In the Financial Times, Avi Shlaim reviews In Ishmael's House, a history of Jews living in Muslim lands, by Martin Gilbert, and published by Yale. (thanks to Nader Hashemi)
Nowhere is Gilbert more strikingly one-sided than in his account of the consequences of the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. In the course of this war, the name Palestine was wiped off the map and 726,000 Palestinians became refugees. In its wake, around 850,000 Jews left the Arab world, mostly to start a new life in the newborn State of Israel. For Gilbert, these Jews are simply the other half of the “double exodus” and he persistently refers to them as “refugees”. With few exceptions, however, 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. Zionist agents actively encouraged the Jews to leave their ancestral homes because the fledgling State of Israel was desperately short of manpower. Iraq exemplified this trend. The Iraqi army participated in the War for Palestine, and the Arab defeat provoked a backlash against the Jews back home. Out of a population of 138,000, roughly 120,000 left in 1950-51 in an atmosphere of panic and peril.
I was five years old in 1950 when my family reluctantly moved from Baghdad to Ramat Gan. We were Arab Jews, we spoke Arabic, our roots went back to the Babylonian exile two and a half millennia ago and my parents did not have the slightest sympathy with Zionism. We were not persecuted but opted to leave because we felt insecure. So, unlike the Palestinians who were driven out of their homes, we were not refugees in the proper sense of the word. But we were truly victims of the Arab-Israeli conflict.
Despite all its shortcomings, Gilbert’s book is an illuminating and a moving account of the history of the Jews in Arab lands. But he is psychologically hard-wired to see anti-Semitism everywhere. The picture he paints is consequently unbalanced.
By dwelling so persistently on the deficits, he downplays the record of tolerance, creative co-existence and multi-culturalism in Muslim lands which constitutes the best model we have for a brighter future.
Another misrepresentatively provocative headline.
The majority of the review praised the work, and substantiated that Jews were NOT peers in all of the Muslim world.
Also, the distinction between feeling insecure and being actively persecuted is often the difference between life and death, literally, that of anticipating how bad things could get.
In the quote of 726,000 forcefully removed, it is more than likely that a large number of those applied the same logic as is dismissed in the Iraqi Jew’s description.
Now if only you could be bothered to apply that notion to anyone other than your fellow Jews — like say, Palestinian children — then you’d be on the road to divesting yourself of your racist, imperialistic attitudes toward the Jewish nation.
I think your criticism of Phil’s headline is unfair and unsupported by the text of the Review.
You opined that Phil wrote “Another misrepresentatively provocative headline.
The majority of the review praised the work, and substantiated that Jews were NOT peers in all of the Muslim world.”
Shlaim’s review contained a dozen statements that indicated a negative assessment of the book. Those dozen statement included the observations that the author:
1. relied on an author (Bernard Lewis) who is known by many to produce biased work;
2. failed to place Jewish historical events and experiences in context — ie. these questions were never asked or answered: if Jews were being “persecuted,” what was happening in the broader arena; were only Jews being “persecuted” or were other people suffering as well? To extend this to the example of the 9 Iraqi Jews who were hanged as zionist spies, does the possibility exist that there WERE zionist spies in Iraq in 1967?
3. practices “anecdotal . . . not analytical . . .history.” That is, he presents only one side of the story.
Shlaim committed the greatest part of his review to showing how Gilbert’s writing is unbalanced and one-sided by offering at least three examples of one-sidedness; then he presented a counterargument to Gilbert’s one-sided thesis, and authenticated his counterargument by relating his first-person experience of having lived and experienced the way Jews were treated in Iraq.
_____
I’m not sure what you mean by “Jews were NOT peers in all of the Muslim world.”
I suspect that what you are getting at is that Jews were not in charge, or on the top of the heap, or in the very same status as the majority in every Muslim land where Jews lived.
My question to you is, Why would they be? Why should they be? If you’re a minority, by definition, you’re not in the majority. If the children of Abraham wanted to be the perpetual cock-o-the-walk, maybe they shoulda stayed in Ur, their native land, and slugged it out with their indigenous PEERS; perhaps Abraham left because he lost that competitive engagement and thought to engage less challenging competition elsewhere; in those multiple re-engagements, sometimes the competition was successful, sometimes not; that is the human condition, not just the Jewish condition.
As a Catholic, my family was, at times, not considered “PEERS” in CHRISTIAN USA; Christians, like Jews, were not PEERS in all of the Muslim world during the era of Muslim dominance of the Mediterranean;
Peers means equal rights under the law, equal rights to own property, equal rights to vote, equal rights to professions.
All of those were qualified in nearly every Muslim country.
Shlaim confirmed that the status of Jews was as Lewis described, the worst of inequality in Arab countries was nowhere near as bad as the worst in Europe, and the best in Arab countries was nowhere near the best in Europe.
Mediocre, going from tentatively accepted to disliked, rather than from hated to liked.
Phil’s quote dismissed the reasons that Jews left Arab countries, they only feared for their safety, not actively murdered. And, he exagerated the reasons that Arabs left Palestine in 1948, that they were only “ethnically cleansed” with no element of parallel fears.
It amounts to propaganda, misleading as much as informing.
“Phil’s quote dismissed the reasons that Jews left Arab countries, they only feared for their safety, not actively murdered. And, he exagerated the reasons that Arabs left Palestine in 1948, that they were only “ethnically cleansed” with no element of parallel fears.”
The difference was that the fears of the Palestinians were based on massacres like those at Deir Yassin.
“The majority of the review praised the work,”
Uh, no. The tone of the review was set by these remarks at the beginning–
“In his new book, historian Martin Gilbert tackles a relatively neglected but fascinating subject: the history of the Jews in Muslim lands. The end result, however, is essentially an extension of this lachrymose version from Europe to the Near East.”
The middle has this remark–
“Nowhere is Gilbert more strikingly one-sided than in his account of the consequences of the 1948 Arab-Israeli War.”
The review finishes with this–
“Despite all its shortcomings, Gilbert’s book is an illuminating and a moving account of the history of the Jews in Arab lands. But he is psychologically hard-wired to see anti-Semitism everywhere. The picture he paints is consequently unbalanced.
By dwelling so persistently on the deficits, he downplays the record of tolerance, creative co-existence and multi-culturalism in Muslim lands which constitutes the best model we have for a brighter future.”
So Prof. Shlaim concludes that the book is unbalanced and unfair. It’s bizarre—a simple click on the link, spend a minute or two reading it, and we can all see for ourselves that the review is full of critical remarks and yet you still try to assert the opposite.
>> So Prof. Shlaim concludes that the book is unbalanced and unfair. It’s bizarre—a simple click on the link, spend a minute or two reading it, and we can all see for ourselves that the review is full of critical remarks and yet you still try to assert the opposite.
You are missing the nuances that only a “humanist” can grasp. The wind of distraction has diverted your attention to the conclusion of invalidity. :-)
Well summarized Donald, but based on the vagaries of Witty’s diatribe, it’s certain that Witty didn’t bother reading beyond the headline.
Read the article again, and tell me of your feeling for the book. Are you urged to seek out the book and read, or are you urged to ignore it?
From the review, I am intrigued. I don’t look to Avi Shlaim to form my opinion for me. I’ll form it myself, but his language suggests to me that there is a lot of substance there, but Shlaim doesn’t like a nuance of the author’s politics, his selection of points.
I find MUCH very informative with politics that I find nutty. Thats as it should be.
but based on the vagaries of Witty’s diatribe, it’s certain that Witty didn’t bother reading beyond the headline.
Does he ever?
“Read the article again, and tell me of your feeling for the book.”
So I take that as an admission you haven’t read it.
“I don’t look to Avi Shlaim to form my opinion for me.”
That would be because you’ve decided that Shlaim’s rebuttal and explanation doesn’t fit with your rigid Zionist ideology and desperate need for a narrative of Jewish persecution in the Arab world.
I read every word, did you?
I had an entirely different reaction than you is all.
What do you think of Akiva Eldar?
link to haaretz.com
Land or a nuclear umbrella?
A peace-seeking Zionist. Hoping for a healthy Israel and a healthy Palestine.
I think your reaction to Shlaim’s comments indicate your bias, your political eyeglasses, more than your seeing is the point.
You state that you like authors, that you derive information or reject information, on the basis of their political stand.
I don’t. I’m confident that I can read a left-wing material and derive useful information to my knowledge, person, argument as well, and can read a right-wing material and derive useful information.
You describe more your rohrshach response, than information.
“’m confident that I can read a left-wing material and derive useful information to my knowledge, person, argument as well, and can read a right-wing material and derive useful information.”
The Dunning-Kruger effect in action.
What you do is select out the statements you wish to believe and dismiss the rest. You do this on human rights issues all the time–harsh criticisms of Palestinian crimes are accepted, harsh criticisms of Israel are placed in the “doubtful” or “dismissed” column in your mind.
You don’t have a clue what I take in, how, or how I use it in forming my understanding and presentation.
I am a skeptic. I do not believe what I am spoonfed. That allows me to consider what I am reading, assuming that there is truth in elements of every presentation, but not necessarily the conclusion derived.
To undertake LESS than that, to believe, or to disbelieve on the basis of the author, is gullible.
“In the quote of 726,000 forcefully removed,”
This number is wrong as it was an initial estimation. 957,000 was the final count in 1950 according to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency
link to en.wikipedia.org
And no..230,000 babies were not born within two years in case you’re tempted to cast doubt on this final count made by the UN Relief and Works Agency.
RICHARD WITTY- Let me begin by noting that unless you are a major donor to this website (which you seem intent on commandeering), you need to send Phil a big check. It galls me to think that you may be insulting our intelligence for free or on the cheap.
As for your comment: “In the quote of 726,000 forcefully removed, it is more than likely that a large number of those applied the same logic as is dismissed in the Iraqi Jew’s description.” Surely you must be aware of the intentional ethnic cleansing during the Nakba which relied heavily on massacres and assassinations to “encourage” the Palestinians to flee? Nothing like that occurred to the Arab Jews. There was no Jewish Deir Yasin. Yet, you, like Martin Gilbert, fabricate equivalency where there is none. You, like Martin Gilbert, are psychologically hardwired to see anti-Semitism everywhere, and to defend Zionist mythology, facts be damned. Your bias is extreme and rigid.
Keith, good word: “commandeering.” And I wish Phil and Adam would look at this, and institute a policy issued on another blog: Witty is restricted to three posts, max.
bless you for this article at such a time as this, Phil.
I’ve just been doing some research tickled by a comment James Zogby made in a panel conference last week. He said that persons and groups with “an axe to grind” about Islam and especially Arabs have dominated media as well as the witness chairs at, for example, Senate hearings on Arab/Islamic terrorism. He cited one example where “three witnesses” who were from that agenda-driven cadre testified. Zogby continued: “If three Muslims testified about Judaism, there would be such an outcry . . .”
I tried to isolate that hearing with the “three witnesses,” and further limited my research to Joe Lieberman’s Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology, and Homeland Security. I was overwhelmed by the number of hearings gathering testimony about Wahhabism, Islamic extremism, militant Islam in the US prison system (including a high-profile case involving, basically, Black gang members who converted to Islam while in prison), etc.
So I decided to try the converse approach: how many Subcommittee hearings had investigated zionism and its influence on US “homeland security” and/or the GWOT.
zip.
zero.
Lieberman’s subcommittee, and by extension of its influence, the US Congress, and by extension of its influence and legislation, the entire US political system, is
Avi Shlaim’s perspective is particularly important for Israel as well as the US. Many zionist websites argue for an equivalence between the demands of Palestinians for compensation for their stolen lands with an equivalent demand of Jews from Arab and Iran who left behind property.
It appears Israel is holding another price tag/bargaining chip in its portfolio: if compensation is demanded of Israel for Palestinians dispossessed of their property, Israel will whip out the detailed invoice for Jews “dispossessed of their property” in the Arab states and Iran. Since Israel controls the terms of the debate, and Israel and the concept of antisemitism controls the narrative, and, as James Zogby’s comment demonstrated, persons “with an axe to grind against Islam and Arabs” dominate access to the US Congress, it is not at all unlikely that the accounting for “compensation” to Palestinians will have Israel RECEIVING two shekels for every one shekel Palestinians receive, and most likely Israel will demand that the US, Arab states, and Iran, foot the bill. Israel intends to not only steal the land of the Palestinians but to be compensated for its pains in so doing, the ultimate scam.
“how many Subcommittee hearings had investigated zionism and its influence on US “homeland security” and/or the GWOT.”
This is ancient history at this point but Sen. Fulbright did have such hearings. Grant Smith has written quite a bit about U.S. investigations of Zionist influence. His articles can be read here:
link to irmep.org
PG, the House of Representatives Resolution, eventhough not binding, is already in place since a couple of years; it’s about the Zionists laying the groundwork to counterclaim on behalf of Arab Jews(this term drives Zionists up the wall even if Arab Jews use it themselves) for a set-off in the eventuality the Palestinians would one day file a claim against Israel for their dispossession. This non-binding resolution more or less negates the absurdity of Israel off-setting the claims of the Palestinians against ALL Arab states as if they were one state and the US Congressional resolution has given it to them on a silver platter. From the History News Network:
On April 1, 2008, the New York-based coalition Justice for Jews from Arab Countries (JJAC) trumpeted the fact that the United States House of Representatives passed Resolution 185, a non-binding “sense of the House” resolution calling attention to the fate of 800,000 Jews who left Arab countries in the wake of the first Arab-Israeli war of 1948, some without their property. The resolution referred to these Jews as “refugees,” and furthermore called on the President to ensure that American representatives at meetings of the United Nations and elsewhere make specific reference to them whenever mention was made of the issue of Palestinian refugees from 1948. JJAC hailed the action as a step towards redressing the grievances of what some Jewish activists have called “the other refugees.”
But why had JJAC, established relatively recently in 2002, suddenly become active on behalf of the rights of ex-Arab Jews – called Mizrahi or Sephardic Jews, although both terms are problematic – decades after most of them left the Arab world to build new lives in relative obscurity? And why did the Resolution fail to call explicitly for Jewish property compensation or restitution? Furthermore, why did the Resolution, which JJAC helped to write, link the fates, rights, and avenues of possible redress of ex-Arab Jews with those of the Palestinian refugees from 1948, who were not responsible for the Jews’ dispossession in the first place? Were not the mass Jewish exodus from the Arab world and the resultant property losses important enough issues to merit congressional scrutiny on their own, without reference to the Palestinians?
Full essay:
link to hnn.us
Naeim Giladi wrote an essay in 1998 about his experiences as an Iraqi Jew who went to Israel and the evolution of his opposition to Zionism. I have copied the link below, as well as the intro to his essay.
link to ameu.org
The Jews of Iraq
by: Naeim Giladi
April – May 1998
The Link – Volume 31, Issue 2
Page 1
I write this article for the same reason I wrote my book: to tell the American people, and especially American Jews, that Jews from Islamic lands did not emigrate willingly to Israel; that, to force them to leave, Jews killed Jews; and that, to buy time to confiscate ever more Arab lands, Jews on numerous occasions rejected genuine peace initiatives from their Arab neighbors.
I write about what the first prime minister of Israel called “cruel Zionism.”
I write about it because I was part of it.
Giladi’s book is an eye-opener.
Shlaim has said his father believed the Mossad set off an explosion in the Baghdad synagogue that spurred a lot of this exodus.
Another Israeli academic with Iraqi roots, Yehouda Shenhav had a lot of things to say about the bogus Zionist claim that 800,000 Jews were expelled. Of course some were definitely expelled like from Egypt, but not all of them. Some Jews were insulted at having being branded “refugees” by the Zionists because it negated their having made aliyah. A small piece from his essay that appeared in Haaretz in 2003:
“… Any reasonable person, Zionist or non-Zionist, must acknowledge that the analogy drawn between Palestinians and Mizrahi Jews is unfounded. Palestinian refugees did not want to leave Palestine. Many Palestinian communities were destroyed in 1948, and some 700,000 Palestinians were expelled, or fled, from the borders of historic Palestine. Those who left did not do so of their own volition.
In contrast, Jews from Arab lands came to this country under the initiative of the State of Israel and Jewish organizations. Some came of their own free will; others arrived against their will. Some lived comfortably and securely in Arab lands; others suffered from fear and oppression.”
The article can’t be found on the “new” Haaretz anymore and I had to find it elsewhere:
Hitching a ride on the magic carpet
By Yehouda Shenhav
Haaretz
August 15, 2003
link to ifamericansknew.org
More from Yehouda Shenhav:
“… The WOJAC (The World Organization of Jews from Arab Countries) figure who came up with the idea of “Jewish refugees” was Yaakov Meron, head of the Justice Ministry’s Arab legal affairs department. Meron propounded the most radical thesis ever devised concerning the history of Jews in Arab lands. He claimed Jews were expelled from Arab countries under policies enacted in concert with Palestinian leaders – and he termed these policies “ethnic cleansing.” Vehemently opposing the dramatic Zionist narrative, Meron claimed that Zionism had relied on romantic, borrowed phrases (“Magic Carpet,” “Operation Ezra and Nehemiah”) in the description of Mizrahi immigration waves to conceal the “fact” that Jewish migration was the result of “Arab expulsion policy.” In a bid to complete the analogy drawn between Palestinians and Mizrahi Jews, WOJAC publicists claimed that the Mizrahi immigrants lived in refugee camps in Israel during the 1950s (i.e., ma’abarot or transit camps), just like the Palestinian refugees.
The organization’s claims infuriated many Mizrahi Israelis who defined themselves as Zionists. As early as 1975, at the time of WOJAC’s formation, Knesset speaker Yisrael Yeshayahu declared: “We are not refugees. [Some of us] came to this country before the state was born. We had messianic aspirations.”
Shlomo Hillel, a government minister and an active Zionist in Iraq, adamantly opposed the analogy: “I don’t regard the departure of Jews from Arab lands as that of refugees. They came here because they wanted to, as Zionists.”
In a Knesset hearing, Ran Cohen stated emphatically: “I have this to say: I am not a refugee.” He added: “I came at the behest of Zionism, due to the pull that this land exerts, and due to the idea of redemption. Nobody is going to define me as a refugee.”
The opposition was so vociferous that Ora Schweitzer, chair of WOJAC’s political department, asked the organization’s secretariat to end its campaign. She reported that members of Strasburg’s Jewish community were so offended that they threatened to boycott organization meetings should the topic of “Sephardi Jews as refugees” ever come up again. Such remonstration precisely predicted the failure of the current organization, Justice for Jews from Arab Countries to inspire enthusiasm for its efforts.”
And once having the Mizrahi Jews in their clutches, the Zionist Ashkenazim used them as fellahin in the most desolate development towns and a living fence against Palestinian “infiltrators.” But as they were little better than animals, almost as bad as Arabs, nothing more was owed to them.
Hitching a Ride on the Magic Carpet is another great article by Professor Shenhav. I’m glad I’m not the only one who has it bookmarked.
That was a single incident in an environment of considerable harrassment and other violent incidents conducted by Iraqis. The emigration to Israel is not dismissable as solely by “choice”.
no facts from Witty, just assertions.
Plus, mistreatment of Mizrahi Jews continues to this day. It is the subject of Haggai Ram’s research and writing, and forms one, major pillar of Israeli demonization campaign against Iran. Furthermore, when scholars like Ram advance the thesis that Orientalism pervades the dominant Jewish Israeli mindset, his and other voices like his are silenced, censored by academia, military, and political powers in Israel, just as voices countering the dominant zionist narrative in the US are silenced.
Talking about having no rights as “peers,” Witty: If Jews in Israel wish to marginalize one or another group of their own, knock yourself out. But when zionists presume to exercise disproportionate and overwhelming influence on American institutions, then I and all Americans have a right and obligation to complain.
Yet Americans are called antisemitic if and when they do complain about too much zionist influence in American institutions, and on top of all that, Jews are the ONLY group in the US that has its own office to counter criticism of an ethnic/religious group. PEERS?
Disproportionate influence?
How? You want to have influence on Congress, organize. Make the better argument.
You want to have influence on public opinion, organize. Make the better argument.
No one is silencing you.
No one is silencing you.
-tell that to Norman Finkelstein
-tell that to Jonathan Kovel
-tell that to the Cynthia McKinney
-tell that to Paul Findley
-tell that to Charles Percy
-tell that to Prof Haggai Ram, whose speaking engagements are canceled due to his unwillingness to shape his conclusions to the accepted narrative.
And for myself, Witty, I’d be happy to “organize” and “make the better argument,” and go toe-to-toe with think tanks funded with Haim “I don’t pay taxes in the US” Saban’s Saban-Brookings Institute and Sheldon “here’s a free newspaper, Bibi” Adelson. Can I count on you for a $75 million donation — seed money, dontcha know.
None of those people are silenced. (They each write, speak, assemble.)
You are not silenced.
And, much can be done with little money, if you decide to actually work for what you claim to advocate for.
“None of those people are silenced. (They each write, speak, assemble.)”
Is losing ones ability to earn a living not being silenced Witty?
Who has lost one’s ability to earn a living?
Finkelstein? He publishes books, speaks publicly, writes for publications.
He, like I, like VERY many, had to change jobs/profession.
“He, like I, like VERY many, had to change jobs/profession.”
Because he was denied tenure as a result of a witch hunt orchaestrated by Allan Desrshowitz.
“Because he was denied tenure as a result of a witch hunt orchaestrated by Allan Desrshowitz.”
Witty would be the first to scream about it if a Zionist professor was denied tenure through a process of orchestrated vilification by anti-Zionists. And Witty is the last person to understand his own hypocrisy on this or any other issue.
“No one is silencing you.”
Tell that to the editor of The Age. He’ll tell you that some are having a jolly good try.
link to thejc.com
Thanks RoHa for this link..I wasn’t aware of this happening..
My hunch is that they’ll get him one way or another..They always do..
That wouldn’t have anything to do with Australian Jewish leaders such as Mr. Searle and Dr. Lamm confounding criticism of Israeli actions with “scant respect for the [Australian] Jewish community” now, would it?
Do you guys know what tenure is?
It is the decision of a university to shift a professor’s status from conditional hiring to unconditional.
While Dershowitz’ actions may have been over the top, the decision on Finkelstein’s tenure application was Depaul’s to make, not yours.
They undertook to weigh multiple concerns in their decision, and did so. Finkelstein’s scholarship was questioned.
You don’t question his scholarship, and therefore you are not able to render an opinion of it, having not tested it. I do question his scholarship, the method by which he forms and presents conclusions. And, I’m not able to render an opinion on his qualifications for tenure, as I’m not privy to his academic relations.
19,000,000 people in the US are unemployed and not earning a living today. Finkelstein is NOT one of those people. He speaks for a fee. He receives advances and royalties on books. (I don’t know this for a fact. It is an assumption on my part.)
You know what? I think I’ll believe Shlaim instead of a know-nothing.
On the subject of refugees and ethnic cleansing, Knesset speaker Reuven Rivlin recently acknowledge the mass expulsions of 1948 when he blurted out that fact as he was castigating those who chose to boycott the colonies:
link to maxblumenthal.com
again with the morals Who ever said he was immoral? Iago,mebbe.
In addition to Professor Shlaim’s personal experience and research, Operation Susannah as a result of which the Lavon Affair was born, further illustrates how Zionist agencies operated in their effort to push Jews to leave Arab countries.
===========================================
In 1948, Haganah men entered the town mosque in Lydd and massacred more than 170 civilians including women and children who were taking refuge there. This massacre came after another one in the same city when more than 400 civilians were slaughtered. Entire neighborhoods were bombarded and of the thousands of Palestinian residents, less than 5% were allowed to stay. The rest were told that if they did not leave, they would meet the same fate as the others.
In addition to other massacres such as the one in Tantura and Deir Yassin more than 500 villages were razed. Some of the foundations remain in several villages, but the Israeli government has sought to plant them with trees in order to cover the sites.
“Gilbert is an anecdotal historian, not an analytical one,” Shlaim’s polite way of noting that Gilbert is a raconteur which is not the same as a historian. This is much like the New York Times when it forgives its columnists for their errors and falsifications, the papers justification is that columnists are not reporters and not subject to those standards, which is the justification the media gives to the like of Beck, O’Reilly, and Limbaugh who’s jobs are to make news, not report on it.
Read for yourself. Anyone here read the book in question, or even know about its existence?
I haven’t.
The tirade of commentators here LOVE the implication of dismissal of any maltreatment of Jews in Arab communities, proving to themselves that Israel is demon.
Anyone that claims that Jews in Arab lands had it easy, is lying. That is one of the reasons that the Mizrahi are so conservative in Israel. Likud won consistently in the 60-70% of Mizrahi votes for decades. Shas (remember Rabbi Yosef), represents the Mizrahi orthodox Jewish community.
Its wonderful that so many of you feel some compassion for Mizrahi Jews that experienced culture shock when arriving and living in Israel with many different Ashkenazi Jews (many of whom also felt culture shock when arriving).
Act on their behalf if you feel such compassion. Don’t use them as fodder.
Likud won consistently in the 60-70% of Mizrahi votes for decades.
It is well documented and acknowledged within Israel that the overwhelming support for Likud had to do with the mistreatment of the Mizrahi under the decades of continual Labor-run governments. It wasn’t just culture shock. It was open and pervasive discrimination against the Arab Jews by Israel.
Read this from Smadar Lavie, an Israeli Mizrahi feminist:
link to electronicintifada.net
…Nothing has changed much in the relationship between Mizrahim and the master, from that time to this. True, we now have some poodles of our own: Mazuz, Itzik, Fuad, Mofaz — even Katsav, the poodle who overlooked the master’s choke chain. But as a community, we have remained dispossessed from economic stability or land ownership rights within the Hadera-Gedera confines — the two cities that chart the north and south margins of Israel’s center. We’ve been the precarious tenants in Israel’s gainful employment zone.
These days, as a community, we are the demographic majority of citizens, and on us rests Israel’s regime. But we do not get much in return.
Only scantily are we represented in the ruling elite: the courts, the universities, the specialty physicians and senior administrators. Most of us still believe that if we work real hard, we, too, can make it and become part of the elite. But aside from the handful of Mizrahim splendidly and repeatedly PRed by the public media, we are the majority in the long welfare lines, the long NGO food-for-the-hungry lines, and the long lines at the forced employment agencies. Likewise, we are always the majority in the occasional marches, sit-ins and demonstrations of the homeless.
The struggle for Kfar Shalem is the struggle for us all. A straight line stretches from the Kinneret colony’s expulsion of Yemenis in 1930 to the demolition orders on Kfar Shalem’s Mizrahi homes today. From the “‘E’eleh ba-Tamar” migration wave even to this very hour, the master consistently subjects us to his policy of “use ‘em up and throw ‘em away.”
if you knew what you were talking about, you might make a little more headway in your arguments.
I’m sure that the Mizrahi had severe conflicts with labor.
Likud however is a very conservative Zionist party. If they didn’t support its platform entirely, including its primary former themes of territorial annexation, settlement, and laissez-faire economics, they wouldn’t have voted for them.
You are using the difficult status of the Mizrahi to demonize Israel, NOT to support the Mizrahi.
In that sense, I regard your emphasis as cynically opportunistic.
“I’m sure that the Mizrahi had severe conflicts with labor.”
Labor, Kadima, Likud and the rest.
“You are using the difficult status of the Mizrahi to demonize Israel, NOT to support the Mizrahi.”
Stupid straw man argument. I never pretended to be supporting the Mizrahi, I am arguing that the Mizrahi are mistreated in Israel, which is no demonizing Israel but reporting the obvious.
Don’t you use terrorism to demonize Hamas?
“In that sense, I regard your emphasis as cynically opportunistic.”
And we regard you are a pathological liar and propagandist. It’s not as if your opinion carries any weight here Witty.
The difficult status of the Mizrahi is the result of Israel’s discrimination against them. I am not “demonizing” Israel. I am pointing out facts about Israel. Facts that you either don’t know or don’t care to know (or both). Israel as a Zionist state has not been good for Palestinians or Jews, but you can’t handle that fact.
And frankly, Scarlett, I don’t care how you label my posts. Its a defensive reaction of yours so that you can continue to walk around with your head up your a** wondering why everyone else can’t see how *rosy* things are up there.
Tree,
Of course you are demonizing Israel. Your thesis is “see how messed up Israel is, they discrimminate against their own. They use their own as a political story, but abuse them.”
I’m saying that you are doing exactly the same, that you are using the Mizrahi just for some political story.
I don’t know the reality of their experience. I do know that peoples’ experience rarely fit political propaganda, right or left.
That is the point. You want to call that apology, that is your failing.
“I do know that peoples’ experience rarely fit political propaganda, right or left.”
That’s overstated, but as there is some truth to it we should count it as one of the rare occasions when you’ve said something sensible.
My own impression about the Mizrahi is that some of them do hate the Arab world for the discrimination they experienced, while also hating the condescending Israeli left. But that’s just an impression I’ve picked up, not something I know for sure.
American Jews called Mizrahi Jews “Black Jews.” Surely that that racist reference did not come from the US.
“Read for yourself. Anyone here read the book in question, or even know about its existence? I haven’t”
That’s hardly surprising. Is there any book you have read Witty?
“The tirade of commentators here LOVE the implication of dismissal of any maltreatment of Jews in Arab communities, proving to themselves that Israel is demon.”
That would be because there is so much deliberate disinformation, exaggeration and myth spread by the likes of you to justify Israel’s maltreatment of Palestinians.
“Anyone that claims that Jews in Arab lands had it easy, is lying. That is one of the reasons that the Mizrahi are so conservative in Israel.”
False again. The Mizrahi are conservative because they’ve adopted the narrate of the Holocaust, that all the goyim are out to kill Jews.
“Its wonderful that so many of you feel some compassion for Mizrahi Jews that experienced culture shock when arriving and living in Israel with many different Ashkenazi Jews (many of whom also felt culture shock when arriving).”
The culture shock wasn’t made any easier by the racism they were confronted with and continue to confront. Zionism is racism after all.
The enormity of the irony of your posts escapes you, I’m sure.
That a man who had personally experienced voluntary emigration, coupled with the fact that he is a respectable historian and a scholar and a credible researcher is not sufficiently convincing. You would have readers believe that you, Dick Witty, who grew up in the US and only visited Israel several decades ago at the age of 13, coupled with the fact that you do not read scholarly research as your post history shows, are somehow, through some divine intervention, more knowledgeable about the issue at hand.
If religious ideology alone can instill such cognitive dissonance, just imagine what hallucinogens can do.
I find his comments informative, insightful, but an opinion only.
“I find his comments informative, insightful, but an opinion only.”
Translation: Avi nailed you and you have no way to rebut him. All you do is litter this blog with your opinion, pretending somehow that it is more relevant that facts or history.
The exchange above shows once again why Richard Witty is such an important participant on this blog.
*Phil posts a review by the distinguished Israeli scholar, Avi Shlaim.
*Richard Witty squirms, and instantaneously tries to discredit Shlaim. What’s important to recognize is that Richard is a stand-in for quite possibly millions of people, who have absorbed the Israeli version of events for decades. To his credit, he is not afraid to say what he feels — unlike a large part of the pro-Israel forces, who want to choke off debate and either silence or ignore people like Shlaim.
*Many of the distinguished other commentators to Mondoweiss –people like Avi, tree, shingo, and potsherd, to name just some of them — respond with a combination of thorough research, and passionate argument.
*The rest of us — and Mondoweiss is earning more and more visitors all the time — are better informed than we were.
* In short — and I don’t mean this comparison to be insulting to Richard — he is like the grain of sand, which inserted into the oyster, creates the irritation necessary to produce pearls.
I’m a bit confused. When it comes to operant conditioning, into which of the four categories does RW fit? I mean, is RW’s presence here a form of negative reinforcement, positive reinforcement, punishment, or perhaps extinction?
“To his credit, he is not afraid to say what he feels — unlike a large part of the pro-Israel forces, who want to choke off debate and either silence or ignore people like Shlaim.”
I beg to differ. He is afraid to say what he feels, which is why his sentences are so contorted and painfully convoluted. He tries so very hard to sugar coat his racism and ideological extremism, though lie so many Zionists before him (eg. Menachem Begin) he can’t help but let the truth slip out occasionally.
North,
Phil told me that you advocated for my presence here. Who knew that it was for your cynical political opportunism.
In the name of encouraging discussion, diversity of opinion, you resort to triviality.
If you regard my comments as an attempt to “discredit Shlaim”, then your head is an a rabbit hole.
I heard Shlaim express appreciation for the author and for his research, combined with criticism of what Shlaim regarded as bias.
You can’t live with a mix, then your view is unrealistically simplistic. Let Shlaim clarify if he dismissed the author’s work, or appreciated it, or a mix.
“I heard Shlaim express appreciation for the author and for his research, combined with criticism of what Shlaim regarded as bias.”
Heard it as in the voices in your head Witty, or did you read it? If so, please quote the expression of appreciation please.
Shingo: I see your point, but I disagree. I think Richard’s contortions and convolutions are caused when reality — in this case Shlaim’s reinterpretation of the exodus of the Arab Jews — collides with the conventional wisdom that Israel and its supporters promoted for the past 60 years. Richard is too honest to completely ignore Shlaim, but it would be too painful to fully recognize his truths. So Richard consistently waffles, by characteristically attacking Phil’s headlines, or by statements like
“I find his [Shlaim's] comments informative, insightful, but an opinion only.”
James,
You’re falling for Witty’s sleazy rhetorical instruments.
It’s like his support for a 2 state solution, while isisting that the only way to acheive it is through the status quo – more of the same. He can safely take the position that he suports a Palestinian state (which is doubtful) becasue he knows it’s not going to happen.
Similarly, when he describes Shlaim’s comments as informative, insightful, he doesn’t mean it and slips in the opinion only”as if to suggest Shalim is lying.
Witty is not too honest to ignore Shlaim, he simply tryig to be tactful because he believes that he stands a greater change of bending people to his argument if he pretends to share their views. The problem is that everyone has seen through him and knows him for whathe is – a racist and a pathological liar.
While I appreciate the pearl analogy, it’s also true that the presence of an irritant within a physical body may produce cancer more often than pearls.
All it takes is reading Shlaim’s review to see that it is overwhelmingly negative, with the only few positive comments followed by “but …”
>> If religious ideology alone can instill such cognitive dissonance …
Well, he is also a humanist, y’know.
[sarcasm on] A humanist, too? Why didn’t you say so earlier? I could have avoided this embarrassment. ….tsk tsk tsk {shakes head}. [sarcasm off]
I have not read Martin Gilbert’s book.
While waiting for the clothes to dry at the laundromat, I read the next chapter,The Unclassifiable, in Haggai Ram’s book, “Iranophobia.”
a sampler:
this one’s a two-fer — a selection process used in both Iran AND Iraq:
finally, to follow up on Witty’s exhortation to “Act on their behalf if you feel such compassion,” an explanation of the acculturation process imposed on Iranian Jews who did make aliyeh:
Acting in their behalf is helping them, not using them as fodder for a political argument.
Their experience in their former home countries was not a bed of roses, not peers, not accepted fully, including Iraq and Iran.
And, it was their home, the place that they lived, had generations of memories, relationships.
My wife’s family loved Hungary, even as many hated them. It was their home. If it was possible to remain there after the war, they would have. People choose to migrate for a reason. It is NOT an easy task. It is not explainable by “they were told a story”.
That many relent after the fact occurs with EVERY migration. It proves nothing politically, currently or historically.
Iran sort of accepts Jews. Day to day likely. But, since the Iranian revolution, there have been multiple show trials of Jewish “spies”, that were accompanied by expulsions, some random and even mass incarcerations, and some riots.
Only the very gullible believe Ahmenijad’s “we love our Jews”.
Maybe only the very gullible believe the oppossite, that Jews are routinely and pervasively persecuted.
I don’t think anyone here can do more than speculate on where on the spectrum Iranian or Iraqi Jewish life lies.
Richard, here’s another among the many Arab Jews to give you heartburn, it’s the famous Israeli author Sami Michael that was born in Iraq and that proudly calls himself an Arab Jew, a dirty word for you and other Zionists. He once said “We viewed ourselves as Arabs of Jewish extraction, we felt even more Arab than Arabs… We did not feel we belonged to a place but that the place belonged to us.”
Everybody loves the Jews, Richard; it’s the evil Zionists they don’t love and Iran is no exception. Another example of a Jew with Iraqi roots that was born in Israel and still feels he is an Arab was Tom Mehager, a 32-year old conscientious objector that refused to serve on the WB; there was an article on him on Mondoweiss last December (and it gave you heartburn back then too) and he said “My father was born in Iraq. All my family names are Arabic. I’m Arab… From the Zionist point of view, I’m supposed to be the same as a Jew from Holland. But I really feel connected to Israeli Arabs. [We] speak the same language.”
link to mondoweiss.net
Walid,
You insult me unnecessarily, imagining what my attitudes are.
Individuals can identify as they wish, simply.
You actually are confirming my points, not refuting them.
Every Mizrahi immigrant that I spoke with when in Israel (maybe 5 total) conveyed some sentimental connection with their prior home. And, they still expressed deep anger at some treatment in their host country, every one that I remember.
I can incorporate that dual understanding in my view. Can you?
Shlaim can as indicated by his review. Can you?