astralis, that is not true. In every Arab country except Morocco, there were anti-Jewish pogroms or government ordered expulsions. Some countries told Jews to get out by date x or they would be banned from leaving ever. And the Jews in Arab countries had for the most part been living there for hundreds of years. Middle Eastern Jews (outside of Palestine) were for the most part not even Zionists.

astralis

hm, interesting! was this before or after 1948?

ZFBoxcar

I think a lot of it occurred after. This article claims that the Arab defeat in 1948 was used as a justification for plans that were already in place.

Not the most succinct article, but it explains some of it:
Why Jews Fled the Arab Countries - Middle East Quarterly

This one gives better country by country explanations:
Jewish Refugees from Arab Countries

astralis

ZFboxcar,

well, this begs the question, if the state of israel had not been formed (with the accompanying expulsion of the arabs) would the jews in the arab countries been kicked out, or for that matter left on their own will anyways?

especially in regards to this:

obviously if they lived there hundreds of years, then the threat of being "banned from leaving ever" doesn't seem all that great of a threat.

it's been a while since i've read up that period of middle east history, so now i'm getting to wondering if the pogroms were indeed a response TO the formation of israel, or if the creation of the israeli state served as a "lifeline" for jews already undergoing persecution.

even the threat of pogroms, bad as that sounds, seems to me like it would have not been threat enough to have moved the jews already living there. after all, there were absolutely massive wholesale slaughters of jews throughout the middle ages in europe and north africa, yet there were still jewish communities there. the most horrific pogroms set up by the nazis wasn't enough to scare all the jews off, even when hitler ominously announced that he was going to close the borders.

it seems that for the jews living there, they had no choice prior to 1948 but to take the pain, much as the european jews flourished when the atmosphere was tolerant, but tried to just keep their heads down when things grew nasty. but the formation of israel gave them an alternative to this lifestyle.

of course, i may be completely wrong thanks for the links, i'll go through them and some other materials, and stand ready to give a mea culpa if things turn out otherwise.

ZFBoxcar

You seem to be implying two things which I strongly disagree with: that Israel's creation was somehow a crime against Egypt, Tunisia, Algeria, Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq, and Syria, etc, and also that it just makes sense for Jews everywhere to be punished for the State of Israel. I know you don't believe that (at least not the second thing), but I must point that out because it is the starting assumption for your post and it should be questioned.

As well, the State of Israel is not demanding compensation for these people. Israel has integrated them and they are no longer refugees.

It was similar to Germany in the 1930s. Germany simultaneously passed discriminatory laws against Jews and gave a time table for leaving. The Arab states were doing the same thing: passing laws directed against Jews (seisure of property and assets, citizenship, engaging in mass arrests). As well, given the level of anti-Semitism, I don't doubt many Jews felt that staying longer it would only get worse, but they would not be able to leave afterwards.

Because of the more extreme nature of European discrimination, discrimination in Arab countries prior to the creation of the state of Israel is relatively unnoticed by history, which chooses to focus on a Golden Age of Jewish-Muslim harmony (which is not totally invalid, but certainly misses a great deal). Dhimmi status was already present, although not fatal to Jews or Christians. However, in 1926, Egypt passed a law stating that nobody who was not both Arab and Muslim could be true citizens of the state. The framework was laid down before Israel was created. No doubt the Zionist movement had a large impact, but unless you support the statements I disagreed with at the beginning of this post, that does not make it the "fault" of the Israeli state.

Maybe the fact that it was post-Hitler made a difference. As well, there were literal expulsions. Egypt arbitrarily expelled 25,000 Jews, the Iraqis had plans to expel all of them, although I don't know how much of that was implemented. Those are the two examples I remember off the top of my head, but it was not just threats.

Definitely. Not all Jews who left were expelled. In Morocco, the King actually formally asked the Jews to stay and promised to protect them. He extended an invitation for them to return at any point. And in some other countries there were Jews who left by choice. Similarly, many Arabs in Palestine left by choice.

The problem is that the Arab states were not united and were even internally divided. Plus there were Jews who were convinced by the Zionists to leave in addition to those that were expelled. It is not comparable to the Holocaust where one can make definitive statements. In the case of the Arab states, some Jews were expelled, some left under threats and pressure, and some left voluntarily because they wanted to. That is about as general a statement as one can make on the issue.

astralis

ZFboxcar,

no, i don't believe either of the two points. coming from taiwan, you may understand that the emotional impact of this issue doesn't resonate as much with me as it would say, to an arab or to an israeli.

i meant it academically.

sure, but that only pushes back the question one level: was this done as a response to the creation of israel, or would this have occurred even without the presence of israel? and if the latter, what would be the impetus/reason for suddenly revving up these pogroms?

again, not trying to find fault but rather, causation. as you say, the divided policies make it hard to find any smooth line of logic here, especially when we're trying to figure out why the jewish exodus in 1948 and not, say, 1945...

ZFBoxcar

Okay, sure. I understand. But then why is it important that the Zionist movement triggered anti-Semitism? By the same token, the Arab invasions of Israel triggered the expulsion/evacuation of Palestinians. Since you are speaking academically and are not placing a value judgment on either thing, I just don't get why its relevant.

The answer is probably the former, although it depends on whether there was no Zionist movement or a failed Zionist movement. If there were would-be Israelis, and they had lost, there would probably still be some residual anti-Semitism.

But again, I don't understand the importance of the question. I don't mean that to brush you off, I just don't understand why that somehow invalidates the idea that: there was a population exchange, much of it horribly forced on both sides, but neither population should be considered refugees anymore.

Well there is no doubt that Israel's creation had an incredibly huge amount to do with it. However, the ideas came about before then, an example of which was the Mufti of Jerusalem who sought Hitler's help in wiping the Jews out of Palestine. Although this of course is related to the Zionist movement's existence. Anyways, important as causation is, if we are agreed that Israel's existence (within 1967 borders) is legitimate, and also that Jews in Arab countries did not provoke their own expulsion (even if Israel is considered illegitimate), then the illegitimacy of the acts of expulsion are clear. I know you were looking at this academically rather than the emotionally, but your original post was a response to Stan's equation of the refugee populations, and so I am trying to address both academic and the value judgment questions.

astralis

ZFBoxcar,

relevant in terms of the discussion- i actually meant that as a a question, not as rhetoric

the difference being that the jews had an openly welcoming jewish state, while for the palestinians, well, at that time (and i would argue still so today) the idea of arab nationalism specific to each of those countries trumped the idea of a dar-al-islam. simply put, while the jews could become israelis, the palestinians/arabs would find it a lot harder to become (and be accepted) as egyptians, syrians, so on.

so actually, i suppose the main thing here is not so much "who is right", it is more like a statement of "this issue is a bit more complicated than just a population trade."

ZFBoxcar

Got it.

I would say that specific nationalism did not outweigh pan-Arabism until the 1970s (not talking about Islamism). But anyways, I am mainly referring to the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip that consider themselves refugees. Their "refugee camps" are actual cities and towns. They keep up this charade, and as I have brought up on here before, the UN gives the Palestinians a unique definition of refugee (separate from the actual UN definition) in order to keep the wound open.

Stan187

They weren't Palestinians to begin with. The identity was constructed as time went on. At the time of independence, most thought of themselves as belonging to the group of Arabs of a nearby country, mostly Jordan or Syria. That identity only became constructed and solidifed by what these people had in common, namely their not being intergrated into these countries, as they expected would happen.