Talk:Jewish exodus from the Muslim world/Archive 4

Iraq: Nuri and Kirkbride, and Ya'akov Meron
Ya'akov Meron's 1995 polemic has been used on a number of occasions in this article. It is not WP:RS, as per this 2003 Haaretz article, Meron is the Israeli politician and WOJAC member who devised most of the propaganda terms on this topic "ethnic cleansing" and "Jewish refugees", and "The foreign minister deemed WOJAC a Phalangist, zealous group, and asked that it cease operating as a "state within a state." In the end, the ministry closed the tap on the modest flow of funds it had transferred to WOJAC. Then justice minister Yossi Beilin fired Yaakov Meron from the Arab legal affairs department. Today, no serious researcher in Israel or overseas embraces WOJAC's extreme claims." And in case anyone was wondering Middle East Quarterly in 1995 had just been opened as a non-peer reviewed publication for a right-wing think tank / advocacy organization (see e.g. Middle_East_Forum).

Anyway, it also seems some of the facts are incorrect. For example, Meron writes:
 * "Perhaps the most interesting incident took place at the tail end of the Israeli war of independence, in late January or early February 1949, when Iraq's Prime Minister Nuri Sa'id described a plan to expel Jews from Iraq to Alec Kirkbride, then the British ambassador at Amman, and Samir El-Rifa'i, head of the Jordanian government."

But having read the source Meron uses here, Kirkbride at no point states the date Jan/Feb 1949. In fact, he suggests it was between the Holy Sephulchre fire on 23 Nov 1949, and the visit of the Duke of Edinburgh's HMS Magpie (U82), under his command between September 1950 and 1952. Which ties well to the foreign office note used by Bashkin (p. 277) dated 15 January 1951: "Sir A. Kirkbride (Amman) to Foreign Office (London) (a report on Nuri Sa'id's visit to Jordan)", particularly given it is the only reference to Nuri in Kirkbride's entire memoirs.

Why is this important? Because Meron's dating suggests Nuri was proposing to kick out the Iraqi Jews in response to the Palestinian exodus. However, the Jan 1951 dating of Bashkin ties with the context provided by Gat and Meir-Glitzenstien and others regarding the "in limbo" registered-but-delayed population creating an unmanageable situation for all involved which Nuri decided had to be accelerated.

Oncenawhile (talk) 21:28, 1 July 2014 (UTC)


 * On the dating question, page 87 of Forgotten Millions mentions "at the end of January or at the beginning of February 1949" - the author writes it in quotation marks and in the footnote states "The date is determined by Hillel", referring to "Shlomo Hillel, Ruah Kadim (Operation Babylon) (Jerusalem: Edanim, 1985), 259–63 (Hebrew)". However, when one reads the English language 1987 version of Hillel's work, he writes on page 267: "at the end of January or at the beginning of February 1951". So we can conclude beyond any doubt that this was the same meeting Bashkin quotes from the Foreign Office archives on 15 Jan 1951. Oncenawhile (talk) 07:31, 7 July 2014 (UTC)


 * - Morris says: "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.” - While I do not agree to Meron thesis of an organized Arab plan to expel the Jews, It is better to avoid dismissing his factual claims unless there is a reason, like the one you mention. - Gat says:"According to the terms of the Denaturalization Law, those deprived of citizenship were to leave the country within 15 days, but this was not happening. Nuri as-Said was determined to do everything possible to despatch the Jews at the earliest opportunity. His aim was to send 1,000 daily, thus ending the problem within 70 days.5’ This assessment was borne out by a committee of Jewish dignitaries.52 which dealt with the implementation of the law and denaturalization. They were concerned primarily with solving the plight of many thousands of Jews who were on the verge of starvation, having liquidated their assets in anticipation of rapid departure. Nun as-Said agreed with them. He told Moshe Shohat, deputy chairman of the committee, that if matters continued as they were, he would make suitable arrangements for the despatch of the Jews, since he could not tolerate their sufferings. He did nothing, however, to alleviate their plight. In fact, he gave instructions to the police chief to to denaturalize 500 Jews per day. The practical implication of this order was that more and more people would become a burden on the emissaries. The question is why Nun Pasha decided to take this action. He declared to the Arab world that the despatch of large numbers of Jews was intended to expedite the collapse of the infant state of Israel, since its capacity was limited, and it could not absorb the flood of immigrants. One cannot ignore this aspect of the situation. It is highly likely that one of Nun as-Said’s motives in trying to expel large numbers of Jews was the desire to aggravate Israel’s economic problems.55 At the same time, however, he was well aware of Israel’s absorption policy, namely her capacity for absorbing immigrants on which she based her future". It is not easy to understand Nuri's mind. "He could not tolerate their sufferings." and then he crammed more denaturalized Jews in Baghdad. Ykantor (talk) 12:08, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Ya'akov Meron's thesis are not reported by his pairs. They can be considered as not relevant and should not be reported. It is nearly impossible to discuss his reliability without sources claiming he is biaised anyway the lack of notoriaty is enough to dismiss the primary material he may report. Pluto2012 (talk) 05:14, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Overlap with "History of the Jews in..." articles
This topic is broadly duplicated in the relevant "History of the Jews in..." articles (linked in the navbox at the top of the article.

In some (many?) cases, the coverage at this article is longer and more detailed than at the "History of the Jews in..." articles.

Which brings the question - which should be the main article and which should be the "sub-articles"?

My view is that this article should be the main article for the topic, covering each country in summary. Then the same information would be also covered, but with additional detail, at the "History of the Jews in..." articles. Grateful for others' thoughts - I will cross post this discussion.

Oncenawhile (talk) 10:06, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

The war and its consequences
The idea that the 1948 war marked the beginning of the exodus is being discussed at Talk:1948 Palestine war. I have not seen any scholarly evidence to support this, although I have seen it suggested in a few pieces of propaganda, which do not go on to substantiate their claims. In contrast, there are many scholarly works which explain how the early exodus was engineered by those Israeli agencies that had been operating throughout the region since the mid 1940s, per the One Million Plan. The lifting of the British immigration restrictions (which happened automatically at the end of the British mandate) unlocked this immigration, and those who had been prepared to emigrate to the new Jewish state began to put their plans into action.

To put it another way, I have never seen anyone claim that the Romanian, Polish and Bulgarian exodus was caused by the 1948 war, yet 260,000 Jews from those countries moved to Israel between 1948-53 following the opening of the gates. Nor have I seen anyone claim that the 1948-53 exodus in then-very-pro-Western countries of Iran and Turkey was due to the 1948 war, yet 65,000 people emigrated to Israel over the same period from those two countries.

We need to consider such a direct connection very carefully given its well understood propagandistic utility as already explained in the lead.

Oncenawhile (talk) 08:17, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Onceawhile,
 * We can merge both discussions.
 * Morris, 1948 is eg a source for the fact it was triggered by the 'war' but that is only one reasons among others indeed.
 * Instead of the stating that the 'exodus' was caused by, we could state it 'follows' the '48 war.
 * Pluto2012 (talk) 08:41, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Pluto, I have added some thoughts on this in the thread above.
 * Re "follows", it is true that the acceleration of the exodus in some countries followed the events of 1948, but whether it followed "the war" is a different question.
 * Those who believe in "push factors" would say that the acceleration followed "the war", but those who believe in the "pull factors" would say that the acceleration followed "the end of the British Mandate with its lifting of the immigration restrictions".
 * Either way, we should specify exactly which countries this relates to, as this acceleration was not the case for the vast majority of the countries. Oncenawhile (talk) 18:11, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Overlap with "History of the Jews in..." articles
This topic is broadly duplicated in the relevant "History of the Jews in..." articles (linked in the navbox at the top of the article.

In some (many?) cases, the coverage at this article is longer and more detailed than at the "History of the Jews in..." articles.

Which brings the question - which should be the main article and which should be the "sub-articles"?

My view is that this article should be the main article for the topic, covering each country in summary. Then the same information would be also covered, but with additional detail, at the "History of the Jews in..." articles. Grateful for others' thoughts - I will cross post this discussion.

Oncenawhile (talk) 10:06, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

The war and its consequences
The idea that the 1948 war marked the beginning of the exodus is being discussed at Talk:1948 Palestine war. I have not seen any scholarly evidence to support this, although I have seen it suggested in a few pieces of propaganda, which do not go on to substantiate their claims. In contrast, there are many scholarly works which explain how the early exodus was engineered by those Israeli agencies that had been operating throughout the region since the mid 1940s, per the One Million Plan. The lifting of the British immigration restrictions (which happened automatically at the end of the British mandate) unlocked this immigration, and those who had been prepared to emigrate to the new Jewish state began to put their plans into action.

To put it another way, I have never seen anyone claim that the Romanian, Polish and Bulgarian exodus was caused by the 1948 war, yet 260,000 Jews from those countries moved to Israel between 1948-53 following the opening of the gates. Nor have I seen anyone claim that the 1948-53 exodus in then-very-pro-Western countries of Iran and Turkey was due to the 1948 war, yet 65,000 people emigrated to Israel over the same period from those two countries.

We need to consider such a direct connection very carefully given its well understood propagandistic utility as already explained in the lead.

Oncenawhile (talk) 08:17, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Onceawhile,
 * We can merge both discussions.
 * Morris, 1948 is eg a source for the fact it was triggered by the 'war' but that is only one reasons among others indeed.
 * Instead of the stating that the 'exodus' was caused by, we could state it 'follows' the '48 war.
 * Pluto2012 (talk) 08:41, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Pluto, I have added some thoughts on this in the thread above.
 * Re "follows", it is true that the acceleration of the exodus in some countries followed the events of 1948, but whether it followed "the war" is a different question.
 * Those who believe in "push factors" would say that the acceleration followed "the war", but those who believe in the "pull factors" would say that the acceleration followed "the end of the British Mandate with its lifting of the immigration restrictions".
 * Either way, we should specify exactly which countries this relates to, as this acceleration was not the case for the vast majority of the countries. Oncenawhile (talk) 18:11, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Lead is pov-ed
The lead is highly poved in trying to "summarize" complex discussion in the context of the propaganda war. In other words, it gives undue-weight to the controversies around this historical event, whereas only the analysis of scholars should be reported in the lead. Pluto2012 (talk) 07:50, 15 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi Pluto2012, I have mixed feelings about this. The reason I think that the lead deserves discussion of the propaganda war is that the only reason this exists as a combined topic is the propaganda war. In other words, the vast majority of the best scholars on this topic do not lump together the whole Arab and Muslim world and try to draw (often spurious connections) between the exoduses from the different countries. However it has become a single topic over the years due to its constant usage by politicians and lobby groups, who have then been critiqued by proper scholars. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:22, 15 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi Oncenawhile,
 * I agree with you that the main source for the link between both is the 'propanda war'. But I also think that we should simply not make the link in the lead and don't give any weight to the propaganda war. A source for this could be : Nurit Peled-Elhanan, Palestine in Israeli School Books: Ideology and Propaganda in Education where it is clearly stated.
 * Anyway, I also disagree with you when you state that scholar sources don't make the link either. Benny Morris in 1948. A History of the First Arab Israeli War, 2006 clearly makes the link in his conclusions (and fix this as a consequence of the war). There is an interesting 'primary source' about this : an article from New York Times on 16 May 1948
 * My mind is that this information (both the fact there is a parallelism and the fact is an argument in the propaganda war) is worth mentionning in the core of the article but not in the lead.
 * Pluto2012 (talk) 08:38, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Pluto2012, could you type out a quote from Morris's conclusions on this? I don't have the book, and the googlebooks snippets aren't enough for me to see this.
 * On the NYT article, that was simply a paraphrasing of a propaganda memorandum submitted by Nahum Goldmann's World Jewish Congress to the UN ECOSOC. The memorandum was submitted in January 1948, so it seems the timing of the NYT summary on the day after Israel was declared was more to do with selling newspapers than with actual news. Anyway, the UN record linked here in paragraphs 10-14 gives some description as to the discussion regarding the memorandum.
 * We have a lot of information regarding the exodus in each country in this article, so anyone who thinks the war really triggered the exodus should identify which country or countries specifically. What is certainly not true is the suggestion that the war triggered a widespread exodus from all Arab / Muslim countries. Oncenawhile (talk) 18:02, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Oncenawhile,
 * I will report what Morris writes precisely here. (Taking care of copyvio)
 * Thank you for the information about the memorandum...
 * I agree with you that the war should not have triggered an exodus from all Arab countries, even less that the exodus started later in numerous ones. But discrimination measures appeared/increased everywhere after the Arab defeat in the '48 war. Let's see what Morris and other say precisely.
 * Pluto2012 (talk) 17:23, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok thanks Pluto. Just to note on your last point that in 1949 all of the Maghreb (2/3 of the regional Jewish population) was still under European control, Turkey and Iran were not involved in the war and were very pro-Western, and Yemen was not involved in the war and was in the middle of a period of disorder. So in terms of governments of large Jewish communities who could credibly have enforced "discrimination measures" at the time we are really only talking about the pro-British regimes of the Kingdom of Iraq and the Kingdom of Egypt. From what I have read, the only discrimination measures put in place in that period were measures to stop emigration to Israel (so as not to strengthen the new country with people and capital) - because of the known activities of Israeli agents encouraging and aiding such an attempted exodus. Oncenawhile (talk) 18:46, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Last paragraph of lead
There has been a protracted attempt to include the text "about 850,000 Jewish refugees from Arab lands have been fed, housed and absorbed by Israel since 1948, while 750,000 Palestinian refugees have mostly resided in camps, dependent on United Nations relief" in the last paragraph of the lead.

That paragraph follows a structure:
 * Description of advocates for one side of the debate
 * Listing of push factors commonly cited
 * View re use of term "refugees"
 * Description of advocates for other side of the debate
 * Listing of pull factors commonly cited
 * View re use of term "refugees"

What the paragraph doesn't do is include selected arguments supporting any of the given positions. If we start trying to add this in with argument and counterargument the paragraph will spiral out of control.

Can we please keep this extra detail to the main body of the article.

Oncenawhile (talk) 22:18, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi User:Ykantor, re your addition of this sentence, please could you respond the the points above? Oncenawhile (talk) 20:06, 10 September 2014 (UTC)


 * This sentence is relevant, factual and well supported. In my opinion, the lead is the right location for it. If you feel like adding a proper background, then it could be added in the article sections and there is no need to elaborate in the lead. Previously you asked me not to use a Morris's paragraph, and I accepted it, although in my view, this paragraph should be included in the lead. On the other hand, you deleted some of my contributions for no reason. e.g. "Nuri al-Said summoned a representative of the Jewish community and claimed Israel was behind the emigration delay, threatening to "take them to the borders" and forcibly expel the Jews". Isn't it better for all of us to keep relevant, factual and supported sentences? and what's about keeping quoted  interpretations of quality RS (e.g. Benny Morris) ?  Even if it is considered to be a POV, it could be balanced by other quality RS. Ykantor (talk) 19:11, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Ykantor: Oncenawhile (talk) 22:21, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * re the Morris paragraph, his was a very broad generalisation of history that is disputed, so whilst the debate over the "neo lachrymose conception of Jewish history" is notable, it must be handled with both sides in balance. I simply suggested you shouldn't add without reading Cohen's article which describes the debate. I'm happy to continue discussing this point.
 * re the Nuri sentence, that specific topic is now covered in the article in lots of detail. I didn't realise you feel we should add more - please don't hesitate to WP:BEBOLD there.
 * re the subject of this particular thread, I agree with you that "Even if it is considered to be a POV, it could be balanced by other quality RS." My only complaint is that if we start adding lots of points and counterpoints to the lead here it will get unmanageable. The lead is already very long, but at least has some kind of structure to it. Adding this will also ruin the structure, as I try to explain at the top of this thread.

I do not see why that sentence is in the lead. How does it matter if the Jewish refugees were absorbed into the state of Israel, while the Arab refugees were left in refugee camps without a state? Kingsindian (talk) 22:55, 21 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Totally agree. Ykantor, I just pinged you because I noticed you added the sentence back but we're still working on this discussion. As I wrote above, I agree with you that it could be balanced by other quality RS, but I think if we start adding lots of points and counterpoints to the lead here it will get unmanageable.
 * The problem with your sentence is that it does only two things, and both are unnecessary:
 * It states that Israeli government / JIMENA / JJAC refer to the 850,000 as refugees. We already say that later in the same paragraph, so why duplicate
 * It juxtaposes the Jewish emigrants with Palestinian refugees. Again, we already say that earlier in the same paragraph with "view the Jewish exodus as equivalent to the 1948 Palestinian exodus". All the sentence is doing is saying the same thing in a more emotional way, and mixing it up with the refugee point.
 * Apart from the duplication, this specific claim re the 850,000 that the Israeli government / JIMENA / JJAC make is so obviously false / propagandistic that it needs to be dealt with very carefully.
 * Oncenawhile (talk) 23:07, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Nuri / Kirkbride
I am bringing the following sentence added by User:Ykantor here for discussion: It follows the following quote from Kirkbride:
 * Ykantor sentence: "The Iraqi government decided to retaliate for the expulsion of Arab refugees from Palestine by forcing the majority of the Jewish community of Iraq to go to Israel. Nuri al-Said, the Prime Minster of Iraq, proposed that a convoy of Iraqi Jews should be brought over in army lorries, taken to the Jordanian-Israeli frontier and forced to cross the border."
 * Kirkbride, referring to a discussion in Jan 1951: "It arose from a decision of the Iraqi government to retaliate for the expulsion of Arab refugees from Palestine by forcing the majority of the Jewish community of lraq to go to Israel. Nuri Said, the Prime Minster of Iraq, who was on a visit to Amman, came out with the astounding proposition that a convoy of Iraqi Jews should be brought over in army lorries escorted by armed cars, taken to the Jordanian-Israeli frontier and forced to cross the line."

If we are using Kirkbride so closely, we should quote him and put it in its proper context, and the chronological position needs to be corrected. I propose we find a way to work it into the following existing paragraphs of the article:
 * "As a result of these developments, al-Said was determined to drive the Jews out of his country as quickly as possible.[115][116][117][118]..... According to Gat, it is highly likely that one of Nuri as-Said's motives in trying to expel large numbers of Jews was the desire to aggravate Israel's economic problems (he had declared as such to the Arab world), although Nuri was well aware that the absorption of these immigrants was the policy on which Israel based its future.[121]"

We also need to ensure we don't contradict Bashkin's interpretation of the same meeting:
 * Bashkin 2012, p. 277: "By 1951 Sa'id realized that the Jews were about to leave Iraq, and wanted to see them depart immediately regardless of the Palestinian question.The British report that he asked the Jordanians to stop receiving refugees on the possibility of their being admitted to Israel and for all Arab countries to take steps to resettle them. FO 371/91635, 15 January 1951, from Sir A. Kirkbride (Amman) to Foreign Office (London) (a report on Nuri Sa'id's visit to Jordan)."

Bashkin read the actual Foreign Office memo on the meeting, whereas Kirkbride's version is based on his recollection in his memoirs written 26 years later. So we need to be careful.

The subtle point which it is important not to misrepresent, is that when this Kirkbride meeting took place, the Iraqi Jews were already registered and waiting to leave. The "retaliation" Kirkbride is referring to is not the act of making the Jews leave to Israel, since as Gat says, Nuri was well aware that it was Israel who desired the immigration all along. Rather, the "retaliation" relates to the timing of the immigration, because Israel was not ready at that time to receive all the refugees, as we explain in the article. As Gat says, one of Nuri's motives was "the desire to aggravate Israel's economic problems", because Israel was struggling with the integrating of other immigrant communities at the time.

Oncenawhile (talk) 21:30, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Are you sure that Bashkin and Kirkbride describe the same event? Kirkbride meeting was in early 1949 while bashkin talks about 1951. Ykantor (talk) 04:07, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes I am certain - see explanation at . Oncenawhile (talk) 08:22, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * According to:
 * Shulewitz 2000 p. 87, the meeting took place on Febr 1949.
 * Israel and the Palestinian Refugee Issue: The Formulation of a Policy, 1948-1956, By Jacob Tovy 2014, p. 162, the meeting took place on Febr 1949.
 * Gat 2013 p. 125 - Nuri Said raised the expulsion idea in Febr 1949 ; Gat p. 124 Nuri Said raised the expulsion issue in a meeting with King Abdullah at Oct 1950. Ykantor (talk) 21:19, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Responses below:
 * Shulewitz's source states "The date is determined by Hillel", referring to "Shlomo Hillel, Ruah Kadim (Operation Babylon) (Jerusalem: Edanim, 1985), 259–63 (Hebrew)". However, when one reads the English language 1987 version of Hillel's work, he writes on page 267: "at the end of January or at the beginning of February 1951".
 * Tovy sources Ya'akov Meron, who we have already dealt with in this discussion
 * Gat is not referring to the Kirkbride meeting in either of these references.
 * Oncenawhile (talk) 22:47, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, this is convincing. So The Kirkbride meeting happened at early 1951. - Nuri raised the expulsion issue at Febr 1949 ( Gat 2013 p. 46 and 125, apparently based on british archives). Ykantor (talk) 19:30, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Yep, we have Gat's point covered in detail in the article already:
 * The Iraqi government took in only 5,000 of the c.700,000 Palestinians who became refugees in 1948-49 and refused to submit to American and British pressure to admit more.[101] In January 1949, the pro-British Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Said discussed the idea of deporting Iraqi Jews to Israel with British officials, who explained that such a proposal would benefit Israel and adversely affect Arab countries.[102][103][104][105] According to Meir-Glitzenstein, such suggestions were "not intended to solve either the problem of the Palestinian Arab refugees or the problem of the Jewish minority in Iraq, but to torpedo plans to resettle Palestinian Arab refugees in Iraq".[106] In July 1949 the British government proposed to Nuri al-Said a population exchange in which Iraq would agree to settle 100,000 Palestinian refugees in Iraq; Nuri stated that if a fair arrangement could be agreed, "the Iraqi government would permit a voluntary move by Iraqi Jews to Palestine".[107] The Iraqi-British proposal was reported in the press in October 1949.[108] On 14 October 1949 Nuri Al Said raised the exchange of population concept with the economic mission survey.[109]
 * Oncenawhile (talk) 07:23, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

AIPAC
This is synthesis of published material which combines material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. In this case, it implies that Jerrold Nadler sponsored the resolution because he is an "AIPAC-member" (this is mentioned twice). This source is completely unrelated to the topic and is unnecessary (besides the link is dead).--Wlglunight93 (talk) 14:11, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * OK. Then we'll go with pro-Israel, which is well supported by the relevant sources. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:38, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Need for citations and failed citations
Re your revision as of 17:34, 15 December 2014 / also of 21:58, 15 December 2014 / and your justification (not in "Talk") of "Practically every relevant source cited in the article refers to expulsions", I dispute your claim. [Merriam-Webster: Expulsion = "the act of forcing someone to leave a place"; note the noun "act" - it is therefore not passive] In fact, exactly the contrary to what you claim is the case with the detailed text. 1) There are many instances quoted of killings, of hardships, of discrimination, of biased laws, but these are not Acts of "forcing people to leave a place". They may be motives for those people electing to leave, but they are not expulsions; 2) If you are drawn to return to Zion and the opportunity is presented, and you take it, that is even less of an expulsion, 3) If you are evacuated by a third party [the case with the Iranian and Algerian Jews (along with the other 'pied noirs')] without expressed force to partake, that is NOT an expulsion; and 4) in the case of most of the North African countries the text explicitly states "Jews were NOT expelled". Please explain your deletions. Erictheenquirer (talk) 15:55, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Erictheenquirer. Post-1967 Egypt, as an example, involved direct expulsion (as well as detention and torture). Then again, I don't know where this argument is going. I don't think anyone is going to the Nakba article saying "Sure, the Israelis burnt their homes, but they didn't physically escort them to the border. They could have found a way to stay." In any case, in no case does the article currently state (nor do I consider) that all Jews in the Middle East and North Africa were forcibly expelled. But that a number were is historical fact. Asilah1981 (talk) 20:07, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

G'day Asilah1981: Let us look at your response as reflected in the detailed text, and critique that:
 * Egypt: Background - [As an aside, I am querying the first line. The Kramer source (page 233) does not say that most of the Egyptian Jews were recent immigrants]
 * Specifically regarding 1948, the detailed text refers mostly to Mike Marqusee's work "Diasporic Dimensions". When you read the section focussed on Egypt (pages 217 to 219) one finds that Marqusee's main theme is that the pogrom aimed at Jews in Egypt was over-dramatized - viz. p.218 "Claims made by Zionists that Jews in Egypt were being subject to an official pogrom were challenged by Salvator Circuel, president of the Cairo Sephardim and owner of one of the bombed department stores"; "... imprisonment affected only 1% of the Egyptian Jews (paraphrased for brevity)". He notes (page 217) that "Zionists found slim pickings in Egypt". For the departure of the 20 000 Jews in 1948 (he notes that 55 000 remained), he uses the word "left"; no mention of expulsions. Neither does Kramer - an excellent source dedicated to the period up to 1952 - record expulsions of Jews in 1948.
 * The main text for Egypt for the Suez crisis lists "thousands" of Jews being expelled - again with no source being cited. I am underwhelmed. Laskier (I will add text and source later) comes closest to recording 1956 expulsions with: "It is estimated that as early as the end of November 1956 at least 500 Egyptian and stateless Jews had been expelled from Egypt".
 * There we have it. About 500 out of some 80 000 Egyptian Jews could have been actually expelled = <1%.
 * Other Arab states: The Marqusee reference copiously cited in the detailed text: "Apart from Iraq in 1950, the official policy of all the Arab states, and of most Arab nationalists, was to retain the Jewish population. not expel it."
 * Finally, Iraq:
 * To repeat, Marqusee notes "As in Iraq the Zionists found slim pickings". Page 214 - "Between 1919 and 1948, during the course of the British mandate, fewer than 8,000 Iraqi Jews migrated to Palestine. Even in the first two years after the birth of Israel, only 2,000 followed them. Then, between the summer of 1950 and the summer of 1951, almost the entire community — more than 120,000 people — decamped to Israel." By far the greatest exodus of Iraqi Jews occurred as a result of the Operation Ezra and Nehemiah airlifts. From that Wiki article we learn "The fact that the proclamation was written in the name of the State of Israel lent it added force and gave the (Iraqi) Jews the impression that the State of Israel and the Israeli government were calling on them to leave Iraq and move to Israel." As a result the mass airlift occurred, with the permission of the Iraqi government. The references are full of talk about the Nur al-Said PLAN to expel Jews, but nothing came of it.
 * In conclusion I find that the expulsion of some 500 out of 850 000 Arab Jews is hardly a percentage (<0.06%) to warrant the inclusion of "Expulsions" in a lead-in to this article. It is my intention to remove these references and to edit the main text where the wording does not match the citations and main articles. Erictheenquirer (talk) 11:50, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Erictheenquirer, if your edits are in good faith go ahead and add sources and perspectives on Egyptian exodus, but you seem to be mistaking the Suez Crisis for the six day war. Before doing so I would first have a look at the relevant article which has much more information on the matter - don't forget this is a summary.

Regarding lead, what you are saying is tantamount to denying Palestinian expulsion because burning down a house is not effectively an expulsion - just something that induces a person to want to leave. 180,000 Algerian jews were denied citizenship. In fact practically all Algerians who did not have four Muslim grandparents did. If you lost your Australian citizenship and residence permit, I'm pretty sure you would consider yourself "expelled" from Australia. If it was on the basis of not having four Anglo-Saxon / Christian grandparents, you might even consider yourself ethnically cleansed. So please add those to your 0.06%. As well as those jews facing similar scenarios in other countries. Note we have not included the word "killed" in the lead when the total number of jews killed exceeds your "anecdotal" 500. In any case, i think we can find a good dozen academic articles referring to various expulsions throughout the Middle East regarding the given period and many are referred to in this article and related articles. If you think they should be included, we can include them, I think its a bit of a waste of time. Asilah1981 (talk) 14:44, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Asilah1981If my edits were not in good faith I would not bother. I have the utmost respect for recorded history versus legends. In the 6-Day war Israel had been poking at Syria for a year and invaded it in April 1967. Egypt and Syria had a mutual defence agreement. Totally different issue. In Algeria a far greater number of 'pied noir' gentiles were denied citizenship and were evacuated along with the 'pied noir' Jews. Re Australia - expell in my English means to eject with force. Morris documented hundreds such cases involving the Palestinians, not just 2. Feel free to check the records for "real" expulsions as opposed to threats, unfavorable legislation, killings, confiscations, etc. I have done so and found only two verifiable instances with numbers/estimates, and one unsupported statement by Ilan Pappe. As I have mentioned on various occasions, I do not view voluntary emigration; no desire or efforts to return; leaving; going to Israel; etc. as expulsions. Neither do I take much notice of poets who write their personal experiences. I would be more than happy to receive your "academic articles" in good faith, but will naturally check them. In the meantime, I judge it fair that the reverts go ahead. Many thanks for your good spirited communications. Erictheenquirer (talk) 16:27, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

The lead quotes 900 000 to 1 000 000 yet thereafter the references are to 800 or 850 thousand. Erictheenquirer (talk) 16:49, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Erictheenquirer Your unusual views on the origins of the 6 day war are not particularly relevant to this discussion, nor is the fact that French colonists were also denied citizenship (Algerian Jews have a longer presence in Algeria than Arabs, so Pied Noir might be something of a misnomer). In any case, I do not agree with your edits, both in content and in language, but will give myself some time to sort out this issue. Asilah1981 (talk) 01:45, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Asilah1981I agree that the 6-day war is irrelevant here, so I was surprised when you brought it up originally and suggested that I was confusing Suez with it. Glad you agree that it it not pertinent.

Regarding comment about what actions are tantamount to what, if houses were burned down, then record that; if new biased laws were promulgated, then record that; if folk were put in jail arbitrarily (not for valid reasons like in the Lavon 'Affair'), then record that, but Wiki is no place to register interpretations that these are tantamount to physical expulsions from the country. That is a crystal clear POV. And THAT was exactly the problem with this article until recently, when I started insisting on the use of non-POV verbs, or on according real expulsions their proper weight and demanding that they reflect the provided citations (thanks to José from Political Forum for pointing this out). I believe that that is responsible editing. I would like to repeat, if you have scholarly sources for the expulsion (true sense) of thousands of Jews from any Arab country, then it will be a new citation, but very welcome of course. I caution in advance against using any source related to persons seeking financial recompense for the Jewish exodus - not WP:RS of course. Erictheenquirer (talk) 10:06, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

No, Erictheenquirer, I initially cited the expulsion of jews in Egypt during and after the Six day war, and you responded firstly discussing the plight of jews during Suez Crisis and then inexplicably giving your take on which country is to blame for the 6 day war (rather than sticking to the topic at hand). For this reason I felt you were confused.Asilah1981 (talk) 18:47, 27 December 2014 (UTC)


 * That was an excellent addition in my opinion. Obviously there were many factors that influenced the migrations of the Jews since 1948, whether to Israel, Europe or to the USA, and I believe that you captured them succinctly. One niggle; you deleted the need for a citation that 900 000 to 1 million Jews were involved in the exodus. I have seen the numbers 800 000 and 850 000 quoted far more often, indeed in this very article, and that sort of conflict bothers me. Could you perhaps explain why you are not interested in an explanatory citation? Erictheenquirer (talk) 15:38, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Baatarsaikan has replaced the "900 000 to 1 000 000" with 850 000 citing an Israeli governmental source. This is in line with many subsequent citations and I support his/her edit. Erictheenquirer (talk) 14:25, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Use of the term "Expulsions"
In the context as used in this article, the Merriam-Webster definition of "expel" is "to officially force (someone) to leave a place", and the definition of the verb "to force" (dictionary.com) is "to compel, constrain, or oblige" and "to drive or propel against resistance". I am fast gaining the conviction that many of the uses of the word "expulsion" in this article do not strictly respect these definitions, and include exodus stemming from voluntary exit choice occasioned by biased legislation, hardships, discrimination, killings of society members, imprisonment, and threats. Much as these may be valid cause for persons to elect to leave a place, they are not expulsions in the sense of being physically forced to leave.

In this context, I notice that this article contains comparisons with the Palestinian nakba. In "The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited", Benny Morris, arguably the historian who has had broadest access to a variety of archives, goes to considerable effort to distinguished between exoduses caused by abandonment (on leadership orders), fear (from the fall of a nearby town), fear (of being caught in fighting), military assault of the home settlement, psychological warfare, and actual physical expulsion. Morris' distinctions therefore respect the definitions noted above. As an editor I intend to look for evidence in any quoted citation that the claimed expulsions in this article adhere to these definitions, and failing proper evidence and support, to judge the source not to be WP:RS.

Specifically many of the offered citations in the Iraq section show distinct signs of referring to ANY exodus, flowing from whatever motivation, as being an 'expulsion'. This does not respect proper English or proper logic and reasoning. I offer this as an explanation of possible future edits. Erictheenquirer (talk) 15:30, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Dispute
So it seems that this very well researched and sourced article is subject to some POV pushing by user Oncenawhile  who, being incapable of removing the actual sourced facts of the bulk of the article, is focusing on the introductory section, hoping the bulk of wikipedia readers will not go on to the read the whole thing and the relevant sources. Without going into his motivations (which are pretty clear) the article content clearly validates that the bulk of jews were REFUGEES as per ALL definition of refugees under every single definition in international law. This is not "contentious" or "propaganda" or "politicized" or "controversial" as this user wishes to underline at every step. It is just historical fact. If he wants to include a section on how this annoys pro-palestinian activists, he can, but at the end of the article. As proof and rationale for stripping these people of their undeniable status as refugees he brings up the "one million plan", ooohh the evil zionists who were behind the whole operation (nothing to do with the pogroms, expulsions, discriminatory laws which the article goes on to detail). The "one million plan" happened to be a plan to bring european jews to Palestine in 1944 during the middle of the holocaust and has little to do with this subject matter. So Oncenawhile, tell me.... Were refugees from Poland during the Holocaust NOT refugees because of the One Million Plan? The prospect of going to Auschwitz had nothing to do with their decision to leave their homes, so evidently they were not refugees, right? What you are doing is not just POV pushing. It is deeply offensive to those people who lost everything and had to leave their homes, those who were brutally murdered and their descendants. What you are doing in wikipedia is actually likely to be a criminal offence in a number of western democratic countries. So please, refrain from involving yourself in this page with the sole purpose of pushing your political agenda with regards to the Palestinians. This is history, and it has nothing to do with the Palestinians. If history bothers you, Im fine with you remaining ignorant, but dont try to hide it from other people.

Thank you. Asilah1981 (talk) 21:25, 19 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Welcome to wikipedia. I assume you are the editor behind the previous anonymous edits by the Spanish IP addresses 83.37.39.141 / 79.146.26.71 / 83.37.181.64?
 * We can engage in discussion but you will need to respect the wikipedia policy WP:NPA and guideline WP:AGF. You will therefore need to retract your ad hominem attacks above, and focus on the content. You will need to support your assertions with sourced facts, quoting specific references to WP:RS.
 * Are you willing to participate on this basis? Oncenawhile (talk) 22:28, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

No need to welcome me I have been participating in wikipedia for close to a decade. I do not know if those are my IP addresses, not something I keep track of and publishing my supposed location is not really something likely to intimidate me. I will refrain from stating the obvious, if you find it embarrassing. Please read the definition of a refugee and explain how jewish minorities in arab countries who were ethnically cleansed do not fit the definition of refugee under international law or the national legislation of any country.

I will post it for you below:

Article 1 of the Convention as amended by the 1967 Protocol provides the definition of a refugee:

''"A person who owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.."

I have no particular interest in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, I am however interested in THIS topic, since I can see history is being distorted for your own personal agenda related to that issue. I also note above your first proposal in this talk page was to get rid of it altogether and merge it into "history of jews in the middle east." Would you also merge the article on the Armenian Genocide into "history of armenians in the Ottoman Empire"? Or the article on the Palestinian Nakba into History of Arabs in the Levant? Or the article on the Holocaust into History of Jews in Europe? This is anti-semitism - singling out and attempting to deny a horrific chapter in history and blame "zionist conspiracies" for jewish suffering. If you consider it an Ad Hominem attack so be it. Im not judging your person or character, I don't know who you are. I am judging your edits and their very obvious intentions... ''Asilah1981 (talk) 23:57, 19 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your explanation at.
 * It is helpful to understand that you "didn't like the disclaimers added in the introductory section"
 * It is also helpful to understand your concerns regarding the word "refugee", particularly the parallel you have drawn to the Palestinian refugees.
 * Let's work through this together, and hopefully we will build a little trust.
 * As to the disclaimers, please read the previous consensus discussion at this archive. Please then explain specifically what you disagree with.
 * As to refugees, it is a question of scholarly consensus. There is a clear scholarly dispute regarding which, if any, of the Jews from the Arab world were really refugees. And the only people who suggest they were ALL refugees are propagandists, because there is clear scholarly consensus that some emigrated out of choice. On the other hand, to reference your comparison, there is no scholarly dispute regarding whether the exodus of Palestinians were ALL refugees. Does this logic make sense? Oncenawhile (talk) 09:54, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Ok Oncenawhile after some thought I realize I went over the top and I do retract my accusations regarding your good faith in your edits (and yes, I did accuse you in a veiled way of antisemitism - I retract that as well). I freaked out because I saw you were active on dozens of articles related to the exodus and assumed you were targeting their content. Could you nevertheless engage with me on the objective parts of my arguments? I will keep cool from now on as you requested.Asilah1981 (talk) 20:52, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh I just realized you have answered. Will go through your comments and get back to you. Asilah1981 (talk) 20:54, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Ok I will get back to this topic some time next week since will be busy for next few days. Just one question, does this matter have to be discussed in the link you provided or is that discussion closed?Asilah1981 (talk) 20:59, 27 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Don't edit talk archive pages. To reopen an archived discussion, write here with a link to the original. Zerotalk 22:40, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for your post. I look forward to working with you on this when you have time. As Zero says, please open a new discussion here - archives should be read but not edited. Oncenawhile (talk) 00:34, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * By the way, since you have an interest in North Africa, you may find this short paper interesting. Oncenawhile (talk) 00:52, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Oncenawhile. Yes, I think I had read this article some years back. Here is another interesting one on the exodus from Morocco. In french though. Just a quick comment, I have a couple of minutes. There are a bunch of issues here which we should separate before launching a discussion. One is the issue of the "controversial topic and equivalence" and whether a para on it should be included in the intro/lead. The other is the content of such a section (I also don't think it is balanced here - the version in the actual Nakba article is simply a lost case). Another is the issue of the use of the term refugee. Finally, your overriding rationale I believe in editing these articles: that if we list every instance of antisemitism or violence throughout the middle east we will have a skewered picture of why jews left and not show that, as you said, the jewish diaspora from MENA countries was a very heterogeneous group. I think these 4 topics are complex and unrelated enough to be discussed separately from each other.Asilah1981 (talk) 16:26, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Asilah, I agree with your summary and using those four separate topics feels like a good way to proceed. I have created four subsections below - when you have time perhaps you could put down your thoughts in each and we can proceed to discuss each in parallel. Please remeber that it will be important to support your position with WP:RS, as we are not allowed to make our own arguments, however compelling they are (see WP:OR). Oncenawhile (talk) 23:30, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Question 1: Stating that this is a controversial topic in the lead?
I think I can accept stating it is a controversial topic somewhere in the lead, but we should limit ourselves to briefly stating why it is a controversial topic in terms of what are its implications for the pro-israeli and pro-palestinian narratives, rather than moving on to summarizing respective POVs from each side. Do you understand why and what I mean by this Oncenawhile? Delving into the respective arguments is inherently unstable and will lead to eternal edit conflicts long after we are dead.Asilah1981 (talk) 11:11, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with you on this. We must aim for a lead that can remain stable, and should avoid trying to put every possible argument in the lead. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:47, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Question 2: Text of final lead paragraph
Oncenawhile I think I can see where our differences of opinion lie here and somehow a consensus in possible, particularly because we are worried about different things. You are worried that ALL jewish migrants are defined as refugees fleeing persecution and I am worried that the persecution is blankly put into question for the entirety of the population. The formula you have been pursuing is "some people say X" and "some people say Y" which I understand but is making use of false equivalence and questioning history where there is no need to do so. It is also the worst way to deal with controversial topics (akin to using Abu Mazen's PhD thesis on the holocaust in the lead for that article). There are sufficient reliable, non activist, historical sources to come up with a formula whereby we accurately reflect reality and are both satisfied. I think we can find the adequate paragraph, carefully selecting high quality sources and ensure one which is stable. Stability should be our main objective, coming up with something which satisfies all good faith informed editors irrespective of their political stances and, in this case, views on the arab-israeli conflict. Note that I do not deny the actual veracity of your statements, neither do you of mine. So we have a high probability of success here.Asilah1981 (talk) 11:23, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Well said. I agree with you that there is a clear solution here - I fully agree that the article must not blankly put into question the persecution for the entire population. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:55, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Note that I think this "lead paragraph" refers to the complexity of the issue not to its controversy. I think we can separate it in two paragraphs. One paragraph related to "complexity" and the shorter line (question 1) regarding controversy. Hope that makes sense? i.e. depoliticize the lead as much as possible. Asilah1981 (talk) 11:28, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Am fine in concept, but let's discuss the detailed drafting. We have a large section on "Comparisons with Palestinian exodus" which should be contextualised in the lead. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:55, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Ykantor I don't like your edits to the end of the lead para. They are messy and inviting to edit wars. Also I don't think 850,000 jews made it to Israel. Asilah1981 (talk) 22:10, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Question 3: Neutral and non-neutral use of the term refugees in this article
Ok Oncenawhile. So here is my first point on this one topic. Both the UNHCR and UNRWA considered those expelled or fleeing from Arab countries as refugees and had mandate over them until Israel took over the responsibility over those heading for Israel. There is no real controversy over this, they fit the definition as to the UN Convention relating to the Rights of Refugees. It is just historical fact. Whether they are equivalent to Palestinian refugees morally, legally or whatever is a separate issue. Whether they should still be defined as refugees TODAY is another (they shouldn't since refugees are in theory a temporary condition and they should be rapidly integrated in a host country as per UNHCR. In the light of international law and bare facts it is impossible to deny their PAST status as refugees, leaving a country in which they feel discriminated or under potential short or mid-term threat at the least falls in the definition. If you mix sources involving political rhetoric (on BOTH SIDES of any given issue) with factual sources, there is no hope for any of these controversial articles. I will not continue with further argument on this topic until you have responded. Asilah1981 (talk) 13:12, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for your post. There is only one difference between our views here, and that is of quantum. The UN agencies considered some to be refugees. But certainly not all 850,000. We could go through it in detail, country by country, if you wish. As an example, perhaps a third of the number were French, British or other European citizens. So they could not have been refugees by definition. On top of that there are a large number of people who left due to the work of the Zionist emmissaries - work which started a few years before the violent events we note in the article. And there are many who moved for economic or other reasons.
 * To summarise, those who suggest that there were no refugees in the exodus are incorrect. And those that suggest that all 850,000 were refugees are also incorrect. Oncenawhile (talk) 15:59, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * yours: "perhaps a third of the number were French, British or other European citizens. So they could not have been refugees by definition". This is not true. If a jew felt insecured and decided to leave, what does it matter which passport he holds?  . Edward Said considered himself as a palestinian refugee, although he had an American passport. Would you accept that? Ykantor (talk) 16:43, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree on the irrelevance of citizenship with User talk:Ykantor, giving maybe a clearer example. In the wars in Yugoslavia, Croatians living in Serbian areas who had to flee their homes and resettle in the newly independent state of Croatia were still refugees despite having Croatian passports. Or Germans who were pushed out of formerly German territories annexed by Poland after WWII into East Germany were still refugees, despite having German passports. The majority of those with European citizenship I would say were in fact Algerian jews who, upon independence, were denied citizenship of the country in which they lived and had lived since before the Arabs even arrived to North Africa (you would be surprised how many algerian jews still define themselves as ethnic berbers, even in france). In any case they left all of their property and livelihood in that country. They, along with the european pied-noir community were refugees affected by changes in borders due to geopolitical events. User talk:Oncenawhile I was going to give a pretty harsh and uncompromising rebuke to the rest of your argument but I'll give it some thought first, see if we can find some common ground. Asilah1981 (talk) 22:03, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but your arguments are WP:OR / WP:SYNTH, whilst mine is following sources: "In terms of the Convention the pieds noirs did not constitute refugees in the formal sense. In migrating from Algeria (a French department) to metropolitan France, these individuals were not considered to have crossed an international border nor did they need to acquire a new citizenship." (page 5)
 * Either way, this is a distraction from my core point above which I suggest we focus on. The "some" vs. "all" point is the heart of this. We can debate the detail on a country by country basis. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:45, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Oncenawhile this is an excellent source, I don't know where you found it, but a good starting point for disentangling the issue of who is and is not to be a considered a refugee. The definition provided in the Convention and international law should be the focus of our discussion and, in my opinion, incorporated in the article. Your quote is a bit selective and out of context. I see the main point of the source provided is that we can distinguish between european settlers returning to the metropolis in the context of a decolonization process (despite the dramatic situation in which they returned, burning their property in despair at the port of wahrane, for example) and those who crossed without nationality and were of indigenous origin (in this case jews and harkis). I guess the status of the european pieds noirs would be akin to Internally Displaced Persons (In Darfur or North West Pakistan for example) for which there is no effective legal definition in international law. International Law seems to be changing to encompass these people though and UNHCR is progressively accepting mandate. European Pieds noirs were faced with violence and threat of violence (La valise ou le cerceuil, I dont know if you are familiar with that expression), so yes you have a valid point

Regarding what you say is the "some vs. all" being core topic of debate, I have no issue with that some may not have been refugees. 900,000 evidently a proprtion left for a variety of reason (maybe some left to get married or to study!) The problem is that the article as it now stands is it casts doubt on the entirety of the targeted population in "whether or not" terms. There is no question that a significant % if not the majority are classed as refugees under international law considering the political climate in most-arab countries in the 1940s, 50s and 60s and how they were classified at the time by international organizations. The article relates to the disappearance of jews from the Middle East and that did not happen for economic reasons. The article questions this reality in bulk for the entire exodus. Perhaps the term used should be consistently "refugees and other migrants".

BTW Im not providing sources because I want this to be a meaningful discussion and not "a battle of sources" which would be the easiest route to follow yet very unproductive. I will eventually begin tackling the other questions we have. I think we can draw the line between Original Research and logical reasoning and discussion, which is not forbidden. Regards, Asilah1981 (talk) 10:39, 4 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Isn't it possible that economic reasons and reasons of persecution overlap? In Germany, Jewish shops during the war were boycotted, creating economic hardship for Jews. Do we have sources that make arguments on economic grounds and, if so, is any of the overlap I suggest present? CZStudy (talk) 16:25, 18 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks for the above (and your other posts). It looks like we disagree on the question of whether the majority, or close to a majority were really refugees. I think that Ben-Gurion's determination to bring about the entire exodus when devising the One Million Plan cannot be ignored.
 * Ultimately, since the question of refugee statistics does not appear to have been dealt with by any scholar, neither of the "majority refugees" or "majority not-refugees" viewpoints can make it into the article because there is no source to support them. I think we can work around this, but we need to be thoughtful about the specific language.
 * Oncenawhile (talk) 00:08, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Oncenawhile Understood. Please have a look at final para of the lead. It tries to deal with whether Jewish migrants were equivalent to Nakba and whether they are refugees as a single issue,. Perhaps they should be disentangled. How about dealing with one issue at a time? i.e. not tying status as refugees to moral equivalence to Nakba (the latter issue i dont think should be delved into in the lead). Hope this makes sense.Asilah1981 (talk) 00:38, 26 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi, I am happy with your suggestion to disentangle the "Nakba equivalence" and "refugee" issues, assuming of course that we can do so based on WP:RS.
 * However, we have different views on whether the "Nakba equivalence" topic should be covered in the lead - I suggest this is one that will need wider discussion if we are going to progress it. I think the "Nakba equivalence" question should be mentioned in the lead because it is the reason that this exists as a combined topic. The best scholars on this topic do not lump together the whole Arab and Muslim world and try to draw spurious connections between the exoduses from the different countries. However, over time, politicians and lobby groups found the combined topic was a convenient tool to negate the Palestinian right of return claims, particularly as treatment as a whole region could allow spurious aspersions to be cast connecting the whole exodus directly and primarily to the Arab-Israeli conflict, and by extension, to the Nakba. (a classic example of this is this video from the Israeli Foreign ministry... A government propaganda video being called "The truth about..." is about as absurd as when Milli Vanilli told everyone that you know it's true, particularly when both are based on wilful omission of crucial information) Anyway, today it has become a single topic due to its constant usage by politicians and lobby groups, who have then been critiqued by respected scholars. Oncenawhile (talk) 00:18, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Oncenawhile Just as a parenthesis in our discussion, have you watched  this video? On another note, I have heard you argue this before: that the only reason this article exists as a combined arab and muslim is to negate the Palestinian right of return. I am surprised you say this and don't agree, and I don't understand. Do you mean combined in the sense of Arab AND Muslim? Its an Arab-Israeli conflict. How does this further the pro-israeli cause or position? I think the only reason it is combined is that the Palestinian cause aroused anti-semitism via religion in the wider muslim world albeit initially to a lesser extent than in the specifically arab world, where the issue was one of nationalism as well as religion. I really think that on this specific issue you are seeing zionist propaganda where there is none. Asilah1981 (talk) 01:29, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for sharing that video as I hadn't seen it previously. Having now watched the video, I think his heart is in the right place but his knowledge of history is poor and his understanding of realpolitik is naïve. He made a number of historical errors and omissions in there, e.g. (1) the statistic re Middle Eastern Christians reducing from 20 to 4% relates to the last 100 years, not the last 20 as he mentioned, and anyway much of the exodus in the last 20 years relates to the aftermath of the Iraq War, (2) his idealism re his own family story is misplaced, as he suggests other families were too scared to or did not want to return post the war, which is the opposite of what was being fought for at the Lausanne Conference of 1949, (3) he thinks the Palestinian right of return, with the refugees being one of the very few "facts on the ground" in favour of the Palestinian negotiating position, should be dropped by the Palestinians in return for nothing, and blames only the host nations for their continuing limbo, and (4) re this topic he referred to 800,000 Jews being "intimidated... because of the establishment of Israel" which is also the opposite of the historical record given almost all governments put a lockdown on Jewish emigration post the establishment of Israel, unless by "intimidated" he was referring to the actions of the Mossad LeAliyah Bet agents under the One Million Plan.
 * To your second question, we have a few scholarly quotes in the article explaining this:
 * "Although this is arguably not so much an attempt to secure meaningful redress for the Mizrahi as a tactic to stymie any productive discussion of the Palestinians claims, the campaign has been well-received in the United States, with resolutions on the issue introduced in the Senate and House of Representatives in February 2007." (Bradley, Megan (2013), Refugee Repatriation: Justice, Responsibility and Redress, Cambridge University Press, p. 91, ISBN 9781107026315)
 * "...a tactic to help the Israeli government deflect Palestinian refugee claims in any final Israeli-Palestinian peace deal, claims that include Palestinian refugees' demand for the 'right of return' to their pre-1948 homes in Israel." (Fischbach, Michael R. (2008), Claiming Jewish Communal Property in Iraq, Middle East Report)
 * "The campaign's proponents hope their efforts will prevent conferral of what is called a "right of return" on Palestinians, and reduce the size of the compensation Israel is liable to be asked to pay in exchange for Palestinian property appropriated by the state guardian of "lost" assets." (Yehouda Shenhav, Hitching a ride on the magic carpet)
 * Separately, this article provides a history of the attempted propaganda around this topic.
 * Oncenawhile (talk) 17:11, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I have been thinking about this Oncenawhile, I guess you are right we can't use the term Refugee to describe the collective in it's entirety in the lead. I do think, we can use it when referring to some of the specific waves in the body of the article.Asilah1981 (talk) 19:25, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Question 4: Which specific events should be described in detail?
This is a tough one. Maybe we should leave this to later down the line. Asilah1981 (talk) 11:24, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * OK. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:47, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Question 5: How to sort out arguments regarding controversy in main controversy section
I'm adding a 5th question: Structure and classification of arguments on the expanded controversy section which will be at the bottom of the article. I think this should be sub-divided into sub-sections according to how extreme their views are and the rationale for their arguments. I think classing them by origin or nationality of person making the argument involved is a wrong approach. This is one major defect I have noted here and on the main Nakba article.Asilah1981 (talk) 11:34, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with you here as well. We should focus on respected scholars on both sides of the debate. Other commentators can be included but should be deemphasised vs. accepted scholarly positions. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:49, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Question 6: How to summarise the reasons for the exodus in the lead
Happy new year all. Thanks to for the proposed amended "reasons" paragraph in the lead. I've put the two versions below for easier discussion. Asilah, would you mind explaining your thinking around the new draft? There are certain statements in there that I don't think can pass WP:V, such as "Some of the largest and most intense waves" and "less dramatic circumstances"? Also I don't think the structure and balance hold given that the last sentence talks about pull factors and then ends with "particularly in the context of [push factors]".

Oncenawhile (talk) 12:19, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Impact of 1948 persecutions in the lead
has added the sentence "As the armed conflict in Palestine intensified, the Jews in Arab and Moslem states suffered persecutions" to the lead. The sentence is factually correct, but being in the lead of an article on the Jewish Exodus creates an implication of a direct connection and primary importance to the exodus, which is of course WP:SYNTH. The subsequent paragraph in the lead starting "The reasons for the exodus..." gives persecutions as the first reason, among many. If we are going to "double down" on the impact of persecutions over and above all the other reasons for the exodus, it will need very strong sourcing. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:01, 9 February 2015 (UTC)


 * - You are right concerning the WP:SYNTH, So I added a text based on Morris. Note that Morris says: "The immediate propellants to flight were the popular Arab hostility, including pogroms, triggered by the war in Palestine and specific governmental measures, amounting to institutionalized discrimination against and oppression of the Jewish minority communities. while the next lines are specifying a long list of reason, of which the persecution is one of them. Hence it is misleading by minimizing the impact of the persecutions on the Jewish emigration.
 * - Is there a source for the "political instability" influence?
 * - Is there a source for the "highlight good relations between the Jewish communities and their country's governments" ? Morris (2008, p. 70) say that the U.N partition resolution changed the situation to the worst. Ykantor (talk) 20:02, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * - Is there a source for saying that those Jews were not refugees? It is amazing to use such a source: "''A refugee is a person who is expelled to another country, where he is not accepted by the government." If you look in dictionaries the definition is different. So why to use one mistaken source while the other sources has a different view? Ykantor (talk) 20:13, 11 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi :
 * Regarding the Morris quote, this has been discussed in detail at Talk:1948_Palestine_war/Archive_2. Per that thread, Morris' quote reflects one paragraph of a book on a different subject, and talks in very general terms without any sourcing. We should not be using such a source over and above the dozens of specialist sources used in this article
 * I still don't see a justification for the double-inclusion of this topic in the lead. The Morris quote uses the term "Partly". So if you want this area covered twice in the lead you need to prove that it was MORE important than the other push and pull factors listed.
 * Morris's sentence of "immediate propellants" simply mirrors our list of "push factors". That is what propellants literally are - push factors!
 * On the source requests, yes these are throughout the article. If you add "cn" templates where needed in the article i will link the references.
 * Oncenawhile (talk) 18:00, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * - Yours: "the dozens of specialist sources used in this article ". Do you mean that those sources oppose the "partly" reason? It seems that it is accepted that the persecutions were partly responsible for the emigration.
 * - The relative importance of the push factors. Looking at the numbers, about 500 thousand Jews emigrated and 260 thousand Jews immigrated to Israel, during those 3 years. Concerning those who immigrated to other countries (and not to Israel), why did not they emigrated before or after this period? It seems that they were driven by push factors only. It indirectly indicates that most of the Jews who left for Israel were driven by push factors and not because of Zionism.
 * -Yours: "covered twice in the lead". You are right.
 * -"political instability" influence?. I have looked in the article but did not find. Wil you please specify it?
 * - Is there a source for the "highlight good relations between the Jewish communities and their country's governments" ? This is an absurd. You yourself agree that the Jews were persecuted during this period. I propose to limit this factor to a proper time frame.
 * -Again: Is there a source for saying that those Jews were not refugees? It is amazing to use such a source: "''A refugee is a person who is expelled to another country, where he is not accepted by the government." If you look in dictionaries the definition is different. So why to use one mistaken source while the other sources has a different view? Ykantor (talk) 12:29, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * - My "dozens" comment is simply saying that Morris's analysis highly superficial and there are better sources we should use to source our lead. I agree with the partly statement - the question is simply how much.
 * - Other major reasons the exodus started in a big way in 1948 are (1) the lifting of the British immigration controls, and (2) the activation of the Israeli immigration plan following the creation of the state, hence the Yemeni, Libyan and Iraqi immigrations. The idea that persecution was the primary cause is (IMHO) disproven by the fact that, with the exception of Libya, emigration from the countries where there were riots / pogroms in 1947-49 was much lower than in Iraqi or Yemen.
 * - Can we deal with your other points in a different thread as they relate to different paragraphs so it'll be easier to follow
 * Oncenawhile (talk) 13:37, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Inaccurate title/sub-headings
There are two reasons why the current title is incorrect. Firstly, it includes Maghrebis as Arabs, even though thats debateable. For instance Morocco is nowhere near Arabia, its languages Berber and Moroccan-Arabic are both unintelligible among non-Moroccans, and the Morocco page states "HLA DNA data suggest that most Moroccans are of a Berber origin". Secondly, the expulsions happened during a period when some of these countries were secularistic. Therefore the adjective "Muslim" before "coumtry" would be inaccurate. It would be the equivalent of labeling grouping Spain, Italy, France and Mexico under "Catholic countries". Also, Turkey was secular for most of its history, and Sudan prior to being split had significant animist and Christian populations.

There are four solutions to these problems; either (a) change the title or (b) split the article or (c) gutting/mass deletion or (d) a mixture of all. So do you guys prefer option A, B or C, or D? Mowwweer (talk) 19:22, 18 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you for starting this discussion. You raise some interesting points. I'll have to consider them before offering an opinion. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 20:15, 18 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I am an Arabic-speaker and I have never understood a Moroccan, nor can any other Arab-speaker I know. In short, it is a real stretch to call Moroccans "Arab". The same argument applies for most people in western Algeria too. Mowwweer (talk) 23:32, 18 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose I'm confused about your argument. This discussion was raised after your move to Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim-majority countries was reverted. So it seems that, although you argue here against the use of the term "Arab", your real concern is the classification of countries as "Muslim" rather than "Muslim-majority".
 * Addressing the argument you have raised here, however (Arab or not), since the title encompasses both "Arab countries" and "Muslim countries", we can argue all day long whether Moroccans are rightly classified as Arabs or not, but we can't argue that Morocco is a Muslim (or Muslim-majority) country, so it falls under the umbrella of the article's title.
 * As to the finer argument over "Muslim" vs "Muslim-majority", I think that's just a matter of a more convenient title. The term "Muslim country" connotes (to my mind, at least) a country where, not only is the majority of the population Muslim, but one where the Muslim culture pervades life beyond the sphere of religious and faith life, but governs much of day-to-day life. It is from countries such as those that Jews fled or were expelled. I don't see a need to change the title based on the fine point of "Muslim" vs "Muslim-majority". Just one man's opinion. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 04:19, 19 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I also split the article between Maghreb and Arab. The following countries are disputably non-Arab: Morocco and Algeria. People from the Maghreb region are prominently known as Maghrebi rather than Arab. Libya is categorised as a "berber country" and "Maghreb country", not an "Arab country". As for Turkey, it was mostly secular from the 1920 onwards, when the caliphate was abolished. Mowwweer (talk) 09:11, 19 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Like WikiDan61, I'm not sure why there is an argument. While it's true that many people mistakenly consider "Arab" and "Muslim" to be synonymous, the title already says "Arab and Muslim", thereby including both Arab and non-Arab countries where Muslims are in the majority -- so this would seem, at least to me, to be a non-issue in this context.  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  13:29, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I also oppose and I imagine in a few years time we'll be having the same argument over a Christian exodus from the Muslim world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.29.60.255 (talk) 01:19, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Some Iraqi politicians...
Who? Were they notable? Were they on the fringes of Iraqi politics? Did their views influence policy? Why is Iraq worth highlighting above other counties in this paragraph even though it was only 10% of the exodus?

At the moment this looks like weasel wording and synth.

, please could you answer the above? Oncenawhile (talk) 11:43, 13 February 2015 (UTC)


 * - Iraqi motivation. There are 2 sources for the claim that the Iraq had other motivation to expel their Jews.
 * - Iraqi emigration importance. During the years 1948-1951, about 260 thousands Jews immigrated from Arab and Moslim countries to Israel. Among them, there were more than 100 thousand Iraqi Jews, making the emigration from Iraq the biggest one. Ykantor (talk) 12:00, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Everyone involved in the Iraqi exodus had a variety of motives. It was very complex. The Israeli government, the Iraqi Zionist underground, the Iraqi government, the Iraqi opposition, and other Iraqi politicians all had a web of different issues. As you know, the Iraqis were not expelled, and the initial government agreement to allow emigration was due to Israeli and other international pressure. Just focusing on one aspect of the motivations of a cherry picked group of people presents a distorted picture.
 * Yes Iraqi emigration was the biggest during the short period of mass Iraqi emigration. Egypt's was the biggest in 1956. Algeria's was the biggest during their civil war. Yemen's was the biggest in 1948. Again this is cherry picking.
 * Oncenawhile (talk) 13:23, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The case of the Iraqi Jews is complex. For instance, Avi Shlaim who is himself an Iraqi Jew who left when he was five years old, is emphatic that they were not persecuted, though he states that there was discrimination there. See this review for some of the complexities involved. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 10:47, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * A notorious partisan like Shlaim is not one who will well elucidate any such complexities. Plot Spoiler (talk) 22:17, 23 April 2015 (UTC)


 * -"There were anti Jewish laws." AdelmanBarkan2013p237
 * -"Sixty year old man was sentenced to five years in jail for getting a letter from his son in Palestine…Large numbers of Jews employed at government ministries were let go from their position" Bashkin2012p187
 * -"Immediately after the establishment of the State of Israel, the Iraqi government adopted a policy of anti-Jewish discrimination, mass dismissals from government service, and arrests. The climax of this policy was the hanging of the Jewish millionaire, Shafiq Ades on September 1948, and the confiscation of his property. The Jews felt the ground burning under their feet.Gat1998p47
 * -gat p. 113 "the Jews from the provincial towns. Several days after the airlift to Israel began, their Arab neighbours began to threaten their lives, demand their property and insist that they abandon their homes....the police decided...them to move to Baghdad. These Jews arrived penniless"
 * -Nuri's threats "encouraged Iraqi officials to abuse the departing jews before they boarded the planes and to destroy their baggage". Meir-Glitzenstein2004p206
 * -"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).
 * -"The minister of defence, Sadiq al-Bassam, denied much say in the conduct of the war, used the opportunity to initiate systematic harassment of the Iraqi Jewish community whose loyalties were now more suspect than ever. Their movements were restricted, Jews were barred from certain government posts, courts martial were used extensively to imprison and intimidate Jews and a prominent member of the Community was executed for allegedly assisting the new state of Israel.Tripp2002p122
 * -And the contrarian Shlaim: "these Jews left their native lands not as a result of officially sanctioned policies of persecution but because they felt threatened by the rising tide of Arab nationalism...the Arab defeat provoked a backlash against the Jews back home...my parents did not have the slightest sympathy with Zionism. We were not persecuted but opted to leave because we felt insecure."
 * - Who is right? the long list of historians who elaborate the anti Jewish oppression or the contrarian Shlaim? Ykantor (talk) 04:33, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I will ignore Plot Spoiler's random response as WP:JDLI. To Ykantor: Nobody is denying that there was discrimination against Jews in Iraq. I even said this in my original post. Iraq was hardly unique in that respect. Wars have a tendency to create repression on ethnic and religious grounds. The question is whether there was officially sanctioned policy to expel the Jews. And that has not been shown. The factors in their leaving is a mix of several factors, like rise of Arab nationalism, Israeli inducements and underground activities, economic considerations (Jews would leave their properties behind) and international pressure, as mentioned in the section "A reversal...". Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 07:24, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

lead
The last paragraph of the lead pretty much repeats the push/pull factors in the much better written previous paragraph. I'm not even sure what we're trying to say here. That some people compare it to the Palestinian exodus and others disagree? Can't we write that in plain English without repeating stuff? This is supposed to be a summary. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 06:58, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Plain English is good. Please make a proposal. Oncenawhile (talk) 16:44, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * As said previously, it is proposed to get rid of the last paragraph. A political discussion of nowadays is not relevant to the past. Ykantor (talk) 20:08, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Something along the lines of the issue is politicized, some people compare it to the Palestinian exodus. Those who do emphasize the push factors and consider these people refugees while those who don't emphasize the pull factors and do not consider them refugees.
 * Suggestions for exact wording welcome. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 05:21, 24 May 2015 (UTC)