Talk:Jewish exodus from the Muslim world/Archive 3

Full protected for one week
I have full protected for one week, per the ARBPIA discretionary sanctions and in light of the obvious if slow-motion edit war that has erupted here. This is an arbitration enforcement action and may only be undone per a consensus at an administrative noticeboard such as WP:AE, WP:ANI, WP:AN etc. or by appeal to Arbcom. However; any specific section for which an edit change is proposed on this talk page, discussed by all the active parties, and agreed to by a consensus of "each side" may then be implemented by any administrator during the full protect period etc. Something like this has been proposed above and on [User talk:Callanecc/Archive 9#Jewish exodus], and is a good practice going forwards for disputed articles. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:48, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for getting involved here.
 * Please could you provide your thoughts on what should happen here post expiry of the protection? The point here is that whilst 14 small edits made over a period of two months have been continually bulk reverted by three editors, none of these reverts have been explained. Repeated requests to explain have been ignored. So when the block expires, if we have still not been provided an explanation by the reverting editors, what should we do?
 * Separately, and out of interest, is it possible to implement a "no reversion with explanation regime"? As far as i'm concerned it is good practice for a reverting editor to explain their concern at the same time as making the revert. Waiting weeks and weeks is just playing the system, isn't it?
 * Oncenawhile (talk) 10:41, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Personally, I feel that waiting 3, 4, 5 days for comments on an issue like this is reasonable. Someone may come back later and object on some point, but that was giving them an entirely reasonable time window to respond in.
 * If you do edits one little chunk at a time (separate paragraph / point being changed, etc), and give everyone 4-5 days to comment, and make the change, then they really really need to explain if they revert again, and justify it on talk.
 * There is no technical way to enforce a "comment on the talk page on any change or revert". We could conceivably try to invent an article sanction to set something like that in place (0RR for un-talk-page explained reversions) but I would much rather see if the other changes don't solve the problem, and then only invest in additional policy/admin effort if that failed.
 * Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:15, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * OK thanks. In terms of editing process, I followed exactly that style (little bits at a time, in bite-sized edits and clear talk page explanation where needed, giving people lots of time to comment), yet faced multiple bulk reversions without explanation. I set out the history here at the ANI (see below FYI):


 * So how would you recommend I proceed after the protection expires, assuming noone has commented?
 * Oncenawhile (talk) 19:36, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * He who comments the most does not get to shove their fringe view, with selectively chosen sources, down everyone else's throat. Plot Spoiler (talk) 00:49, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Correct, and he who edit wars without providing any constructive input gets blocked sooner or later. Oncenawhile (talk) 01:17, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

How to summarise the debate over characterisation as "refugees" and equation of the issue with Palestinian refugees?
Per above, the "views" section needs restructuring, and this whole topic needs summarising in the lead. Readers would benefit from understanding how this topic has been politicized, and what the respective positions of the Israeli government and their critics are.

Perhaps we can start with these articles describing various governmental and non-governmental campaigns:
 * Changing tack, Foreign Ministry to bring 'Jewish refugees' to fore
 * Mideast Jewish refugees campaign for recognition
 * Minister to oriental Jews: Claim your reparations
 * Changing the refugee paradigm
 * Palestinian and Mizrahi Property Claims
 * Israel scrambles Palestinian 'right of return' with Jewish refugee talk

Then summarise some of the detail in the views section...

...and balance it with the views of various critics:
 * Philip Mendes The causes of the post-1948 Jewish Exodus from Arab Countries
 * Yehouda Shenhav The Arab Jews: A Postcolonial Reading of Nationalism, Religion, and Ethnicity
 * Hitching a ride on the magic carpet
 * Spineless bookkeeping: The use of Mizrahi Jews as pawns against Palestinian refugees
 * Arab Jews, Palestinian Refugees and Israel's Folly Politics
 * Beyond the Two-State Solution: A Jewish Political Essay
 * Attempts to redefine Jewish-Arab refugees
 * Avi Shlaim No peaceful solution
 * Richard Irvine Israel’s cynical campaign to pit Arab Jews against Palestinian refugees
 * Mike Marqusee "Diasporic dimensions"
 * Nissim Rejwan The Last Jews in Baghdad: Remembering a Lost Homeland,, ‪University of Texas Press‬, ‪1 Oct 2004
 * Daniel Haboucha Ayalon and the Jewish refugee fallacy
 * The Government of Iraq ran full page advertisements calling for the return of its Iraqi Jews who had fled their country Iraq after the breakout of the 1948 war.
 * Israeli hasbara effort– ‘Justice for Jewish refugees from Arab countries’– gets pushback from Baghdadi Jews
 * A new hasbara campaign: Countering the 'Arab Narrative'
 * Exploiting Jews from Arab Countries

Ideas and comments appreciated. Oncenawhile (talk) 19:41, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * "Readers would benefit from understanding how this topic has been politicized" - The topic is political. But the two sides are not the "Israeli government" and "their critics", but the Arab governments or states, their critics and their past Jewish minorities. Only quite recently the Israeli government picked up on this issue.
 * The opinions that are expressed in the articles you mentioned are already represented quite well in the article. Please explain further what changes you intend to make. Ben tetuan (talk) 21:38, 26 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Hmm. In terms of the two sides, the "Arab governments or states, their critics and their past Jewish minorities" are not involved in the modern discourse. The very fact that they are not involved is the entire point. The modern political debate on this topic is solely in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations and the ability of this topic to potentially neutralize the claims of Palestinian refugees. That is what the above articles all explain. Do you disagree with this or are we talking at cross purposes? Oncenawhile (talk) 22:23, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * "The modern political debate on this topic is solely in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations" - I think that's inaccurate. The modern political debate about this topic is lead to a large degree by a number of NGOs - such as WOJAC -  that were established by groups of Jews who experienced this exodus, and their claims are directed toward Arab countries. Their stated goal is to get recognition&compensation for who they consider (rightfully, in my opinion) "Jewish refugees from Arab countries" regardless of and with no purpose to "neutralize the claims of Palestinian refugees".
 * Leaving aside this issue for a moment, it's still not clear which edits do you wish to make. Note that some of the articles you mentioned are already incorporated in the article under the "Objecting views" section. A citation of Yehouda Shenhav specifically expresses the view that the Jewish refugees issue was raised to neutralize the claims of Palestinian refugees. Ben tetuan (talk) 23:48, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * "WOJAC wasn’t established in order to help Mizrahi Jews but rather to create a deterrent to block demands from the national Palestinian movement – primarily the demand to compensate refugees, and the right of return". This is the exact opposite of your claim. Should we agree to disagree?
 * My proposal is simply that this debate should (i) be summarised in the lead, and (ii) be structured better within the "views" section.
 * Oncenawhile (talk) 01:44, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The stated goals of WOJAC and alike are those I described above. If someone wants to claim they have "hidden motives" or "hidden goals" its his business. This still shows that the issue of Jewish refugees is by no means debated solely in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. First and foremost this is an issue between Arab countries and their former Jewish inhabitants.
 * Concerning your proposal - have in mind that this article deals with the historical process of Jewish exodus from Arab countries. Its main purpose is to describe this historical process. How this process is recalled today and in which context it's debated is a part of the article, but not the main part. Having said that, I don't have objection that this debate would be summarized shortly and neutrally down the lead. Ben tetuan (talk) 13:01, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * OK great, I think we are agreed in principal. This discussion has also been helpful in bringing clarity around a key issue regarding the "views" section that I had not noticed before. Oncenawhile (talk) 14:53, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Just a remark - both Jewish refugees and Palestinian Arab refugees are problematic to be defined as refugees today. In case of Jewish refugees - most were resettled and very few were given the refugee status officially; in case of Palestinian Arab refugees, most in fact were settled in what is today State of Palestine, but still keep the refugee status inherited to descendants, which clearly doesn't make sense (Palestinian refugees are citizens of the State of Palestine...); and furthermore many were naturalized (Jordan and Western countries) or given a legal resident status (like Syria, Iraq and some other Arab countries). I guess the picture is complicated so the good thing is to find a common ground and describe the complexity of the situation. I salute to the agreement above.GreyShark (dibra) 10:00, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Mondoweiss, electronic intifada, palestineremembered, 972 mag. Are you kidding me? None of those are RS. Definitely places your objectivity into question if you think those are proper RS for an NPOV article. Plot Spoiler (talk) 00:44, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Proposed text for lead
Below is my proposed text for the lead, for comment. Once we've agreed on the drafting, we can finally remove the tag at the top of this article. I will add sources where needed - all points come from the links at the top of this section.

Oncenawhile (talk) 20:44, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Any comments on this? Oncenawhile (talk) 21:01, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Overall the points are o.k., though I still think we should focus on academic literature written by historians who are specialized in the topic and not on political points of view.
 * few issues with the proposed text:
 * 1. The most common claimed "push factor" is anti-Jewish violance, and the most common claimed "pull factor" is Zionist feelings (not just "actions of Zionist agents"), both should be added.
 * 2. There were no "financial incentives" for Jews to leave to Israel until at least the 70's, what awaited in Israel for any new arrivel were only the miserable Ma'abarot.
 * 3. Why "decolonization, Suez War and Lavon Affair" are defined as "unrelated factors"? If, for example, the decolonization process caused someone to leave his country of birth because he feared for his safety under an independent Arab government, this is very much related to the push factors. If someone left his country of birth because he feared reprisal on a war he had nothing to do with, just because he shares the ethnicity of the enemy, this is very much a push factor.
 * 4. Using the word "emigrants" is problematic, since "The term "emigrate" usually suggests voluntary movement" (See: Emigration). We should find a better word or articulation. Ben tetuan (talk) 20:45, 13 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi Ben, thanks for your comments which are all very constructive. I will propose wording which incorporates 1, 3 and 4. On 4 i can't think of a more neutral term so will try to draft without any term there at all. On 2, i'll come back to you - I'm sure i've read of financial incentives being offered in Egypt and Iraq in the early 50s. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:46, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Proposed redraft below, incorporating Ben's comments: Oncenawhile (talk) 15:21, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I think you are mixing two issues: i don't think there is an argument whether many of those Jews in Middle East and North Africa were refugees at the time. The point is they stopped being named refugees as soon as getting citizenship (or permanent status) elsewhere. Since many were fortunate enough to get Israeli, French or US citizenship very quickly, their status of refugees was never considered by international organizations, but that doesn't retroactively cancel their refugeehood (for whatever reason - whether anti-Jewish violence or the Algerian Independence War).GreyShark (dibra) 15:51, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The issue you are questioning is about numbers. Noone argues that "some" of those who moved were refugees. But the dispute is around whether "most" or "all" of the 800,000 were refugees. Certainly the answer is not "all" - common sense will tell you that some chose to move of their own volition over an e.g. 25-year period. Here are some quotes from the links at the top of this thread which confirm that "there is an argument whether many of those Jews in Middle East and North Africa were refugees at the time":
 * Times of Israel: ""To define them as refugees is exaggerated,” said Alon Liel, a former director-general of the Foreign Ministry"
 * Christian Science Monitor: "Palestinian and Israeli critics have two main arguments: that these Jews were not refugees but eager participants in a new Zionist state..."
 * Jerusalem Post "Ayalon’s own personal story highlights the complexity of the issue. His father came to Israel from Algeria in 1947, out of free Zionist choice. After working for a while on the Algerian coast helping illegal immigrants from Morocco on their way to Palestine, he boarded one of the ships headed for Marseilles and then Palestine himself. He was just 16 and by no stretch of the imagination a refugee."
 * Haboucha article:
 * "I have this to say: I am not a refugee. I came at the behest of Zionism, due to the pull that this land exerts, and due to the idea of redemption. Nobody is going to define me as a refugee."– Iraqi-Israeli parliamentarian Ran Cohen
 * "We are not refugees. [Some of us] came to this country before the state was born. We had messianic aspirations"– Yemeni-Israeli speaker of Knesset Yisrael Yeshayahu
 * "I do not regard the departure of Jews from Arab lands as that of refugees. They came here because they wanted to, as Zionists." – Iraqi-Israeli Knesset speaker Shlomo Hillel
 * Philip Mendes: "The Arab view is almost dichotomous... Unlike the Palestinian refugees, they left voluntarily and are welcome to return at any time."
 * Oncenawhile (talk) 10:16, 27 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Looking at the language again, Greyshark's comment has highlighted a good point - I have amended "vast majority" to "many or all" ("many" being a large but unidentifiable number which could be a minority):

Greyshark, are you satisfied with this amendment and the sources above? Oncenawhile (talk) 11:47, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * After two weeks of silence, I will implement this. Oncenawhile (talk) 14:30, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

== Although the third para "The reasons for the exodus" appears to be balanced, by listing every anti-Jewish demonstration in every country, this article seems to favour the explanations of persecution and expulsion ==

...despite the fact that it appears to contradict the Tom Segev quote in the article which starts "Deciding to emigrate to Israel was often a very personal decision."

It also contradicts an excellent book by Iraqi Jew Nissim Rejwan (The Last Jews in Baghdad: Remembering a Lost Homeland,, ‪University of Texas Press‬, ‪1 Oct 2004) which states‬: "In Israel of the 1950s and 1960s it was the fashion to speak of mass aliya from Muslim lands as "rescue immigration," implying that these ancient Jewish communities were virtually ejected from the lands of their birth and had the good fortune of having loving and benevolent brethren in Eretz Yisrael who gladly provided them with a haven and new homes. What the historical record says, however, and what some of the people directly involved in those mass population movements testify, seems clearly to contradict this conveniently simple version of the situation."

So to my mind to make this balanced the article needs to be infused with more detail on the other push+pull factors. To use the opening sentence of the first paragraph as the structure: "The reasons for the exodus included push factors, such as persecution [fully covered], antisemitism [fully covered], political instability [NEEDS MORE DETAIL THROUGHOUT], poverty [NEEDS MORE DETAIL THROUGHOUT, PARTICULARLY RE PROMISED FINANCIAL INCENTIVES] and expulsion [fully covered]; together with pull factors, such as the desire to fulfill Zionist yearnings [NEEDS MORE DETAIL THROUGHOUT, PARTICULARLY ON THE ACTIVITIES OF ZIONIST AGENTS AND ZIONIST PARTIES IN EACH COUNTRY] or find a better economic status and secured home in Europe or the Americas. [covered under "poverty"]"

Oncenawhile (talk) 17:37, 1 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Of course there were multiple reasons for the Jewish Exodus, but those which you think need more detail are minor ones and therefore have less coverage. The undisputed main reasons were continuous discrimination and persecution of Jews as well as and rapidly growing anti-Semiticism. If you think the article should talk more about the "other factors" that led to the exodus, please go ahead and improve it, or first provide the info and sources you want to use here. Shalom11111 (talk) 19:36, 3 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The chapter "Diasporic dimensions" in this book by Mike Marqusee (which was widely praised) contains a wealth of facts directly relevant to this debate. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:30, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Protocols in Egypt
I have removed the below from the Egypt section to discuss here. Does anyone have any sources to show that this was directly related in a significant way to the exodus from Egypt?
 * In 1951, the fraudulent Protocols of the Elders of Zion was translated into Arabic and promoted as an authentic historical document, fueling anti-Semitic sentiments in Egypt. In 1960, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion were the subject of an article by Salah Dasuqi, military governor of Cairo, in al-Majallaaa, the official cultural journal. In 1965, the Egyptian government released an English-language pamphlet titled Israel, the Enemy of Africa and distributed it throughout the English-speaking countries of Africa. The pamphlet used the Protocols and The International Jew as its sources and concluded that all the Jews were cheats, thieves, and murderers. 

Oncenawhile (talk) 08:42, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Those protocols are always used to justify persecution, but i guess this is not obvious for any reader, hence a link should be made in the text. If i recall correctly, a similar case was in Iraq with the Yazidis - their deity Tawus Melek was framed as "devil" and their sacred writings forged into Arabic from Kurdish by some Arab nationalist to justify their persecution. The framing issue such as the notorious protocols certainly has to do with Jewish exodus, especially considering the promotion of the protocols by the government (and hence persecution and anti-semitic mood, which lead to flight and expulsion).GreyShark (dibra) 22:52, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Still, one needs sources that specifically relate it to the topic of the article. Zerotalk 23:36, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree. For what it's worth (not much), my personal WP:OR interpretation is that these 3 publications of the protocols were more symptoms than causes of the rising antisemitic and/or anti-israel tide.
 * The first publication in 1951 (30 years after the US and UK) was a few years after the 1948 war, the 1960 publication was a few years after the Suez Crisis and the 1965 publication was during the apex of anti-israel sentiment ahead of the 1967 war. So whilst this is OR, it is as good as any other (ie not good enough for the article) unless we find an RS showing otherwise.
 * Also, the protocols and other antisemitic materials were widely disseminated in the US in the early 20th century - that was of course at the time of very significant Jewish immigration to the US. So I suspect it's quite hard to argue that the protocols were a big factor in encouraging Egyptian emigration when they had no recognized impact on US immigration. Oncenawhile (talk) 11:47, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Interestingly, the Protocols in non-official versions first appeared in Egypt much earlier - according to Kramer as early as 1938-9, distributing Nazi propaganda version on this book.The Jews in Modern Egypt, 1914-1952 p.147-8. The protocols at the time are put by Kramer as part of the anti-Jewish wave of agitation and violence, mainly initiated by the Muslim Brotherhood. According to Prof. Rhichard S. Levy, in 1950s, the official Arabic version of the protocols was commissioned by Nasser himself, defining this as part of Nasser's anti-Jewish policies, which led to decline of the Jewish community to 2,500-3,000 by 1967.GreyShark (dibra) 18:54, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Where does it say he commissioned them? I only see the phrase "publically recommended" in the source you showed.
 * More importantly, neither of these sources state that the protocol publication was significant in any way to the exodus - the connection is not being made. You sourced Lewis in your revert - does he make the connection? Oncenawhile (talk) 19:16, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Added Levy ✅.GreyShark (dibra) 19:22, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Greyshark, can you show me where Levy makes the required connection between the protocols and the subject of this article? If not, it seems to me this is a classic case of synth; but since you obviously see it differently would you mind explaining? Oncenawhile (talk) 19:30, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry I see you wrote "though it didn't bring out any significant anti-Jewish reactions" in your last edit. So if that is the case, what justification do we have for it being in this article? Oncenawhile (talk) 19:59, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the late response. The required connection is between the experience of Egyptian Jews and the protocols (which Levy shows); the effect of the protocols was not on the Jews directly but on the Egyptian Muslims (obviously), who were bullied against the Jews. I will expand Levy's opinion on this issue in the article to make it clear.GreyShark (dibra) 18:03, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

CAMERA's list of films about the exodus
I just noticed that our "films about the exodus" section is copied from this selection of films chosen by the right-wing-pro-israeli group CAMERA. Anyone have any problems with this per se? My concern is that these films likely only show one side of the story. Oncenawhile (talk) 12:14, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It is not copied, i made the list couple of years ago right on this page. Maybe they copied from here?GreyShark (dibra) 18:38, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, fair enough. Kudos I guess! Oncenawhile (talk) 19:37, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Unsourced WP:OR in Background section
I have moved the below text here as unsourced OR, which is mot directly relevant background to this article as currently written:
 * Many Jews had experienced tension within Arab countries, similar to other minorities. Conversely, the idea of Zionism and of a Jewish state was appealing to the Jews; however, this entailed leaving the land in which they had lived for many generations. Insecurity was exacerbated by the process of the Arab struggle for independence and the conflict in Palestine and in some cases this led to physical expulsion and appropriation of property.
 * A constant flow of Jews from European, Middle Eastern and North African communities increased during the Ottoman period. However, only by the end of the 19th century a more significant immigration from Middle Eastern communities had begun. The Yemeni Jews, first to arrive, were driven primarily by Messianic and religious Zionist aspirations, even though they faced periodic suppression and violence. Yet, the waves of anti-Jewish pogroms in the 19th and the early 20th century across the Middle East and North Africa provided a solid ground for many Jews to consider a new home, whether Israel or elsewhere.

If anyone can source this, with appropriate editing to make it relevant to this article, please feel free to add it back to the article.

Oncenawhile (talk) 13:13, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * See discussion on this below. It has remained unsourced for more than two months. I will remove it again per WP:ONUS. Oncenawhile (talk) 14:33, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Structure
@Once, please don't change the structure of the article prior to discussion.GreyShark (dibra) 19:31, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Understood. But there was so little structure and so much duplication, that it was impossible to edit for substance. There is still a lot of work to do. Will stop now so you and others can review. I have tried to restrain myself from making any controversial edits or removing sources, so we can focus on the structure only. Oncenawhile (talk) 19:39, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * There are a few more small structural changes I think should be made, but i'll wait for now. These are:
 * combining the two population tables into one (and possibly improving its format) ✅
 * Removing the background section, and instead putting separate background sections into the various subsections (Maghreb, Egypt, Iraq, Yemen etc) because the background for each of these historical communities is very different ✅
 * Changing either the title or the content of the "Jewish refugee absorption" (the suggested status of "refugees" is strongly disputed for many of the exodus. For example, most of the Algerian and Tunisian Jews had French citizenship, so never had to take refuge in a foreign state, and the same goes for those who moved to Israel for the financial incentives or "Zionist yearnings" as that is not taking refuge.) ✅
 * Tidying up the whole "views" section, which is a jumble of unconnected topics
 * Rename the "References" section to "Further reading", and add subsections by region or country where applicable. ✅
 * Amend the "Jewish exodus from Arab countries 1947–1972" sidebar template so that the "region-specific" articles in "Main articles", "Background" and "Key events" are also organised by Maghreb, Egypt, Iraq, Yemen and Others, to make the story a little easier to follow.✅
 * I would very much appreciate your thoughts on all this. I hope it is helpful. Oncenawhile (talk) 19:51, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, in the absence of comment over the last 2.5 weeks, I will begin implementing this. Oncenawhile (talk) 15:01, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I waited for you to make a self-undo and discuss all the changes one by one. Since you have not and you continue without discussion i will not WP:GF wait and undo you previous edits.GreyShark (dibra) 08:40, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * How can you say I continued without discussion? I posted two thoughtful posts above, and waited 2.5 weeks patiently. If you wanted me to make a self-undo you should have said.
 * Since its been a few weeks now, I would really appreciate it if you could review my amendments to the article and provide comments on them.
 * Oncenawhile (talk) 09:25, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I actually kept most of your edits, except the structure issue. I don't mind your content revisions, but for the structure we should go according to sources, which don't do the distinction of regions as you have tried to present.GreyShark (dibra) 09:46, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, please don't mix the 1948-72 exodus with the exodus of Iranian Jews following the Islamic Revolution - those are separate events. User HistorNE tried to merge those, but take a note he is a banned user (sockpuppeteer), so his edits must be reverted.GreyShark (dibra) 09:54, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

@Once, you haven't responded here and reverted me in violation of WP:GF and WP:BRD.GreyShark (dibra) 20:19, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, now noticed your comment below. See my response there.GreyShark (dibra) 20:35, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Irwin Cotler
I have moved the below paragraph to talk, as I believe this is an entirely non-notable event. Irwin Cotler is (or was) a board member of JJAC, and advocacy organisations, even extremists, presenting in small session rooms at the Houses of Parliament does not make their views particularly notable. Most of the text appears to be an advert for a JJAC paper, and Cotler's statement is actually primarily focused on the Arab-Israeli War.
 * At a July 2008 joint session of the United Kingdom's House of Commons and House of Lords convened by Labour MP John Mann and Lord Anderson of Swansea, in co-operation with Justice for Jews from Arab Countries (JJAC) and the Board of Deputies of British Jews, Canadian MP Irwin Cotler said, "Arab countries and the League of Arab States must acknowledge their role in launching an aggressive war against Israel in 1948 and the perpetration of human rights violations against their respective Jewish nationals." Cotler cited evidence from a report titled Jewish Refugees from Arab Countries: The Case for Rights And Redress which documented for the first time a pattern of state-sanctioned repression and persecution in Arab countries that targeted Jewish populations.

Oncenawhile (talk) 15:58, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * After two weeks of silence, I will remove this again. Oncenawhile (talk) 14:31, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Final lead paragraph
I have moved the above paragraph here for discussion. I spent some time working out how to make it more neutral, but I couldn't solve it - perhaps it is structurally biased. Any thoughts appreciated. FYI a few observations: Oncenawhile (talk) 08:10, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It is written like an essay trying to prove direct correlation between the exodus and the rioting which is disputed:
 * "which prompted a sharp increase in Jewish exodus" => This is an oversimplification intended to show
 * "Soon after the 1947 Aleppo pogrom half the city's Jewish population had left." => What does soon after mean, and where had they left to? Some moved internally within Syria or the Arab world, but the sentence suggests otherwise
 * "At the same time, independent Arab countries began to encourage Jewish emigration to Israel" => Some did and some didn't - we should be balanced here
 * "From 1949 to 1951, 30,000 Jews fled Libya to Israel" => use of the word "fled" is biased
 * "Iraqi and Kurdish Jews were encouraged to leave in 1950 by the Iraqi Government" => My understanding is that it was the other way round - Iraq had been pressured to open the borders. It was a complex situation. And the sentence doesn't work without mention of the bombings.
 * "The Jews of Egypt began fleeing the country in 1948" => again "fleeing
 * "most of the remaining, some 21,000, were expelled in 1956" => again no mention of the Suez Crisis or Lavon affair
 * "Algerian Jews were deprived of their citizenship in 1962" => This suggests this was an anti-semitic decision, when in fact it was anti-French in the context of the Algerian War (the decision was that only Muslims could be citizens)
 * "Moroccan Jews began leaving for Israel as a result of the 1948 pogroms" => this is not true - at the time of the pogrom Oudja was acting as a waypoint for emigrating Zionists
 * I don't think the paragraph should be deleted. I adjusted some parts of it to address your concerns. As for two points I didn't agree with:
 * "It is written like an essay trying to prove direct correlation between the exodus and the rioting which is disputed" - I don't think it's disputed that there is indeed a direct correlation. This is not to say there is 100% direct correlation, but indeed some of the massive waves of the exodus were reactions to the anti-Jewish riotings, violance and killings and this is partially what the paragraph describes.
 * As for the use of the term "fled" - it's a good middlepoint between "emmigrated" end "expelled" that shows the element of fear was an important factor in the decision to leave, which is true and can't be ignored. The term is used twice: once for the 30,000 Jews who fled Llibya in the years 1949-1951 and second for Jews fleeing Egypt post-1948. In both cases I think the use of the term is appropriate. Ben tetuan (talk) 00:45, 9 April 2014 (UTC)


 * OK, let's keep the paragraph. It still needs work though, as it is much too long, has some duplication within itself, needs clearer logic to its structure and needs more npov balance in the weighting of various points.
 * I'll have a try, but first perhaps can we agree exactly what we think the paragraph is intended to achieve? Below is what I think all five paragraphs in the lead as a whole are intended to achieve:
 * 1. Intro to scope of article
 * 2. Summary of populations pre 48 by country
 * 3. Summary of key phases of population movements in aggregate
 * 4. Reasons for the exodus
 * 5. ?
 * What do you think this final paragraph is intended to achieve? If we are to make it more focused and balanced, it would help to agree this first. Oncenawhile (talk) 07:52, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * 5. Short summary (one-two lines) of the exodus from each country, since this is what most of the article is about.Ben tetuan (talk) 11:13, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * OK. I suggest two structural amendments to make that work. (1) we order the countries in the same order as the rest of the article, so we are dealing with the largest communities earlier, and (2) we ensure that each country's summary sentence gives a fair balance of push and pull factors. I will have a go. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:29, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Actaully I am not sure if i can do it without lengthening an already too-long paragraph. Here's an example on Morocco:
 * Current POV drafting: "In 1948, Anti-Jewish demonstrations which followed the 1948 Arab-Israeli War resulted in Jewish deaths in the Moroccan city of Oujda and the Libyan city of Tripoli.[14] ... Moroccan Jews began leaving for Israel in great numbers as a result of the 1948 pogroms, with most of the community leaving in 1960s" It is POV by exclusion; the penultimate lead paragraph explains how the two sides highligh different factors, but then here we choose to describe only one factor
 * Proposed balanced drafting: "Emgiration from Morocco peaked in the decade following the country's independence in 1956, despite Jewish emigraton being illegal for the first five years and good relations between the government and the Jewish community. Factors included fear following a number of incidents of anti-Jewish violence, encouragement by Zionist agents operating in the country, political instability under Hassan II, and the economic promise of France and Israel."
 * If we do this for every country, the paragraph will double in size. Can you see any solution that I am missing? Oncenawhile (talk) 22:25, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Well yes, leaving the paragraph as it is with small adjustments.
 * The fact that there were both pull and push factors causing the exodus is mentioned in the paragraph right above, we don't need to mention it again about each country in particular. We should mention the particular events in each country that were the milestones in the process of the exodus - in Morocco's case the exodus began in great numbers with the mass-killing in Oujda and Jerada and then peaked when Morocco got independence, so these seem like the two milestones to mention. Ben tetuan (talk) 00:54, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Your last sentence is factually incorrect, or at least unprovable and highly subjective, which perhaps underlies our disagreement. Firstly, the violence in Oujda was catalysed by Oujda being the main transit point for Zionist emigration. So by definition, the emigration has already started. So what was the starting point? Perhaps the UN vote over Palestine in 1947? The israeli declaration of independence in 1948? Noone knows. And what is factually known is that emigration accelerated only after decolonisation began to look likely in the mid 50s. That is not subjective and is numerically provable. So the current drafting is highly POV.Oncenawhile (talk) 07:45, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You twisted what I wrote. There is no question that Oujda was a transit point for emigration even before the massacre, however the exodus in great numbers began only after the pogrom, with more than 18,000 Jews leaving in the months after. That is indeed not subjective and is numerically provable. Ben tetuan (talk) 14:27, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, please provide WP:RS proving this. Oncenawhile (talk) 20:48, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The Jews of the Middle East and North Africa in Modern Times, Reeva S. Simon, Michael Menachem Laskier, Sara Reguer (eds.), Columbia University Press, 2013, p. 498; referring to the exodus of Moroccan Jews - "In mid-1948 the exodus became large scale; from May 1947 to June 1948 fewer than two thousends escaped; the number of refugees who passed through Algeria from the summer of 1948 until spring of 1949 exceeded ten thousend". Also note the use of the term 'refugees' and 'flee'. Ben tetuan (talk) 00:17, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Ben, I expect an apology for this. I just wasted time going to get a hard copy of this book because the text didn't show on googlebooks, only to find out that your quote was disingenuous and out of context. I had trusted you and you almost changed my mind, but now I think less of you. For other readers here is the text preceding the above quote:
 * "As for the emigration to Israel in 1947 and 1948, the process was organized clandestinely inside Morocco by the local Zionist underground. Most emigrants reached transit camps in Algeria via Morocco's northeastern land border in Oujda City. In Algeria the Yishuv's emissaries escorted emigrants to ships whose destination was Palestine. The initial efforts were mostly unsuccessful, because the British seized the first two ships, and the emigrants were then transferred to camps in Cyprus; the third ship reached Palestine toward the end of 1947 with only forty-four Jews. From that point on Jews continued to flee clandestinely to Israel via Oujda, Algeria, and Marseilles, either with the help of the underground or through other initiatives." The text doesn't even mention the violence in Oujda. Oncenawhile (talk) 07:39, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oujda is mentioned in the following text, but it is not presented as the major cause of the exodus. It is presented as one of several causes: "Jewish enthusiasm for the State of Israel and the military success of the Arab-Israeli War, coupled with increased poverty in Morocco and the outbreak of a pogrom against Jews in Oujda and nearby Djerada, increased the number of emigrants." A balanced account has to mention all the causes given by the sources. Zerotalk 10:07, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * A similar multi-cause approach is taken in : "The important change began toward the end of World War II, mainly among the younger elements of the Jewish communities, when emissaries of the Jewish Agency, the Hagana, and the Mossad Le- ̔Aliya Bet arrived in the country. Recruiting young Moroccans into this new movement and training them for  ̔aliya to Ereṣ Israel, immigration to the land of Israel, resulted in two waves of emigration, the first in 1943–45, and the second in 1947–49. Three main factors led to the Jews virtually falling into the Zionists’ lap: first, the failure of the colonial authorities to change the legal, social, and political status of the Jews, leaving them in their continued dhimmi status under the makhzan and the sultan; second, the recent political developments and changes that enabled Jews to emigrate to Israel; and, finally, the poverty and suffering from a low standard of living, especially of those residing in the mellaḥs, the old Jewish neighborhoods in the larger cities.  On top of all these we may add another catalyst: the riots that broke out on 7 June 1948 in the cities of Oujda and Jerada, close to the border between Morocco and Algeria, which served as a transfer station for Moroccan Jews on their way to Israel. In these riots forty-three Jews were killed, dozens were injured, and property was greatly damaged. It is believed that the riots were brought on by the speech given a short while earlier by Sultan Muḥammad Ben-Yussuf, which inveighed against the Zionists and cried for solidarity with the Arabs fighting in Israel. Claims have been made that the French authorities not only knew about these impending events but also goaded and collaborated with the instigators as a provocation against the heads of the Moroccan Independence Party, who could later be blamed for committing murder. These events are considered the most significant in the relationship between Jews and Muslims in Morocco and an important formative element in the emigration process of Moroccan Jews." Zerotalk 10:22, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oncenawhile, I don't see in what the paragraph you qouted is relevent to the discussion above?
 * The 1948 Oujda and Jerada pogrom happened on 6-7 of June. I claimed "the exodus in great numbers began only after the pogrom, with more than 18,000 Jews leaving in the months after. That is indeed not subjective and is numerically provable". You asked "WP:RS proving this", and I provided WP:RS completly supporting my assertion, mentioning June 1948 as the turning point for the number of "refugees" "escaping" Morocco - before it less than two thousend "refugees" "escaped", and after more than 10 thousend. I didn't know if and I didn't claim that the book mentions Oujda and Jerada riots, the discussion was about the numbers and I cited a book that indeed supports my point. The "demand for apology" is out of place.
 * Zero, no one claims the Oujda and Jerada riots were the only cause for the exodus of Moroccan Jews. The question was if it is accurate to assert that this can be considered a milestone in the exodus after which the exodus began in big numbers, and I think the answer is yes. As summarized also in the useful qoute you posted: "These events are considered the most significant in the relationship between Jews and Muslims in Morocco and an important formative element in the emigration process of Moroccan Jews.". Ben tetuan (talk) 10:48, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You provided that partial quote to support your claim that "the exodus in great numbers began only after the pogrom", so when I read your quote I assumed that it was written in reference to the pogrom. In fact, it did not even mention the pogrom, but you applied wp:synth to present it otherwise. I have historically liked your style of collaboration, so I will put this down to an honest mistake.
 * Re your point to Zero, we are debating how to appropriately summarise the events around the Moroccan Jewish exodus (and by extension the other exoduses), and specifically whether it is appropriate to cherrypick the Oujda violence as the only relevant milestone to mention. The quote you provided, and the two Zero provided, all prove beyond doubt that wp:rs do not present the Oujda violence as the only relevant factor, and therefore neither should we. Noone is claiming it is not relevant, just that it should be mentioned alongside the other factors. I stand by my proposed redraft earlier in this thread, and invite comment on it. Oncenawhile (talk) 11:44, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * We won't agree I guess on how the discussion evolved. In anycase: the redraft you proposed is problematic on many levels: "Emgiration from Morocco peaked in the decade following the country's independence in 1956" - no word on the beginning of the exodus? more than 80,000 jews left before this 'peak'. "despite Jewish emigraton being illegal for the first five years and good relations between the government and the Jewish community" - POV. "Factors included fear following a number of incidents of anti-Jewish violence" - understatement, "encouragement by Zionist agents operating in the country" - POV articulation and repetitive of what is already said in the peragraph just above it in the lead, "political instability under Hassan II, and the economic promise of France and Israel." - it was well known that there is no "economic promise" in Israel, only Ma'abarot, and for the vast majority there was no option to move to France, so it's misleading.
 * As earlier, I propose making little adjustments to the current paragraph. I.e. adding the establishment of Israel as a a milestone for the beginning of the exodus and adding that the exodus continued clandestinely in the 5 years after Morocco's independence (1956-1961) when it was illegal.
 * Maybe we just see the paragraph's role in different ways: this paragraph is not about the causes for the exudos. You yourself wrote the paragraph that describes the causes for the exodus and it apears right above it. The paragraph as I see it is about describing the process of the exodus itself and its main milestons in in each country and this is what it does in its current version. Ben tetuan (talk) 12:30, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments on the proposal in your first paragraph above - they seem fine and I suspect we can work out a middle ground.
 * On what the text is supposed to achieve, I am fine with your proposal re "process and main milestones" in each country, as a concept.
 * Can you suggest how we might anchor our analysis of choosing what those main milestones are for each country in WP:RS? If we have no "anchor", we'll be here for years debating each and every country, as the question of which are the most important milestones is inherently subjective. Oncenawhile (talk) 20:02, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I propose we amend the paragraph so that it shows "the process of the exodus itself and its main milestons in in each country" per Ben's suggestion, but without specific identification of the milestones other than the approximate dates. The specific identification of all catalysing events can be left to the main body, as there is not enough space in the lead to show a real balance on this for every country. I will draft a proposal. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:54, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Draft below for comment:

Oncenawhile (talk) 09:13, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok i'm adding this in after almost a week without comment. Oncenawhile (talk) 13:31, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Scholarly sources
Having read a lot about this subject over the last five months, I despair at the number of "advocacy based" sources on the topic, given its proposed relevance to modern political issues. Anyway, I have been heartened to find a handful of high quality sources which I propose we use to improve the content, balance and detail of this article. These are below:
 * Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia:
 * Iraq:
 * Egypt:
 * Yemen:

These four sources cover more than 90% of the exodus from Arab countries. If anyone has any other balanced scholarly works to add, please do so.

Oncenawhile (talk) 20:37, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * There's plenty of other good works which are referenced right on this page. No need to reinvent the wheel...
 * Levin, Itamar (2001). Locked Doors: The Seizure of Jewish Property in Arab Countries. Praeger/Greenwood. ISBN 0-275-97134-1
 * Lewis, Bernard (1984). The Jews of Islam. Princeton. Princeton University Press. ISBN 0-691-00807-8
 * Lewis, Bernard (1986). ''Semites and Anti-Semites: An Inquiry into Conflict and Prejudice, W. W. Norton & Co. ISBN 0-393-02314-1
 * Stillman, Norman (1975). Jews of Arab Lands a History and Source Book. Jewish Publication Society
 * Stillman, Norman (2003). Jews of Arab Lands in Modern Times. Jewish Publication Society, Philadelphia. ISBN 0-8276-0370-3 Plot Spoiler (talk) 01:49, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * We have to take care with Joel Beinin given he has some political activities but all these sources seem good for me. Nb: I didn't know any of these except Bernard Lewis. I have just make a fast check. Pluto2012 (talk) 07:03, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Of Plotspoiler's list, Lewis's books cover this topic with negligible detail, given they are much broader in scope. Itamar Levin, a journalist, focuses only on a handful of countries and a narrow element of the exodus, and his work has been superseded by, a more thorough and detailed analysis by an author with better credentials than Levin.
 * I agree that Stillman's 2003 work is a relevant reference for this article. Oncenawhile (talk) 11:14, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Bulk reversions - please explain
Greyshark, Plotspoiler, please could you expressly comment on the 14 individual edits you have reverted as part of the recent mass-reversions? To make it clearer for you both, below are the edits that you reverted. For the avoidance of doubt, it has been two days since Greyshark's last revert, which has still not been explained. If the below reversions are not explained in another few days, i will assume "tacit consent" (see conversation here) and continue improving the article where we left off prior to this mass reversion.

Unexplained deletions per points 2+4 of :
 * 1)

Iraq section:
 * 1)

Further reading:
 * 1)

Background per Talk:Jewish_exodus_from_Arab_and_Muslim_countries
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

Egypt:
 * 1)
 * 2)

Advocacy groups:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

Irwin Cotler per Talk:Jewish_exodus_from_Arab_and_Muslim_countries
 * 1)

Oncenawhile (talk) 15:27, 28 January 2014 (UTC)


 * This has happened before. You move into articles make mass controversial changes to articles via dozens if not hundreds of edits. Some of the edits are good, some are bad, and some are a combination thereof. When your edits are reverted to a consensus version for editors to sort out what you are doing you complain about other editors' "mass reversions." Please be accurate in reflecting the history of the article. I have told you this before. Please propose your edits piecemeal to the talk page. You can go forward with those that are accepted and move on from those that are not acceptable to a consensus of editors. You can't overwhelm editors with ever increasing blocs of comments in the hopes of convincing other editors to your consensus version. Eventually you will be ignored. You can't take the fact that nobody responded to your latest 10,000 word explanation of your 100 edits to support the idea that your version has not become okay. Please be fair, collaborative, and accurate to the history of the contributions and contributors to this article. Thanks, -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 20:59, 2 February 2014 (UTC)


 * This is a personal attack. It also happens to be baseless. Please read WP:NPA.
 * In terms of the current issue, my post above is a simple explanation "piecemeal to the talk page". How much more piecemeal do you want. My edits were made one by one slowly over a period of two months, and have already incorporated comments from other editors. The above is not a "10,000 word explanation", but a list of edits. Your comment is logically inconsistent and appears to be solely for show.
 * You chose to revert here, so you must have a view on the edits you reverted - they are all listed above. If not, it would make your revert classic edit-warring.
 * Oncenawhile (talk) 23:09, 2 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I think your edits are a big improvement. I'm astonished over the persistence to revert and the reluctance to discuss. Clearly, no one owns articles. You can't just jump in and revert without having more to say it's "a consensus" when it is not. As the others and Brewcrever have yet to respond, I will revert. They have to make a case, not just reverting. --IRISZOOM (talk) 18:48, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I have reverted it now. I think it's really unacceptable to have users who revert things and doesn't respond or doesn't want to discuss the issue. An article is certainly not improved this way. --IRISZOOM (talk) 19:09, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Please see User talk:Callanecc/Archive 9. Thanks. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 19:13, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


 * You should stop with your malignant edit summaries. I think it's clear what the part about consensus means. And before saying that you "don't know what that even means", take a look at your own sentence "neither of use own the article". This is not what we need so keep it civil.
 * I do think the article is an improvement and it's of course relevant if it is or not. If it wasn't, we wouldn't have this discussion. I have already seen that talk page. Unfortunately, you have not started to discuss the issue. You have had atleast three days to explain your views. What exactly don't you like and why? --IRISZOOM (talk) 19:34, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi IRISZOOM, thanks for your thoughtful post. How refreshing to find an editor who has actually read the edits.
 * I can't explain why editor interaction at this page has degenerated, but i tried to explain the facts at WP:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive234
 * I am tempted to revert Brewcrewer's revert, but i think it's probably better to keep hands clean and go back to the AN closing admin (Callanecc) and ask him/her to arbitrate here. Oncenawhile (talk) 20:28, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I think it's best to wait a little more because Brewcrewer says he wants to work with this. --IRISZOOM (talk) 20:41, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi. It's very hard to follow all the structural changes made, but I will add my two cents:
 * 25 (Iraq) - I think the sources you added are not sufficient to support the edit you made. One source is a very emotional article in an advocacy group website, and a second source is an autobiography. It's safe to say the Farhud was, in fact, a turning point in the modern history of Iraqi Jews with long term effects, as for example stated in the article about the Farhud Encyclopedia of Jews in the Islamic World ("Either way, the farhūd was a significant turning-point for the Jewish community. In addition to its effect on relations between Iraqi Muslims and Jews, it exacerbated the tensions between the pro-British Jewish notables and the younger elements of the community, who now looked to the Communist Party and Zionism and began to consider emigration. ") or in The Jews of the Middle East and North Africa in Modern Times, p. 350 and many other scholarly sources.
 * 26 (further reading) - I think it's problematic to almost double the quite balanced "further reading" section with references to books and articles that represent almost solely one side in the debate. Extending the further reading section is generally a good thing, but we should keep it balanced.
 * 31 (egypt) - I oppose deleting the lines about the The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. As surprising as it may be, the translation of the Protocols to Arabic and their spread in Egypt had a significant influance. Bernard Lewis writes about it quite extensively in Semites and Anti-Semites and other scholars as well mention it as an important development. If you take into account that Nasser himself recommended the Protocols I think it's clear why it's notable enoguh to not be deleted from the article.
 * 32 (egypt) - Why to remove sourced and relevant information? contrary to your claim in the edit summary, Levy did in fact write that "the policy of expelling or pressuring Jews to leave was, in part, guided by former Nazis who had found refuge in egypt".
 * 33-35 (Advocacy groups) - when we describe advocacy groups we should describe their stated purpose, goals and world view. If they say their goal is to bring to public awareness "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" we should describe them this way. The fact that this is only their particular view goes without saying when they are listed as an "Advocacy group".
 * As for the changes in the background section I've explained my opinion above. Ben tetuan (talk) 21:49, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks Ben. My thoughts on each below: Oncenawhile (talk) 22:48, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Iraq
Those are helpful sources, thanks. How about if we say something like "commentators differ as to whether or how significant the Farhud was as a turning point for the Iraqi Jewish community". Would that work as a balance for you? Oncenawhile (talk) 22:48, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * We shouldn't give undue weight to the different sources. I think scholarly sources > sources such as an autobiography\advocacy article. For example Somekh was active in the Iraqi Communist circles that flourished after the Farhud, so no suprise he experianced the 40's as a "goldan age". Historians look at the bigger picture. The view that the Farhud was a turning point\begining of the end\"changed the dynamics of Iraqi Jewish history" (Esther Meir-Glitzenstein's book on zionism in Iraq, p. 213) is very commonly held, if not a wide consensus among scholars. If there is a scholarly source that argues it wasn't a turning point then I would agree with your articulation. Ben tetuan (talk) 00:55, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Maybe "turning point" is the wrong description then as it is very subjective and open to interpretation. Here's Moshe Gat from The Jewish Exodus from Iraq, 1948-1951:
 * "[as a result] of the economic boom and the security granted by the government... Jews who left Iraq immediately after the riots, later returned."
 * "Their dream of integration into Iraqi society had been dealt a severe blow by the farhud but as the years passed self-confidence was restored, since the state continued to protect the Jewish community and they continued to prosper."
 * Quoting Enzo Sereni: "The Jews have adapted to the new situation with the British occupation, which has again given them the possibility of free movement after months of detention and fear."
 * This description of how the community got "back to normal" is the point which needs clarifying. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:35, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * A helpful starting place for this is the relatively well sourced explanation at Farhud. Perhaps more detailed than we need here, but it brings some helpful additional perspectives.
 * I will amend the text in the article to follow this and the points you made above. Oncenawhile (talk) 14:14, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Great, I wait to see the new version. I don't think anyone disputes that after the Farhud the community enjoyed a sort of recovery. Just that we shouldn't underestimate the significant immediate and long-lasting effects of the Farhud, especially the severe blow it gave to the dream of integration into Iraqi society. Ben tetuan (talk) 16:04, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed on both counts. Various sources suggest that the impact was mostly felt amongst the younger population, which i think is an interesting point to include. Oncenawhile (talk) 16:13, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Egypt
OK - if we are to proceed on that basis, we need WP:RS to support / clarify the following: Oncenawhile (talk) 22:48, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * "the translation of the Protocols to Arabic and their spread in Egypt had a significant influence" (can you quote the relevant support from Bernard Lewis?)
 * "Nasser himself recommended the Protocols" (we still don't have a source for this. I agree Levy wrote "the policy of expelling or pressuring Jews to leave was, in part, guided by former Nazis who had found refuge in egypt", but Greyshark used the source to support "[the protocols were] recommended by Nasser himself in 1951, as part of a policy to..." which is WP:SYNTH as Levy doesn't make that connection)
 * As for a source for Nasser recommending the protocols - Lewis's The Jews of Islam, p. 186. Ben tetuan (talk) 23:49, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this. It says it was in an interview with an Indian journalist. That doesn't suggest he recommended it to the Egyptian people, and certainly not that as Greyshark wrote that the recommendation was "part of a policy..." Agreed?
 * Did you manage to find sources supporting the "significant influence" point?
 * Oncenawhile (talk) 20:56, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll leave this for a few more days to allow us to hopefully conclude this discussion. Oncenawhile (talk) 14:22, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that we should not connect the two issues. There was an endorsement in the Protocols by Nasser (and it was non other than Nasser's brother who translated into Arabic and published them, as Lewis mentions in Semites and Antisemites) and there was "a policy to pressurize and expel Jews, partially guided by former Nazis, who had found refuge in Egypt", as Prof. Richard S. Levy writes, but I agree that we shouldn't link the two.
 * It's not suggested in the article that Nasser recommended the Protocols infront of the Egyptian people, so we don't need a source for that. As for the significance - I didn't find yet a source that tries to estimate how much influence the translation, publication and endorsement of the Protocols in Egypt had on the situation of Jews there, but I did find multiple sources that mention this development in the context of the dispersion of the Egyptian Jewish community. I think it's enough for us to also mention it. Ben tetuan (talk) 17:11, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok thanks Ben. Can you link to or quote from those sources? Oncenawhile (talk) 17:55, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Guys, this paragraph needs to be deleted unless we can confirm sources which support it. I'll wait a few more days. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:12, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I rearticulated it a bit and now everything there is confirmed by the existing sources. Ben tetuan (talk) 11:57, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * We can copy-edit it forever, but if we cannot find a source stating direct relevance to the exodus, it must be deleted. Otherwise this is exactly what the guideline wp:synth was written for. I will wait a few more days and then delete it, if noone is able to provide an RS making the direct connection to the topic of this article. Oncenawhile (talk) 19:57, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I just searched Beinin's "The Dispersion of Egyptian Jewry", the most detailed English-language source on the Egyptian exodus. There is a single reference to the protocols ( "In the aftermath of the contest between Naguib and Abdel Nasser in March 1954, which definitively established the latter as the leader of the new regime, the government stepped up its anticommunist campaign in the press... The equation of Zionism and communism was common among conservative Arab leaders... This notion was not an expression of primordial Arab or Muslim anti-Jewish sentiment. Its categories are too modern for that and obviously inflected with European anti-Semitic ideas, such as those in The Protocols of the Elders of Zion." ) There is therefore no support for the connection to the exodus made in this article, which has had no WP:RS brought to support it after many months of asking. I will now remove it as WP:OR. Oncenawhile (talk) 13:47, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * A final point on this. A quote from Gudrun Kramer: "The stereotyped image of the Jews as Zionists and enemies of all human society was only spread in the 1960s, after the overwhelming majority had already left the country.". Oncenawhile (talk) 08:48, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Advocacy groups
I agree with you here. But what we had / have written in our article does not appear to reflect the actual wording used by the groups. Whatever we put should be properly sourced. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:48, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll add "citation needed" here instead of deleting again. Oncenawhile (talk) 14:20, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I've removed the descriptions as no clarification was forthcoming in two months. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:10, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Background
I think we all agree on the concept here - that a background is helpful. But what we have now is both unsourced and poor quality. I suggest we agree on a few high quality, balanced, sources which cover the whole topic and follow the background structure they use. OK? Oncenawhile (talk) 22:48, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I intend to reimplement the removing of unsourced information in the background per WP:ONUS - which is part of policy.
 * I hope we can work together to build an improved and balanced version of the section.
 * Oncenawhile (talk) 14:27, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree the existing background section is of poor quality, but I think expending it is the solution not deleting. What's written now seems quite trivial, but If you suspect a particular point is incorrect then point it and I will link to references. The only inaccuracy I spoted is the claim "The Yemeni Jews, first to arrive...". Ben tetuan (talk) 17:28, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed, and thanks for offering to do so. I implemented the structural edits from last month (highlighting which regions are covered and which are not), but I did not delete or cut down any paragraphs. I added "citation needed" against the various key statements as you requested. Oncenawhile (talk) 14:13, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * After waiting two and a half months, I have moved this to talk (below), pending it being fixed and properly sourced. Oncenawhile (talk) 20:11, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Morocco background
User:Ykantor added "Under the French rule, there were still Muslim Anti Jewish riots, as at Casablanca and Qudijda at 1908, and in Fes when 45 Jews were killed in 1912.. This is an incorrect reading of the source. Pages 317-318 explain that the "prevailing general chaos" between 1906-1912, during which France was encroaching on a takeover of the country, and talks about attacks on "Jews and non-Jews" and on the "mellah and the nearby Arab town". In other words, these do not appear to be "Muslim Anti Jewish riots" at all, rather indiscriminate pillaging during widespread upheaval. Oncenawhile (talk) 07:08, 12 May 2014 (UTC)


 * You are right concerning the Casablanca and Qudijda at 1908 pogroms. The source is not supporting my version. I'll find out more in other sources. However, the FES 1912 pogrom is well supported. Would you accept to undo your deletion, but without mentioning the 1908 pogroms (for the time being) ? Ykantor (talk) 18:13, 12 May 2014 (UTC)


 * In principal fine, but could we work on 1912 Fes riots first - once we have some good sources we can agree how to include. Oncenawhile (talk) 20:40, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes. we can work on 1912 Fes riots first.- In the Meantime:"The Jewish quarter of FEZ was almost destroyed in 1912 by a Muslim mob" (Morris,Righteous Victims, 2001, p. 11). - In the article:" "a number of Libyan Jews" believe that the Jewish Agency was behind the riots, given that the riots helped them achieve their goal". In my opinion this is a conspiracy theory. I am not sure what is Wiki policy, but I imagine that if, for instance, an article includes:"a number of Jews" believe that the Israeli Mosad was behind the 2011 N.Y. Twin towers disaster, given that the disaster helped them achieve their goal", than it wouldn't be accepted. Should we ask for advice at wp:hd ? Ykantor (talk) 10:53, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * "Fig. 9 : Victims of the 1907 street fighting in Casablanca are taken away for burial; especially hard hit was the Mellah, where dozens of people were killed during the bombardment and subsequent looting"
 * "in 1907-1908 anti European feelings extended to include anti Jewish manifestations in Quijda, Casablanca, and Fez". Ykantor (talk) 03:10, 14 May 2014 (UTC)


 * "Casablanca, in 2007 30 Jews were killed and 200 women,girls and boys abducted" Ykantor (talk) 06:05, 14 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Fenton, Paul) ,2012 [http://searchworks.stanford.edu/view/9708122 Pogrome de Fès ou le Tritel


 * Jews in Morocco: The Fez Pogrom of 1912 Jews in Morocco: The Fez Pogrom of 1912 Ykantor (talk) 09:14, 14 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Ok. On Fes we should probably discuss at the article talk page. On this article re going to WP:HD, fine with me. My view is that we have attributed the view to Goldberg, and it is relevant because what they thought at the time was relevant to the exodus given it was primarily voluntary. On Casablanca, were those riots specifically "anti-Jewish" or is it simply that Jews were amongst the victims? Oncenawhile (talk) 15:18, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * - Libya: Goldberg says:" As an indication of how the causes of events can be reinterpreted in terms of their results, ". i.e.He means that the guess is an interpretation of the results. Moreover, the rumor sources have guessed and not believed. Suppose we try to figure out if this rumor is correct, but the sources just ignore this possibility. Does that means that we have to include this rumor in the article? -Casablanca: Jews were amongst the victims, but "especially hard hit was the Mellah, where dozens of people were killed especially hard hit was the Mellah, where dozens of people were killed " (Miller2013p75). Would you accept: "During 1907 Casablanca riots, the Jewish quarter was especially hard hit, where dozens of people were killed". ? Ykantor (talk) 05:23, 14 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Great research, thanks Ykantor. The Laskier quote you added above was an elegant description of all of this - I have added an expanded version to the article. What do you think? We could add more detail in an article called 1907-08 Morocco riots?
 * On Libya, I am in favor of providing all the different explanations. No one knows which one factor (or more) was the main cause, so we should show a balanced summary of the variety of reasons held. It's similar to the 1950–51 Baghdad bombings - noone knows who was behind them for certain, but what was in the minds of the victims at the time is relevant. Oncenawhile (talk) 07:42, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Property claims
My read of Fischbach's detailed analysis of Jewish property claims in the Arab world suggests that property confiscation or similar took place only three times:
 * Iraq in 1951, for those who were caught by the speedily enacted legislation in the emigration window when 120,000 left
 * Egypt in 1956 as part of the post-Suez expulsion, affecting 25,000 people
 * Libya in 1970 under Gaddafi, against the small remaining community of less than 4,000 (most had left two decades prior)

In other words, such events affected less than 20% of all those who left the Arab countries. Does anyone disagree with this reading of Fischbach? Oncenawhile (talk) 09:01, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * On the same lines, my read is that the only two expulsions were the above incidents in Libya and Egypt, affecting a total of around 30,000 people, or about 3.5% of all those who left Arab countries. Am I missing something? Oncenawhile (talk) 15:39, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Amending the above: per Talk:Expulsion of Egyptian Jews (1956), it looks like if one excludes the British and French Suez-related expulsions, the total amount of Jewish citizens expelled was less than 1% of the entire exodus. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:31, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Having just corrected the section on Libya, i'm not sure it's right to call the 1967 events "expulsions". Which makes me wonder whether there really were any genuine expulsions of Jewish citizens in any of these countries? Am i missing something? Oncenawhile (talk) 09:57, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Expulsions?
In the lead we use the word "expulsions". Can anyone point me to a source showing Jewish citizens of Arab or Muslim countries being expelled at any point? Having looked at the facts in Egypt and Libya, it is not clear that this is an accurate description. Oncenawhile (talk) 10:04, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Merge proposal with Iran exodus article
The Iranian exodus article overlaps very significantly with this one, providing limited additional information. The article was forked per this discussion which had very limited discussion. Since this move discussion in 2010 this article has included Iran in its scope.

A merger would allow us to add a background section on Iran, currently missing in this article. Other than that, the rest appears to be a duplication / fork.

Oncenawhile (talk) 09:24, 21 May 2014 (UTC)


 * After a couple of weeks without response, I will implement this. Oncenawhile (talk) 07:38, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

WOJAC and JJAC Arab conspiracy claims
I have moved the below text here for discussion. These claims of Arab conspiracy should either be substantiated with scholarly sources or not included at all. Unsubstantiated speculation by advocacy organizations is not appropriate wikipedia content.
 * Deliberate expulsion policy claims
 * WOJAC, an organization representing Jewish refugees from Arab states asserts that a major cause of the Jewish exodus was a deliberate policy decision taken by the Arab League.
 * In 2007, a Jewish advocacy group JJAC (Justice for Jews from Arab Countries) has too alleged that Arab League members formulated a coordinated policy to expel or force the departure of the Jewish population.Justiceforjews.comJeqishpolicycenter.orgJewishpolicycenter.org

Oncenawhile (talk) 08:31, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

No, you are censoring Jewish human rights groups and whitewashing an article about Judeophobic ethnic cleansing committed by Arabs while at the same time adding Arab propaganda denying the real Nakba, the Jewish Nakba, in order to promote your Arab nationalist agenda. Wikipedia already has enough problems with its Israelophobic bias, so people like you and Zero0000 should stay off this article. I recognize that you two regularly write Arab nationalist propaganda for Wikipedia. And how is this an "Arab conspiracy"? The Arabs make no attempt to conceal their desire to "kick the Jews into the sea" and destroy Israel. Denying this fact is equivalent to Holocaust denial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.148.57.140 (talk) 09:44, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

centuries of subjection and humiliation
I propose to add an extract of this Morris quote to the background.

"The experience of discrimination and persecution in the Arab world, and the centuries of subjection and humiliation that preceded 1948, had left the emigrant Sephardi communities [in Israel] with a deep dislike, indeed hatred, of that world". (Morris, 2008, p. 415 ) Ykantor (talk) 19:33, 15 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Please do not. At least not before digesting this widely cited 1994 work by Mark Cohen. Oncenawhile (talk) 20:16, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Here is a quote from the article:


 * We must be balanced on this topic throughout wikipedia - such sweeping statements only serve to increase hatred. We should always be careful and delicate on this topic, since there is a great deal of ideological propaganda relating to the topic on both sides. Oncenawhile (talk) 20:39, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Denying the oppression that Arabs have inflicted on Jews for centuries is anti-Semitic and should not be tolerated on Wikipedia. Would you deny the Holocaust? Benny Morris is a professor of Jewish history. You should not censor facts attributed to him.
 * You are right, we should not deny any oppression. We should also not use Holocaust analogies without due care, as it is disrespectful to its 6 million victims and their descendants. As to respected historians with views on Jews in the Arab world, please read the article I linked to instead of wasting everyone's time. Oncenawhile (talk) 10:09, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Iraq and Nuri (same edit across a number of articles)
Ykantor's edit is disappointing. Two "citation needed" tags were removed - one with no replacement, and the other with an unrelated source. Much of the original paragraph in question came from this anonymous edit six years ago, originally from this non-RS source (in Hebrew), and the sources added by Ykantor do not substantiate these claims. There are problems with misrepresentation of the other sources as well - I will add more detail from the same sources, and correct the descriptions.

Note that Ykantor added this poorly sourced paragraph across a number of pages in parallel - I will revert those pending agreement here.

Oncenawhile (talk) 22:59, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Four other points:
 * (1) The Adelman / Barkan source states the opposite of what it was being used to support. The quote Ykantor referred to, in note 56 is actually a quote from this Meron article. Adelman / Barkan then go on to say, in the same note, that they disagree with Meron
 * (2) Nuri al-Said's rationale for wanting to accelerate the exodus should be clarified. Glitzenstein provides some detail on pages 203-205
 * (3) Alec Kirkbride claimed in his 1976 memoirs that al-Said made private statements to him about the transfer - I have added a quote from this in the footnote. Ykantor you may want to use this to cite one of the other points, but the context will need to be clear.
 * (4) Giltzenstein bases much of her work on this topic on Moshe Gat's 1997 work. Reading both Gat and Glitzenstein, it seems that the primary reason as-Said "was determined to" accelerate the exodus was because the Israeli organized exodus had stalled, leaving a large number of denaturalized people in limbo that the government felt was destabilizing to the country.

Oncenawhile (talk) 23:48, 14 June 2014 (UTC)


 * At a first glance, these text is correct and well supported. It is summarized and an addition of a background seems like a good idea. ~- An helpful quote: "In Iraq, following the May 1948 declaration of martial law, hundreds of Jews were arrested (the Iraqi government admitted to “276” Jews detained and “1,188” non-Jews),48 and Jewish property was arbitrarily confiscated. Jewish students were banned from high schools and universities. Some fifteen hundred Jews were dismissed from government positions, the Iraqi Ministry of Health refused to renew the licenses of Jewish physicians or issue new ones, Jewish merchants’ import and export licenses were canceled, and various economic sanctions were imposed on the Jewish community.49 In January 1949, Prime Minister Nuri Sa’id threatened “that all Iraqi Jews would be expelled if the Israelis did not allow the Arab refugees to return to Palestine.”50 A new “wave of persecution” was unleashed against the 125,000-strong community in early October 1949, with about two thousand being packed off to jails and “concentration camps” and vast amounts of money being extorted in fines on various pretexts.51 But the Iraqi government kept a tight leash on the “street.” (Morris 2008, p. 413). - Incidentally, some ex Iraqi Jews, claim that Nuri Said was bribed and received payment per each emigrating Jew. I have not found a RS yet. - To be continued later. Ykantor (talk) 19:51, 15 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Interesting. It's worth remembering that Nuri was seen as a pro-Western puppet, having been installed twice by the British
 * Separately, the attached in a scholarly article which mentions Nuri a few times
 * And here are some not-so-scholarly views on the same which take an interesting angle
 * Also, any "bribery" would have a later precedent in Operation Yachin in Morocco
 * Oncenawhile (talk) 21:25, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * to Oncenawhile: You are right and I apologize for the removal of those 2 "citation needed" tags. In the meantime, I have found supporting sources to one of them, hence one of the tag was removed, while the other one stays. Ykantor (talk) 09:26, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

to quickly expel the jews

 * The added background ( Diff file) is very long. Will  it be possible to reduce it?
 * It is rather difficult to edit with such very long and in line quotes . Will it be possible to put the long quotes in the Notes section, as a list defined refs?
 * "determined to drive the Jews out of his country as quickly as possible.". Nuri pushed the expulsion of the Jews from early 1949, and it was presented as a rather sudden and quick expulsion. The added background explains the "quickly" adverb for the late 1950 and later only.
 * The background does not explain why the Jews wished to leave their country.  Ykantor (talk) 21:01, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 1. and 2. - ok, let me try to fix this.
 * 3. Agree we need to deal with his 1949 comments too. I will research the same. But with respect to 1950 itself, we cannot disassociate Nuri's "determination" from the wider context. Particularly given Meir-Glitzenstein's explanation "These developments changed Iraq's attitude towards the Jews. From now on Iraq sought to get rid of everyone who had registered immediately and at almost any price."
 * 4. This one is going to be challenging because the reasons were diverse and changed materially during the 1940s. But agree we should try to do this.
 * Oncenawhile (talk) 09:38, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Background vs Main Exodus Waves
I propose to merge the background and "main exodus waves" sections, given (1) the dividing line appears to be arbitrary in many places, and (2) sub-headers for each country would be better if tailored to each country's events, for example in the way Ykantor has just divided the Iraq section. Any comments? Oncenawhile (talk) 09:35, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Both article structures, the present one and your proposed one are fine in my opinion. So I agree to modify it. Ykantor (talk) 18:54, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * OK - I have had a go, see what you think. It has highlighted that we have a lot of overlapping / duplicated content throughout each section. We should try to clean it up when we have time if you agree. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:36, 3 July 2014 (UTC)