Talk:Jewish exodus from Arab lands

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article has been mentioned by a media organization. The citation is in: Joey Kurtzman (November 16, 2006). "Wiki Wars". Jewcy.

Contents 1 Archives 2 Why the photo? 3 Why are Jews persecuted everywhere? 4 Dubious link 5 New York Times 6 Jayjg and Leifern- no citation provided 7 Syrian section 8 Needing citations 9 Tunisia's pre-48 Jewpop 10 Vjam and refugees 11 Exodus in scare quotes 12 Jewish Encyclopedia 13 Discrepancy 14 Archive 15 Sentence looks, on the face of it, very POV in opening 16 Lebanese Jews 17 Inappropriate 18 What's going on here? Flagrantly misleading statement of relative populations. 19 This article got a media mention, and so did this discussion page 20 Poorly written passage

[edit] Archives

• Talk:Jewish exodus from Arab lands/Archive 1 through July 2005

[edit] Why the photo?

Why the photo of the New York Times? Normally, we cite the Times just like any other source; this seems to give it undue prominence, unless that particular news story had historical effect (which the article doesn't assert). -- Jmabel | Talk 20:00, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Since this problem was and still is mainly forgotten, being overshadowed by the problem of Palestinian refugees (not trying to belittle their tragedy in any way), why not present some proof that it made front pages 58 years ago? ←Humus sapiens←ну? 20:34, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

How do we know it is not faked? Maybe we should ask the Times to authenticate it. But then, they might raise some copyright issues.

It's a genuine article, cited and quoted correctly. However, the article was on page E4 rather than the front page and quotes "Jewish spokesmen" as saying "the only effective solution would be to facilitate their quick transfer, in so far as is possible and practicable, to the new Jewish State". --Ian Pitchford 10:32, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Why are Jews persecuted everywhere?

It seems that wherever Jews go, Arab countries, Europe, USA, India, they are despised. I cannot think of any other group that is so universally hated. What is it about Jews that arouses such animosity? Maybe it is their claim to be the "Chosen people" although the Mormons, etc. make similar claims. Maybe it is their exclusiveness and inclination to help each other out at the expense of others (although they are not alone in that respect). Maybe it is their obsession with their "peoplehood" (ethnic or racial "soul") and their denial of other's "peoplehood".

Dear No-Name. What is your point? Should we edit the article to say that "the Jews had it comming?"--Dr.Worm 02:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dubious link

In the external links, the link described as

• Jewish and Arab Refugees from Middle-East-Info.org - Concise information about all regimes and terrorism in the Middle East

... is, in fact, a very partisan link bsaed on the Zionist argument of "why can't the vast sea of the Arab world just absorb the Palestinians?" Perhaps the link belongs here, but if so it should be appropriately decribed to indicate what it is. If, in 48 hours, it still has a description that conceals its one-sided nature, I intend simply to remove it. If someone thinks it belongs, and can edit both to describe the nature of the site and to how the link is relevant to the topic of this article, please do so.-- Jmabel | Talk 01:42, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Total agreement! -- Svest 01:53, 30 October 2005 (UTC)  ^{Wiki me up™}

I've cleaned up the description, it's now just a simple statement of fact - any concern still remaining? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:57, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Jayjg! It's fine for me. -- Svest 02:30, 30 October 2005 (UTC)  ^{Wiki me up™}

This is a really unsuitable link. We wouldn't endorse a link to a site promoting something along the lines of "support Hamas over tyranny", would we? Looking at this article as a whole we now have a fake New York Times front page, a reference to the hoax volume by Peters and now a link to a site that would not be endorsed by any serious scholar working in this field. Wikipedia deserves better. This article needs some references to the literature. When, for example, was the Jewish population of Libya ever 5% as the introduction claims? --Ian Pitchford 08:44, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

The captioning at least no longer looks like an endorsement, but it still is an extremely partisan link with nothing in the caption to indicate that. The only basis on which I can see including this link is laid out in Wikipedia:External_links#What_should_be_linked_to as "On articles with multiple Points of View, a link to sites dedicated to each, with a detailed explanation of each link. The number of links dedicated to one POV should not overwhelm the number dedicated to any other. One should attempt to add comments to these links informing the reader of what their POV is." Clearly, the current captioning does not conform to this last sentence. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:20, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

The link is actually to a faily biased article. It describes both Jewish refugees and Palestinians refugees. If we look at the type of one side material recently being added to wikipedia, this link is de-caf compare to the blatent propeganda that some admin are allowing to remain on this site. The ability to have a NPOV articles seem to have been lost already in th case of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict... Zeq 08:49, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm genuinely unsure what "faily biased" is supposed to mean, but the rest of your remark seems to say you think the site is OK. I disagree. It has the supposed New York Times front page which we've already determined is a fake. If you follow up the link "Hundreds of thousands of Arab Palestinians fled Jewish Israel" you get to one UN link followed by an image of an ad proclaiming "Arab nations falsely accuse Israel of the intolerance they practice." And an awful lot of the links that are sympathetic to the Palestinians are about their abuse at the hands of other Arabs, presented in such a manner as to let Israel off the hook. It's a very partisan site, and our captioning should show that. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:16, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Jmabel here, this is an extremely partisan link. I am going to change the caption further to try to reflect this. --Goodoldpolonius2 13:32, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Is "partisan" a good word for a Wikipedia editor use to describe the link? Is there nothing else that is accurate and reasonable? Jayjg ^(talk) 20:37, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I inserted the word "partisan" because I thought it was an accurate description: "biased supporter: a strong supporter of a person, group, or cause, especially one who does not listen to other people's opinions" and that to describe it as "pro-Israel" was an insult to Israel. --Ian Pitchford 22:07, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

It looks like a Wikipedia editor inserting a POV to me. At least half the links I see on Wikipedia could be described as "partisan". Jayjg ^(talk) 16:53, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, I don't see any support for its inclusion in the article above and so we really shouldn't have to describe it at all. I think stuff like this is so crude that it could have been put together by an anti-semitic group. Pro-Israel it's not. --Ian Pitchford 17:14, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] New York Times

In the previous section, Ian Pitchford refers to a "fake New York Times front page". Ian, in what sense is it a "fake"? -- Jmabel | Talk 21:20, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

It's a genuine article from page E4 of that day's NYT about the opinions expressed in a memorandum of the World Jewish Congress, i.e., it's actually a report of partisan opinion clearly presented as such. Someone creative has reformatted the article to look like a front page news story. --Ian Pitchford 21:09, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Ian, you are half-right, I think. I uploaded the original page layout and the version perviously in the WP article (since replaced) was clearly a manipulated image to place the New York Times banner over the article.

However, the article in the NYT was certainly a major article in the paper, and definitely not a summary of an opinion as you state. Section E was titled "News of the Week in Review" -- not the opinion section, and it mostly covered the conflicts in Israel. The article itself is datelined Lake Success (where the UN was meeting) and, while it does discuss the WJC proposal as the heart of the article, the reporting independently agrees: "Reports from the middle east make it clear that there is serious tension in all Arab countries...There are indications that the stage is being set for a tragedy of incalculable proportions." I can't see how this can be viewed as a report of partisan opinions, as you state, and it certainly does seem relevant here.

--Goodoldpolonius2 21:25, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Can anyone explain how we came to have a faked image in the article? I remember challenging its appropriateness when it was first added, but at that time no one was saying it was a fake. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:35, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I am taking full responsiblity for uploading it, but I did it in good faith. I provided the source: [1]. I am going to write to them asking the same question. Thanks Goodoldpolonius2 for finding a real image. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 07:07, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree partly with Goodoldpolonius2. The report is a news item, but the bulk of it is a report of a memorandum written by the World Jewish Congress of January 19 1948 submitted to the Economic and Social Council of the UN and other information submitted "later". All of the key information in the article, including the figures, are taken from the memorandum. In other words the article summarizes the opinion of the WJC and is not independent journalism by Mallory Browne of the New York Times. This is clear in the final section:

Today, with a Jewish State an established fact, Jewish spokesmen at Lake Success do not conceal their anxiety that this danger to the survival of the Jewish populations of Arab countries is even more imminent, and that the only effective solution would be to faciliate their quick transfer, in so far as is possible, and practicable, to the new Jewish State.

It's all very interesting. --Ian Pitchford 08:35, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jayjg and Leifern- no citation provided

Could you please provide sources for your latest additions to the article? Thanks & Regards, Huldra 20:04, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Are there any specific statements you question? Jayjg ^(talk) 20:48, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Here's a reference for the Judy Feld-Carr story: Levin, Itamar (2001). Locked Doors: The Seizure of Jewish Property in Arab Countries. Praeger/Greenwood. ISBN 0275971341 (pp. 200-201) and for the number of Jews in Syria in 1948: Avneri, Arieh (1984). The Claim of Dispossession: Jewish Land-Settlement and the Arabs 1878-1948. Transaction Publishers. ISBN 0878559647 (p. 276). The same source says there were only 5,000 Jews in Lebanon. I've seen the 38,000 figure for Jews in Libya in this and other publications, which makes them around 3% of the population in 1948. For the 1945 and 1948 pogroms: Harris, David A. (2001). In the Trenches: Selected Speeches and Writings of an American Jewish Activist, 1979-1999. KTAV Publishing House, Inc. ISBN 0881256935 (pp. 149-150) --Ian Pitchford 21:24, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Why can´t we place a reference to the above books on the article-page, instead of the Peters-book? I must admit I have not read the Peters-book, but have noted that A: it is very controversial, B: it is, as far as I understand, mostly about the (alleged) pre-1948 immigration of Arabs into the aerea which became Israel/West Bank. And that does not seem very relevant to the article. Regards, Huldra 21:49, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

What is controversial about the Peters book is the way she calculated the number of people (well, Arabs, specifically) that moved into and within the Mandate. There is no particular controversy about the treatment Jews suffered in Arab lands, and that topic is well referenced, in any event. --Leifern 22:37, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

That is your opinion. All the criticism I have read is about the core argument in her book, related to demographical issues. --Leifern 02:05, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Au contraire, Peters' treatment of that topic has the same hysterical tone and same accuracy problems as the rest of her book. --Zero 00:40, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Syrian section

The previous acts of the Syrian government are hardly an adequate reason to delete sourced and accurate material. I have reinserted it. Palmiro | Talk 22:17, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I didn't delete it, but it bears mentioning that nobody takes the Syrian offers as anything but a propaganda ploy. The Syrian government is harshly antisemitic[2], [3], [4], [5], [6], etc., etc., in policy and speech and is kidding nobody. --Leifern 22:38, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Please cite a source for the material you inserted, unfortunately your edit associates it with a source that says nothing of the sort.Palmiro | Talk 00:16, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

The information as inserted was unsourced one-sided propaganda; how can the Syrian government "maintain" something it never had? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:45, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

The source was in the link provided at the end, now associated with a completely unsourced allegation of a different source thanks to Leifern. The article says something similar about the Tunisian govt, who have hardly always been angels either. Palmiro | Talk 00:16, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

The claim itself didn't match the source; the Syrian government didn't "endeavour to retain strong relations with the emigrants", but rather in 2004 attempted to establish better relations, and convinced 12 Syrian Jews to go for a tour. I've fixed the article to reflect the source. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:49, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Needing citations

Given the controversial nature of this topic, it needs a lot more—and a lot more transparent, and probably a lot more solid—citation. There are a few inline blind external links as citations. The only cited non-web reference is Joan Peters' From Time Immemorial - The Origins of the Arab-Jewish Conflict over Palestine: an extremely controversial work, and this article gives no indication of it being so. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:28, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

I was interested in knowing the source of the two massicars in the 11th and 12th centuries.--Dr.Worm 02:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

"Typically, this emigration followed discrimination, harassment, persecution, and financial confiscation on the part of the majority population and/or government agencies" is noted as needing citation. I'd like to see one. As I read it, it sounds like the Arabs persecuted the Jews more than anyone else at the time. That they displaced what is now the largest group of refugees is deeply entwined in this situation and, I think, the lack of attention to this detail biases the entire article. That passage also fails to properly indicate that they emmigrated to Arab land, as Palestine is, in fact an Arab land that all these emmigrants displaced Arabs from.

As to Joan Peters' "From Time Immemorial" it is a fraudlent text. It was exposed as a fraud by several critics, including Norman Finkelstein and later Oxford University's Albert Hourani. Chomsky has several words to say about it here http://www.chomsky.info/books/power01.htm the wikipedia entry on finkelstein mentions Peters' book as being faulty here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Finkelstein#Finkelstein_and_Alan_Dershowitz imo this whole page is propaganda using wikipedia as a political campaign. A nomaly 06:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tunisia's pre-48 Jewpop

How can it be that the two figures given for Tunisia's Jewish population diverge so? Which number is more credible? Jewish Virtual Library says 105,000, as does History of the Jews in Tunisia. //Big Adamsky 00:33, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure about this, but it could be something to do with the number of Jews in Tunisia counted as French Jews. --Ian Pitchford 19:47, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

This is an extremely bizarre statement to me: "Excluding the region of Palestine, and omitting the Biblical account of the Jews' slavery in Egypt, Jews have lived in what are now Arab states at least since the Babylonian captivity (597 BCE), about 2,600 years ago." Why exclude Palestine and Egypt? It might have some meaning but I was left baffled. So baffled I believe I put the comment in the wrong spot. A nomaly 02:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vjam and refugees

Vjam is trying to qualify the reasons behind this exodus by claiming that there were only "many" departures due to discrimination, persecution, and other bad things Arab regimes did to Jews in Arab countries. This is something he has carried over from a similar debate on the article on Palestine, where the matter was settled by referring to this article. I object to this qualifier, for several reasons:

• The current phrasing does not make a judgment about the motivations for departure, but merely states that the exodus "followed" discrimination, etc. The reader may then read about the situation in individual countries and draw his/her own conclusions as to what level of adversity constitute legitimate grounds for claiming refugee status.
• A consistent standard should be applied. If this article is to explicitly question the legitimacy of Jewish rights to refugee status, then such explicit objections must also be made for other refugee groups, including Palestinians. This is a pissing contest I think we all want to avoid, but I for one will not permit a double standard here.
• Many is in any event a weasel word, because there is no threshold condition. Some might say that a few hundred constitute "many," others might think it's far more. We could write "most" or "the vast majority" but that implies a level of precision we couldn't substantiate.
• Vjam's arguments are spurious, to say the least. His favorite example is Morocco, where Jews were subject to riots, emigration bans, and economic sanctions - but this, he says, doesn't rise to the level of persecution by Nazi Germany or death squads in other areas. Unless someone can show me an absolute standard for what constitutes intolerable conditions, such comparisons are meaningless and potentially offensive. We can certainly point out that ill-treatment of Jews varied by country and over tim e, but there canbe no question that Jews suffered from widespread and institutional discrimination in all Arab countries, nor can there be any question that this was a major factor in their departure, which was close to universal. I am not sure it has ever happened that countries have been so completely emptied of an ethnic group - short of outright expulsion and genocide - than what happened in the Arab world. --Leifern 15:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

• The current phrasing does not make a judgment about the motivations for departure. I'd argue that "follow" in this context is a weasel word implying a causal link. Compare for example: "the resignation of Richard Nixon followed criticism of his policy of detente with the Soviet Union". Whilst not strictly a lie, this gives rise to an untrue implication. My view is that it is preferable not to shroud the implication, and then to give it the proper qualification. This could be done either by wording such as I previously inserted, or by making counterbalancing reference to other route causes of the migration.

I think there is a dispute - though among reasonable people there shouldn't be - about the causal link. I would say there is overwhelming evidence there is direct causality, and I would wager than well over 90% of those who made the exodus would agree - they fled conditions they only tolerated before because they had no choice. --Leifern 18:47, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Your wager can't be enough for Wikipedia to reflect this as fact. If there is overwhelming evidence of direct causality then let's see it. Still I feel we're making progress - can we agree that there is a proportion of migrants, whatever the percentage might be , who cannot properly be considered refugees? If so then the dispute comes down to how this is best expressed neutrally and what the implications are for characfterising the exodus. --Vjam 19:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

• A consistent standard should be applied. There's nothing to say someone can't question the status of Palestinian refugees if there's a credible basis for this. That equals a consistent standard. To suggest that doubt about the status of some of the Jewish migrants must be counterbalances in referance to Palestinians would not be an equal standard, it would just be fallacious reasoning.

""Which is why I'm not proposing that reasoning, nor has anyone who has argued against you. But it seems to me that if you've made it your cause to make sure that the term "refugee" be applied appropriately, I'd like to see you do it elsewhere. If you are happy to vigorously pursue a stringent standard for Jews but leave it to others to apply the same standard to, for example, Palestinians, it seems to me that you're at best tolerating a double standard. --Leifern 18:47, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

But I don't perceive any double standard.--Vjam 19:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

• Many is in any event a weasel word. No it isn't. It has no threshold because we have not established (perhaps we are unable to) where the threshold should lie. If you can think of an alternative (not "all" or "virtually all", which are factual disputed here), then that may be a way forward.

An accurate term would be "the overwhelming majority" - "many" is too limiting. If I were to speculate, I'd guess you'd put the number at between 20 and 30 from Yemen. --Leifern 18:47, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd need some convincing on "overwhelming". What if we were to say "substantial", and also make reference to an uneven picture in terms of conditions across the Arab world? --Vjam 19:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

• Vjam's arguments are spurious. Of course, I'd deny that. I also haven't used Nazi Germany as a camparator, nor have I suggested that anything not as bad as death squads is to be disregarded (I did say that death squads are an example of persecution, which they are). This is ad hominem, I feel. Of course there's no set standard for "intolerable conditions" - it's a subjective phrase. However, words such as "refugee" ought not to be used on Wikipedia with a subjective meaning. For this reason, comparison to other groups of people are appropriate (eg to black South Africans under Apartheid, who have never been considered as qualifying as refugees as a class, but where, I would suggest, there is more of a case). I'd agree with you about the uniqueness of the exodus, but this doesn't tell us anything in itself. Previously, I provided you with sources that speak to the complexity and variety of reasons for emmigration, and which are clearly not trying to build a partisan case. I'd be interested to find out why you reject these. --Vjam 17:57, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Plenty of black South Africans applied for and received political asylum. So did many Eastern European citizens during the Cold War. There are countless examples. But they first had to be able to leave the country. --Leifern 18:47, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but all I'm saying is that there was never any such calculus as "black South African migrant=refugee", and nor should there be for Jewish migrants in this context. --Vjam 19:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Well put by Leif'ern. I agree that consistency is invaluable if parameters are to be comparable and if labels (such as "refugee" and "persecution") are to be used in a manner that avoids hypocrisy. A spade is spade. //Big Adamsky 20:32, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Exodus in scare quotes

I honestly don't see what the justification is for putting "exodus" in scare quotes. Nobody is disputing that the Arab lands were all but emptied of Jews. --Leifern 13:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree. "Refugees" might be questionable and depend on who and when, but that an exodus did occur for one reason or another seems hard to deny. --Delirium 04:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I would like to ban most the use of scarequotes completely when the rationale behind it only is the de-legitimize a certain term. It looks silly, polemic and un-encyclopedic. Arguably correct usage: What has been described as "The Jewish exodus from Arab lands" refers to... <--- describes the specific term. ; Polemic usage: After the "exodus" of Jews.... <--- delegitimizes the term. Thus, both "exodus" and "refugee" should not be put in scarequotes in most places. --Cybbe 15:54, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jewish Encyclopedia

"On Marrekesh, see the Jewish Encyclopedia of 1906" Could someone please specify what article? And, since it is available on line, possibly provide the link? Thanks. - Jmabel | Talk 23:20, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discrepancy

In this article, it says there are about 5,230 Jews in Morocco as of 2001, but at Arab-Israeli conflict (in table near the end) it says there are 500. AnonMoos 07:26, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Archive

Can someone archieve this? Its hard to read as is, and even harder to edit.J. M. 23:13, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I archived through July 2005. - Jmabel | Talk 04:30, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sentence looks, on the face of it, very POV in opening

"Further Arab-Israeli wars were sustained by, and in turn exacerbated, anti-Jewish sentiment within the various Arab-majority states."

That's obvious, a complete description of why there were further wars and and not subject to dispute by anyone else, may we take it? Because if, might the gods forbid, it wasn't completely obviously totally correct, someone might come along and slap a POV tag on it. I am impressed though that there was no anti-Arab sentiment caused by the partition, or that if there were it didn't contribute at all to any later wars which that notably pacifist nation has been forced to fight. Such clear thinking offers some hope for the future. Midgley 16:54, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lebanese Jews

The section on the Jews in Lebanon is extremely bias, as are most of the entries for the other countries, but Lebanon especially.

Lebanon is known for it's tolerance of non-Muslims. In fact, if was created by the French specifically for non-Muslim Arabs (mostly Christians). While it's true that there are <100 Jews remaining in Lebanon today, the reasons they left Lebanon were NOT to flee persecution. My father was born and raised in Beirut, and one of his best friends when he was growing up was Jewish.

I think it's interesting that, while most Lebanese Jews fled Lebanon during the Civil War, only a very small percentage went to Israel. Most went to France or the United States. I would think that if a Jew in the Middle East (especially a nation that BORDERS Israel) was fleeing conflict (or anything for that matter), wouldn't Israel seem like an ideal place of refuge?

Also, there IS still a small Jewish community in Libya, and the UN noted that the Libyan government had taken steps to protect them from discrimination. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.229.170.75 (talk • contribs) 8 June 2006 and was modified July 2, 2006 by 216.243.206.226 (talk • contribs) who may or may not be the same person, but the edits appear "friendly".

With regard to most fleeing Lebanese Jews (and Syrian Jews for what it's worth) not going to Israel, perhaps it is either a wish to simply get away from the Middle East, a subconscious internalization of anti-Israel propaganda, and/or a perceived high-cost of resettlement versus the untold opportunities in the west. That's just my take on it, I'm sure reams have been written about this. --Shuki 09:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inappropriate

These Jews that left Arab countries were simply emigrants who were encouraged to move to Palestine by the Zionists. Similarly to the 1 million French colonists in Algeria and 500 thousand Portuguese colonists in Angola, the 150 thousand Jews there who had French citizenship simply relocated to France because they would lose their priveleges in a dignified society led by a revolutionary nationalist government. Jews from Morocco and Tunisia emigrated for similar reasons. It is dishonest to characterize Zionist Jewish emigrants via passenger aircraft from Algeria as refugees. It trivilizes what genuine refugees endure. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.126.254.93 (talk • contribs).

These "emigrants" suffered persecution and effective genocide throughout the years, were expelled and their belongings and money confiscated. Amoruso 23:50, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

That is just absurd. The Jews emigrated to Palestine simply because they were welcomed and encouraged by the Zionists. Israeli law unconditionally will accept any Jew who wishes to reside in Israel.

Your use of genocide trivializes the term. An incident or two here and there involving a dozen Jews does not by any stretch constitute genocide. If this were the case, then the numerous acts of terrorism against Arabs by Zionist thugs like Haganah constitutes genocide. Jews lived in Islamic countries for hundreds of years in peace. There were no disturbances until the Zionists stole the land of the indigenous Palestinians and forced them out to become refugees in neighbouring countries. These people still have not been permitted to return to their ancestral homeland. In contrast, the Jewish "refugees" merely booked a flight from this or that airline to Tel-Aviv. Calling a Jew of Algeria a "refugee" would be like calling a Portuguese colonist an Angola in 1975 "refugee" which is just laughable. Whereas the Palestinians who have been displaced genuinely wish to return to their homeland, Sephardic Jew colonists in Palestine do not care about the prospect of returning to Iraq.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.126.254.93 (talk • contribs).

68.126.254.93: instead of soapboxing, you might want to check Islam and anti-Semitism and Arabs and anti-Semitism. And please learn how to sign your posts. Thanks. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 06:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What's going on here? Flagrantly misleading statement of relative populations.

What's going on here?

This statement is flagrantly misleading. It compares the peak or near-peak of Jewish population in Arab lands with the trough of Israel-Arab population.

"Jews in Arab lands have been reduced by more than 99% since 1948 while the Arab population of Israel has grown larger than its 1948 base".

The sentence stands alone and is completely unnecessary, doesn't add anything to what went before or comes after.

PalestineRemembered 19:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how it can be misleading. It's a fact. Amoruso 20:10, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This article got a media mention, and so did this discussion page

This is an "excellent, dispassionate" article, and its editors are revolutionaries creating a new way to tell history, according to this profile of Wikipedia! PlainWrap 01:01, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Poorly written passage

"The Jewish refugees from Arab (and all other) lands has been, and continues to be, largely relieved by Israel. Unlike Arab nations for the Palestinian refugees, Israel provided funds and homes for Jewish refugees and immigrants."

1. Would someone like to attempt cleanup on the grammar here?
2. While there is no question that Israel has embraced Jewish refugees in a way that most Arab nations have not embraced Palestinian refugees, no small number of the latter have received some sort of housing and, in some cases, some financial aid from Arab states.

So, will someone please fix this up some time in the next few days to be decently written and accurate? Because if it's left to me, I'll just remove it. - Jmabel | Talk 04:39, 24 November 2006 (UTC)