| Revision as of 21:18, 24 May 2015 editOnceinawhile (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers49,716 edits →top← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:25, 24 May 2015 edit undoNo More Mr Nice Guy (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers8,461 edits →forcibly inserting misleading text while removing correct textNext edit → | ||
| Line 314: | Line 314: | ||
| ::::::----On 14 October 1949 Nuri Al Said raised the exchange of population concept with the economic mission survey | ::::::----On 14 October 1949 Nuri Al Said raised the exchange of population concept with the economic mission survey | ||
| ::::::----in September 1950, he summoned a representative of the Jewish community and warned the Jewish community of Baghdad to make haste; otherwise, he would take the Jews to the borders himself. (to be continued) ] (]) 20:42, 24 May 2015 (UTC) | ::::::----in September 1950, he summoned a representative of the Jewish community and warned the Jewish community of Baghdad to make haste; otherwise, he would take the Jews to the borders himself. (to be continued) ] (]) 20:42, 24 May 2015 (UTC) | ||
| :::::::I don't have a problem with the political issue being mentioned in the lead along the lines of what I suggested in a section below (assuming there's something in the body of the article which is summarizes, of course). I don't think it needs the amount of detail it has now, though. | |||
| ::::::: is another comparison of the Iraq narratives, one by an academic rather than "a writer and book critic" . ] (]) 21:24, 24 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == Inaccurate title/sub-headings == | == Inaccurate title/sub-headings == | ||
Revision as of 21:25, 24 May 2015
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.
|
 Archives | |||||||
|
|||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 45 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
 | This article is substantially duplicated by a piece in an external publication. Since the external publication copied Misplaced Pages rather than the reverse, please do not flag this article as a copyright violation of the following source:
|
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. Zero 22:40, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
- Hi Asilah1981, 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)
- Hi Asilah1981, 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)
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 Asilah1981, 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 Asilah1981, 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 Asilah1981, 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 Asilah1981, 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)
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 Asilah1981 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 ".
| Current version
The reasons for the exodus included push factors, such as persecution, antisemitism, political instability, poverty and minor expulsions; together with pull factors, such as the desire to fulfill Zionist yearnings or find a better economic status and a secure home in Europe or the Americas. |
| Asilah's proposal
The reasons for migration are specific to the context in which they occurred. Some of the largest and most intense waves of Jewish migrations coincided with periods of widespread violence, persecution and political and economic disenfranchisement of Jews. Other migrations, such as those of Moroccan Jews, occurred over a longer period of time and in less dramatic circumstances, likely influenced by pull factors, such as the desire to fulfill Zionist yearnings or find a better economic status and a secure home in Europe or the Americas, particularly in the context of an increasingly hostile and politically unstable environment in Muslim and Arab majority countries. |
Oncenawhile (talk) 12:19, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Impact of 1948 persecutions in the lead
Ykantor 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 Ykantor:
- Regarding the Morris quote, this has been discussed in detail at Talk:1948_Palestine_war/Archive_2#.22The_war_also_marked_the_beginning_of_the_exodus.22. 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)
- Hi Ykantor:
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.
Ykantor, 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 ♝♚ 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)
- 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 ♝♚ 10:47, 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 ♝♚ 07:24, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
forcibly inserting misleading text while removing correct text
@Oncenawhile: The discussion with you is deeply disappointing. You remove a well supported text, you do not reply to the questions , you downgrade a well respected source like Morris as superficial but avoid supporting your opposite view.
-Moreover, you inserted misleading sentences that pushes an agenda. The question "how many of the emigrating Jews were refugees" is misleadingly presented as pushed by an agenda rather than looking on it at face value. I am an Israeli but I do not agree to "view the Jewish exodus as equivalent to the 1948 Palestinian exodus" although it is still a major tragedy. How come that the lead carry a misleading statement (for those years) like: "good relations between the Jewish communities and their country's governments,"? How come that at the same time the Jews were persecuted and had good relations? You have been asked for but there was no response. How come that your source uses a mistaken definition of a "refugee" but you avoid replying to the point? Ykantor (talk) 11:47, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
- Hi Ykantor, with respect to the topics in the first sentence, let's continue to discuss these in the threads above - I have no more right than anyone to decide the outcomes to these points, so I am keen to continue to discuss until we reach a point we are all satisfied with.
- With respect to the diff you linked to, this was arrived at after more than a month of discussion. The archived discussion is at Talk:Jewish_exodus_from_Arab_and_Muslim_countries/Archive_3#Proposed_text_for_lead. I have promised to make the sources clearer as you request, and so I will do so. But could you explain why you deleted two existing references here? Your edit summaries said the "Times of Israel" source was "mistaken", and that the CSM source was not WP:RS - I don't understand your first point and I don't agree with your second. Oncenawhile (talk) 14:25, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
- I have added in some more sources to support the points you were questioning. It has taken some time as this paragraph was written a long time ago so needed to go back to read the original sources.
- On the good relations point, you write "How come that at the same time the Jews were persecuted and had good relations". The word "government" is the key here. Of all the governments involved around the time of the exoduses, not a single one I am aware of is thought to have specifically persecuted their Jewish communities. Even in post-Suez Egypt, Nasser's government was targeting the Mutamassirun more broadly.
- The persecutions you are referring to that took place in e.g. de-colonialising Morocco or WWII Iraq were NOT government-led, in fact they were always quelled by the respective governments. So yes, scholars have absolutely pointed out that in e.g. Morocco and Iraq the governments had good relations with their Jewish communities. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:40, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
- - REFUGEE DEFINITION 1. You returned Alon lial words as a source, although I have already said that "How come that your source uses a mistaken definition of a "refugee" but you avoid replying to the point? ". It is amazing. If you just google for the term "refugee" , the first phrases in the search list (i.e. Misplaced Pages, U.N ) define what is a refugee, and see for yourself that Mr Lial mislead his listeners by re-defining what is a refugee. Please do not cite him here.
- - REFUGEE DEFINITION 2. The Csmonitor is not a wp:rs either. Also, in my opinion, the article should deal with the question whether some of the emigrating Jews were refugees, which is not related to what both sides politicians are claiming nowadays. Besides, are you sure the it is an Israeli policy to "settle its account with the Palestinians by deducting the lost assets of its own citizens, "? . I guess that there no Israeli Knesset members who supports such a stupid idea. Please do not cite this non-wp:rs here.
- -"How come that at the same time the Jews were persecuted and had good relations"?. Yours: "scholars have absolutely pointed out that in e.g. Morocco and Iraq the governments had good relations with their Jewish communities.". Are you sure that those scholar claims for good relations during those years? It is really amazing.
Yours:"Of all the governments involved around the time of the exoduses, not a single one I am aware of is thought to have specifically persecuted their Jewish communities.. Please have a look in this article for:
- Nuri Said words and acts
- Senior Arab officials threatened the Jews.
- "Jewish bank accounts were confiscated and many Jews lost their jobs"
- Also, Morris (2008, p. 412 ) says: "The war indirectly created a second, major refugee problem. Partly because of the clash of Jewish and Arab arms in Palestine, some five to six hundred thousand Jews who lived in the Arab world emigrated, were intimidated into flight, or were expelled from their native countries, most of them reaching Israel, with a minority resettling in France, Britain, and the other Western countries. 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. ". Ykantor (talk) 17:09, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
- Ykantor, the sentence we are discussing is written "Those who argue that the exodus does not equate to the Palestinian exodus... argue that most or all of those who left were not refugees." We are not therefore using Liel or others to prove that they were not refugees. We are simply saying that some people argue that they were not refugees. We have an entire section of the article or people making the same argument here. Are you disputing that people really make that argument?
- An WP:RS judgement depends on the subject and specific text being supported. If this was an article on Christian Science, I would agree that CSM may not be WP:RS. But on this topic they have no obvious bias, and their analysis of this point appears credible. Please take this to WP:RSN if you disagree.
- The same goes for your last point. We are not arguing that all the governments had good relations, only that scholars have made that argument. Having said that, on your three points above: 1. We have discussed Nuri before - the words and acts you refer to came after he had been convinced by external parties to allow an exodus, following which the "delay became a significant problem for the Iraqi government... as the large number of Jews "in limbo" created problems politically, economically and for domestic security"; 2. Were the "Senior Arab officials" you refer to responsible for the relevant government policies in their respective countries?; 3. This refers to post-Suez Egypt - see my comment from 15 Feb.
- Oncenawhile (talk) 07:55, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
- @Oncenawhile: Again:The discussion with you is deeply disappointing. You remove a well supported text, you do not reply to the questions , you downgrade a well respected source like Morris as superficial but avoid supporting your opposite view.
- - Concerning your wrong claim:"Of all the governments involved around the time of the exoduses, not a single one I am aware of is thought to have specifically persecuted their Jewish communities. You repeat claims that " scholars have made that argument" but you do not bother to provide those wp:rs although asked for few times. On the other hand, I provided Morris support and some of this specific article details, that proves the opposite: The establishment and the local population persecuted the Jews during those years.
- - I repeat: " in my opinion, the article should deal with the question whether some of the emigrating Jews were refugees, which is not related to what both sides politicians are claiming nowadays.".You do not bother to refer to this point.
- - There are more instances of your avoidance to deal with a questionable points. -So what is the consequence? Is it an attrition tactic? Ykantor (talk) 12:03, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
- This conversation would be easier if you would try to WP:AGF. This mistrust is clouding our discussion. I am keen to agree imporvements to the article with you - try working to "build" with me rather than constant negativity.
- To comment on each of your comments:
- - I am answering most of your questions. The only ones I have not answered immediately are where you have asked for details on sources for text written more than a year ago. This takes a bit of time, so let's be reasonable. Laskier is a good example - he definitely explained the good relationships between the Maghrebi governments and their Jewish populations; I just need to go back to look at the book again to find a quote. I find your aggression misplaced - you have answered less of my questions than I have of yours, so I sense the conversation has become uneven. On 17 Feb I asked two questions and made four points, which you have yet to respond to.
- - I agree with your comment "the article should deal with the question whether some of the emigrating Jews were refugees". See the "Question 3" thread above from December - we were making good progress there until Asilah left.
- - This article is hard work, as it covers a very broad and complex subject. If you are willing to work with me on this, and stop imagining things like "attrition tactic", I am sure we can achieve real improvements to the article. If I have missed answering any other questions, please just restate them clearly (preferably in a separate thread as we did in December with Questions 1-6). I will work with you on whatever topics you like, just please give me time to go back and get sources where they are less easily available.
- Oncenawhile (talk) 11:39, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
- -Yours:"I am keen to agree improvements to the article with you - try working to "build" with me". OK. Let's try to cooperate.
- -mine:"which is not related to what both sides politicians are claiming nowadays". I propose not to mention nowadays politics in the lead. I myself would like to exclude it from the article all together, but if you wish, it may stay in the relevant section.
- - mine: ""settle its account with the Palestinians by deducting the lost assets of its own citizens, "? . I guess that there are no Israeli Knesset members who supports such a stupid idea". One of your sources, Mr Shenhav in " Haaaretz, says : "It has yet to extract a single noteworthy declaration from any major Israeli politician", which is identical to my guess. So why should the article discuss the analogy that has no real support?
- -My couple of sentences (that you deleted) deals with the years 1948 to 1951, which in my opinion are important since the Israeli immigration gates were suddenly opened, and the 1947-1949 war raised the animosity toward the Jews in the Arab / Moslim states, which resulted in oppression, driven by both the population and the governments. However, each Arab country behaved differently toward the Jews during those 3 years. Some Arab states blocked Jewish emigration or the oppression there was not very bad. The result was a doubling of Israel Jewish population from 700 thousand Jews on 1948 to 1400 thousand Jews on 1951, among them 260 thousands Jews from Arab/ Moslem states. The major contributors were Iraq (110,000 Jews), Yemen, Libya and Morocco and much less from other Arab/ Moslem states . ( I have yet to verify it). Hence, those lead sentences (years 1948-1951) should relate to those countries, and not to other countries. Ykantor (talk) 13:55, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
- Hi Ykantor,
- Re "settle its account...", see for example some of the sources at this thread. Also Fischbach's 2013 book discusses exactly this.
- Re verifying the immigration during 48-51, see One_Million_Plan#Initial_immigration.
- I am fine with your concept of treating 48-51 separately in the lead. But per my edit comment on my revert just now, we should ensure that we are not implying that one factor was more important than another. Perhaps we can work together to craft a couple of sentences that we both think are neutral?
- Oncenawhile (talk) 22:04, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
- - I'll happily cooperate with you. Your recent deletion is not appropriate, since the deleted text is important and fully supported, while You have not supported yet your claim concerning "cherry picking". Hence I return this text.
- - I repeat my proposal to omit from the lead the nowadays politicians view. If at all, it should have a low weight in the article body. Ykantor (talk) 06:52, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
- Hi Ykantor,
Hi Ykantor, thanks for your post. Let's discuss the text specifically. Your proposal is:
- "As the armed conflict in Palestine intensified, the Jews in Arab and Moslem states suffered persecutions. Partly because of the 1948 Arab–Israeli War, more than half a million Jews emigrated from Arab countries. The war created hostility against local Jews, resulting in pogroms, government-sponsored discrimination and other hostility that drove many Jews out of Arab states, but Iraqi politicians candidly admitted that they wanted to expel their Jewish population for reasons of their own."
This wording implies that the most important factors in the 1948-51 exodus were (1) persecutions, hostility, pogroms, discrimination (2) the Arab-Israeli conflict, and (3) Iraqi politicians. Why are these the only factors you chose to highlight? We have a paragraph later on "push and pull factors", which covers the question of "why the exodus happened" in a much more neutral way.
This "why" question is undoubtedly the single most sensitive and difficult NPOV question we have on this article. Your text shows only one POV. I could write the other side of the story, supported by equally good sources as follows:
- "Following the British withdrawl in May 1948, immigration restrictions were immediately lifted. Mossad Aliyah Bet, Jewish Agency officials and local Zionist groups began organising immigration to Israel from across the region, as well as from Romania, Poland and other Eastern European nations. Immigrants were attracted by promises of future economic success, nationalistic fervour stoked by local Zionist organizations, religious beliefs, and political instability in their countries of origin."
Don't forget also that for many of the persecutions that took place such as the riots in Libya or Morocco, there were also claims that these outbursts were sparked by Zionists looking to catalyze divisions between the local Jews and their neighbors. Also we shouldn't forget to mention that during this 1948-51 period, almost all of the governments involved were actively trying to prevent Jewish emigration.
All of this is sourced already in the article, and both sides have their place. I am not proposing replacing one side's version with another, but rather that we work together to produce a version that show both sides in a balanced manner.
How do you propose we progress? Oncenawhile (talk) 10:50, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
- - I propose to differentiate between the years immediately after the 1948 war and the Later years. The lead says: "The first large-scale exoduses took place between 1948 and 1951, as two hundred sixty thousand Jews from Arab countries immigrated to Israel , among them up to 90% of the Jews in Iraq, Yemen and Libya,". The immigration from Iraq was the biggest one, by far. I have cited good wp:rs that the Iraqi government oppressed the Jews and wanted to get rid of them. Incidentally, the Israeli government did not wanted them to immigrate (temporarily) because of the Israeli limited absorbing capability. There are no sources (yet?) that claim otherwise. So, at least for Iraq, your balanced description does not reflect the emigration reasons. Ykantor (talk) 08:14, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
- Ykantor,
- We are agreed that we can differentiate the time periods as you suggest. In the 1948-53 period, per One_Million_Plan#Initial_immigration, 354,623 people from Asia and Africa immigrated to Israel. Of this 35% were from Iraq, 13% from Yemen, and 9-10% from each of Turkey, Tunisia, Iran and Libya.
- On Iraq, we have already discussed the "some politicians" reference at #Some_Iraqi_politicians... - unless you can prove any actual relevance, it is just anecdotal evidence which "may be unreliable due to cherry-picked or otherwise non-representative samples of typical cases". We have discussed the complexity of the situation in Iraq at this thread, as well as others. We also have a large number of good sources in the article at #Iraq. If we are going to bring up Iraq specifically here, we must do so in an NPOV fashion. That means describing the (1) Zionist underground movement and Mossad agents there, (2) the Baghdad bombings, (3) the British influence on Nuri and the British involvement in the negotiations to open the gates, (4) the many Israeli politicians who identified value of the human capital in the Iraqi Jewish community as the most attractive group of potential immigrants in the region, (5) that many Iraqi Jews blame the Zionist movement for misleading them into leaving their homeland, (6) that many Iraqi Jews chose to stay, (7) that the challenges around the actual immigration were due to an Israeli u-turn at the last minute etc.
- Oncenawhile (talk) 10:40, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
- Here it starts again. Although you do not bother to provide source that shows an allegedly cherry picking, you develop a parallel so called history. Is that what you call a cooperation?Ykantor (talk) 11:18, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
- I can point you to the sources - what information do you want sourced? It is all in the article already. Oncenawhile (talk) 11:19, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
- 1- You deleted this supported text: "As the armed conflict in Palestine intensified, the Jews in Arab and Moslem states suffered persecutions. Partly because of the 1948 Arab–Israeli War, more than half a million Jews emigrated from Arab countries. The war created hostility against local Jews, resulting in pogroms, government-sponsored discrimination and other hostility that drove many Jews out of Arab states, but Iraqi politicians candidly admitted that they wanted to expel their Jewish population for reasons of their own". In my opinion it is a good summarized description of the situation there. Your opinion is different and you call it a cherry picking. So why don't you provide a supported text for the alleged cherries that have not been picked yet.?
- 2- Concerning the bombing, it seems that it was not a Zionist plot. Initially the regime accused the Zionists in all of 5 cases of bombing, but in the trial they were indicted (and found guilty) in the later ones only, those who happened after the immigration registration expired. Hence the Zionists allegedly arranged the bombing in order to promote Jewish immigration by bombing after the last registration date. This is an absurd.
- 3- Technically the Jews were not expelled from Iraq, so there were 5% - 10% that decided to stay, but practically it was fairly close for most of the Jews. I am against equating the Jewish exodus with the Palestinian refugees, but let us have a look in the accumulation of reasons: "In examining the causes of the Arab exodus from Palestine over 1947–1949, accurate quantification is impossible. I have tried to show that the exodus occurred in stages and that causation was multi-layered: A Haifa merchant did not leave only because of the weeks or months of sniping and bombings; or because business was getting bad; or because of intimidation and extortion by irregulars; or because he feared the collapse of law and order when the British left; or because he feared for his prospects and livelihood under Jewish rule. He left because of the accumulation of all these factors. " (Morris, revisited, p. 598). Ykantor (talk) 19:34, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
- 1- My proposal: "Following the British withdrawl in May 1948, immigration restrictions were immediately lifted. Mossad Aliyah Bet, Jewish Agency officials and local Zionist groups began organising immigration to Israel from across the region, as well as from Romania, Poland and other Eastern European nations. The intensification of the armed conflict in Palestine, together with alleged agitation by local Zionist agents, resulted in growing hostility against the Jewish population in certain countries, including violent persecutions. Many governments in these countries, both colonial and independent, put up restrictions against Jewish emigration during this period, although these restrictions were dropped in Iraq and Yemen following negotiations with the Israeli government. These factors resulted in around 350,000 Jews emigrating from these countries to Israel from 1948-53, of which 35% were from Iraq, 13% from Yemen, and 9-10% from each of Turkey, Tunisia, Iran and Libya. Immigrants were attracted by promises of future economic success, nationalistic fervour stoked by local Zionist organizations, religious beliefs, and political instability in their countries of origin."
- 2- This has been discussed extensively at 1950–51 Baghdad bombings. If you read any of the sources at 1950–51_Baghdad_bombings#Bibliography, you will see from the context at the time that there is nothing absurd about it, although noone knows for sure.
- 3- Both were driven by multi-layered factors, and both populations (Palestinians and Mizrahi Jews) were victims. The difference is that, of all the factors, the only truly "strategic" or "planned" factor was on opposite sides in the two occasions. In the Palestinian exodus, the one factor which was clearly "strategic" was the Jewish leadership's desire to create a clear Jewish majority in Israel (some people think this was documented in Plan Dalet). In the Jewish exodus, the one factor which was clearly "strategic" was the Israeli leadership's desire to create an even stronger Jewish majority in Israel (i.e. the One Million Plan).
- Oncenawhile (talk) 08:42, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- I can point you to the sources - what information do you want sourced? It is all in the article already. Oncenawhile (talk) 11:19, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
- Here it starts again. Although you do not bother to provide source that shows an allegedly cherry picking, you develop a parallel so called history. Is that what you call a cooperation?Ykantor (talk) 11:18, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
- Ykantor,
- - I propose to differentiate between the years immediately after the 1948 war and the Later years. The lead says: "The first large-scale exoduses took place between 1948 and 1951, as two hundred sixty thousand Jews from Arab countries immigrated to Israel , among them up to 90% of the Jews in Iraq, Yemen and Libya,". The immigration from Iraq was the biggest one, by far. I have cited good wp:rs that the Iraqi government oppressed the Jews and wanted to get rid of them. Incidentally, the Israeli government did not wanted them to immigrate (temporarily) because of the Israeli limited absorbing capability. There are no sources (yet?) that claim otherwise. So, at least for Iraq, your balanced description does not reflect the emigration reasons. Ykantor (talk) 08:14, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi Ykantor, it's been two weeks since I proposed the draft in (1) above combining both our views. Please let me know if you have any comments. Oncenawhile (talk) 17:48, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
- - your proposed text is somehow improved but not sufficiently. The article and the lead should reflect the sources, relatively to the weight of the opinions. There are plenty of sources that claim that Jews in Arab/ Moslem countries were oppressed and some were driven out. As I recall, there are hardly any source who claim that the Zionist cause was a major factor. (Please update me if I am wrong). Hence the text should give a proper weight for each claim.
- - Countries were nearly all the Jews left (e.g. Iraq, Yemen, Libya) until 1952, Should be mentioned together. I am familiar in the case of Iraq, and they were de-facto expelled. (Adelman p. 179). In Egypt a big minority left at that time, but it does not make sense to claim that they were de-facto expelled since the majority remained. However, a lot of Jews were expelled or driven out after the 1956 Suez crisis.
- - Concerning the Palestinians, their fate was worst. I am not sure why this article should deal the Palestinians refugees problem. The Jewish exodus from Arab countries was deleted from this article, and apparently is not mentioned in other articles of the Template:Nakba.
- -Anyway, concerning an alleged plan to expel the Palestinians, I suggest to follow Benny Morris, who is one of the so called new historians. Please have a look at the article Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus where he is probably the most cited Historian. He says that there was no such a plan, and the poof is that if there was such a plan, why most of the Arab villages in central Galilee region stayed. He claims that other were expelled, but he considers the Israeli government responsible for the Palestinian Refugees problem, mainly because it did not allow them to return to there homes, when the war was over. It seems that all of the Arab sources support the version of an expulsion plan, so in that case both views should be mentioned. Ykantor (talk) 15:53, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
- - @Oncenawhile: Will you please refer to those issues? thanks Ykantor (talk) 20:05, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- Hi Ykantor, thanks for the prompt. To your first point, all of the quality research on this subject discusses Zionist agitation. The sources are all in the Further Reading section. I suggest you read Fischbach, Shenhav, Haoohen, Morris & Black, Parfitt, Roumani, Shohat, Chouraqui, Laskier, Beinin, Bashkina and Meir-Glitzenstein. It's critical to understand that the best scholars on this topic see the different regions as hardly comparable, and so avoid broad sweeping statements like those made by the propagandists, and thereby focus on just one country or sub-region.
- On your second point, the reality was much more complex than you suggest. The "de facto expelled" in Iraq is wholly incorrect - the Iraqi government wanted to keep the borders closed to Jewish emigration, yet ultimately gave into pressure to allow Israel to arrange for transfer of what was the most attractive pool of human capital out of all the Jewish communities in the whole region. And in Egypt, the Jews were not singled out - the entire mutamassirun was encouraged to leave after Suez.
- On the final paragraph, it is critical as it explains the only remaining ongoing relevance of the history. It explains why there is now a memorial day in Israel for this, why there have been bills in the US congress, and why this topic remains heated in the scholarly community. In fact, it explains why this topic exists at all, as without the modern agenda, the propagandistic construct of the "exodus from Arab and Muslim countries" would not have been created in the first place, but each country or sub-region would have been considered independently. The modern agenda is highly notable as a result.
- Oncenawhile (talk) 01:01, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
- You are very much mistaken about Iraq. The Jews there were very much persecuted for at least a decade before they left. From the Farhud to Shafiq Ades to being kicked out of all government office, not allowed to import/export, work in finance, bullied, arrested, not getting protection from the state in court, etc, etc, etc.
- I find it somewhat amusing that you call scholars you agree with "the best scholars" (at least half of which are self-proclaimed activists) and those you don't "propagandists".
- You are also very mistaken about what drives the people who care about this exodus, and the "modern agenda" as you call it. But apparently you have some kind of view into a parallel universe where the people who don't agree with you don't exist. Must be fun. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 06:38, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
- To your final point, the "modern agenda" point is based on an overwhelming number of sources. Some of them have been discussed before, e.g. in this archived thread.
- Since you are casting aspersions about my list of 13 scholars, please provide sources underpinning your "self-proclaimed activists" claim regarding the "at least half".
- Your statements about Iraq suggest that you have a very confused understanding of the history there. The actual timing of events, including the periods of good relations between the government and the Jewish communities in Iraq is a critical detail which you overlook. As is Israel's well documented interest in the immigration of Iraqi Jews, and many Iraqi Jews later blaming Israel for misleading them. It is all in the article. Oncenawhile (talk) 13:11, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
- - @Oncenawhile: Will you please refer to those issues? thanks Ykantor (talk) 20:05, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- - @Oncenawhile and No More Mr Nice Guy: Will you accept to move the lead's last paragraph (i.e politics) to the article body, perhaps to a new section called "retrospective"?
- - Oncenawhile: It seems that you prefer Shiblak version as for what happened in Iraq. ( see Gat p. 2 ) . This version is contradicting the other historians version (see next paragraph). So will you accept to present both parallel versions in the lead and in the article body?
- - yours:"all of the quality research on this subject discusses Zionist agitation". As for Iraq, Some of your suggested sources say clearly that the Iraqi government's oppression and the insecurity were the major factor for the exodus. e.g.
- ----"…fight against Zionism, the state engaged in a process of collective punishments…unjustly designated an entire community as second-rate citizens. These undemocratic measures …pushed the Jews to emigrate from Iraq" Bashkin2012p185
- ----"Any tension in the Middle east would impinge directly on the situation of the Jews. Their chances of having stability or equality in Iraq appeared slim, and therefore it is understandable that many members of the community… wished to leave Iraq…The timing was determined by the Iraqi government, Israel was the only available option, and the magnitude of the emigration was due to the growing insecurity of the Jewish community in 1950. … In a different, non catastrophic context, as occurred in other Muslim countries such as Iran and Egypt, one might have expected a much slower, drawn out exodus and a range of destinations, with Israel being only one of them, not necessarily the main one" Meir-Glitzenstein2004p216
- ----Nuri al-Said, the Iraqi prime minister, was determined to drive the Jews out of his country as quickly as possible, Gat2013p124 Bashkin2012p277, Ka cowiczLutomski2007
- Hi Ykantor, to your points
- My concern is that most news articles on this topic mention the attempted connection to the Palestinian refugees. Another example is this one. So why should we hide the issue by expunging it from the lead?
- I agree we should show both scholarly versions of the Iraq narrative. This article is a good comparison of the two.
- None of those sources, and no truly scholarly sources I have ever seen, state that oppression and insecurity were THE major factor. Frankly, so sensible scholar could ever make that claim, as there were so many competing factors at play. The best we can do is explain all the major factors, and not giving into temptation to prioritise whichever one we choose to believe is THE major factor.
- Please don't continue to mislead people by using that Nuri quote out of context. You and I have discussed this many times before and you are fully aware by now that the statement referred to a situation where the Jewish community had been stuck in limbo for many months following the temporary breakdown / delay of the indirect transfer arrangement between Israel and Iraq.
- Oncenawhile (talk) 19:30, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
- - What is the relation between nowadays politics and news and between an encyclopedic article? Other articles concerning the Arab-Israeli conflict do not mention current politics, so why this one should mention politics? In my opinion it shouldn't. However, in order to compromise and to get a consensus, I propose to move it to the article body.
- - Thank you for the interesting comparison article. I'll come back after I'll read it. In the meantime, will you accept to write a paragraph with Shiblak version and I'll write a paragraph with the other sources views.
- - Yours: "None of those sources, and no truly scholarly sources I have ever seen, state that oppression and insecurity were THE major factor". I presented here (and plan to add more) quotes with the claim that the main reason for the exodus was the insecurity, government oppression, etc.
- - If Nuri's quote is misleading, it is because it is only a sample of his other plans / quotes when he repeatedly wanted / proposed/ plans to expel/ oppress the Jews, already at 1947 and of course latter as well. from the article:
- ---- Before United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine vote, the Iraq's prime minister Nuri al-Said told British diplomats that if the United Nations solution was not "satisfactory", "severe measures should be taken against all Jews in Arab countries"
- ----In January 1949, the pro-British Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Said discussed the idea of deporting Iraqi Jews to Israel with British officials,
- ----On 14 October 1949 Nuri Al Said raised the exchange of population concept with the economic mission survey
- ----in September 1950, he summoned a representative of the Jewish community and warned the Jewish community of Baghdad to make haste; otherwise, he would take the Jews to the borders himself. (to be continued) Ykantor (talk) 20:42, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
- I don't have a problem with the political issue being mentioned in the lead along the lines of what I suggested in a section below (assuming there's something in the body of the article which is summarizes, of course). I don't think it needs the amount of detail it has now, though.
- Here's is another comparison of the Iraq narratives, one by an academic rather than "a writer and book critic" . No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:24, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
- Hi Ykantor, to your points
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 /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 @Mowwweer: 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. WikiDan61ReadMe!! 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 /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)
one million plan
I removed the following text from the article:
From 1944, the One Million Plan, which became the top priority of Jewish leadership in Mandatory Palestine, encouraged the immigration of the Jews of Europe, the Middle East and North Africa into what became the State of Israel.
First of all, the lead is supposed to summarize the article. This information does not appear in the body of the article and thus is not a summary.
Second none of the sources here actually tie it to the Jews leaving their countries. There was a plan, who said it had an effect on the topic of this article? Someone bring some sources.
Third, the The One Million Plan appears in the article 3 times. Twice in the lead and once in the body (and that not related to the lead). If that's not UNDUE I don't know what is.
So, if someone can bring some sources to connect this to the article, and develop a section in the body, we could possibly restore it with some changes. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 06:50, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- Great, then put it in the main body of the article.
- Yes of course the sources connect it to this topic. Read Shenhav for example. And HaCohen goes through and explains exactly how the various agencies implemented the Plan. Oncenawhile (talk) 16:44, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- Perhaps I didn't explain myself clearly. WP:LEAD is an editing guideline. You can't put stuff in the lead that's not in the body, although I know some editors like to do that because it's easy and most people just read the lead. But alas, it's not allowed. I don't have the sources to write a section in the body to be summarized in the lead, nor do I have the time. Nor do I want you to think it's my job to do your homework.
- On top of that, you violated WP:V (that's policy) buy restoring unsourced information.
- Also, if you have a source that directly ties the plan into the topic of this article, kindly provide it here. "Read Shenhav" is not a source.
- I'd like to remind you that you often remove large chunks of text and ask other editors not to restore them pending a discussion. Perhaps you should do as you preach. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 05:18, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
- No More Mr Nice Guy, you deleted seven sources, many with detailed quotes, and you call that unsourced? The sources that you removed explain in plain quotes that the OMP was the first time the topic of this article was ever even conceptualised by anyone. Your claim that that is not connected closely enough to the topic of this article is patently absurd.
- Thank you for encouraging me to add extra detail on this topic into the article. I will be glad to do so. Oncenawhile (talk) 20:27, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
- First of all I didn't delete anything, I moved stuff here for discussion. Second, the unsourced stuff was where you added the plan for a second time in the lead. Twice in the lead, once in the article. Way to UNDUE. Third, the source says it was the first time this whole group was treated as one. That's not the topic of this article. I will note that if what you claim was true, it would conflict with your "modern agenda" theory, but that's besides the point.
- By all means, develop a section in the article then we can assess both the relevance and the DUE weight to give it in the lead. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:06, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
- I have made a start. There are a lot of high quality sources out there on this topic, so please feel free to add as you see fit. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:12, 24 May 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)
- 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)
notes
References
- Howard Adelman; Elazar Barkan (13 August 2013). No Return, No Refuge: Rites and Rights in Minority Repatriation. Columbia University Press. pp. 237–. ISBN 978-0-231-52690-6.
- Orit Bashkin (12 September 2012). New Babylonians: A History of Jews in Modern Iraq. Stanford University Press. pp. 187–. ISBN 978-0-8047-8201-2.
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
- Gat, Moshe (1998). "The Immigration of Iraqi Jewry to Israel as Reflected in Literature". Revue européenne des migrations internationales ,Year 1998 , Volume 14 , Issue 14-3. pp. 47, 48.
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.
- Esther Meir-Glitzenstein (2 August 2004). Zionism in an Arab Country: Jews in Iraq in the 1940s. Routledge. p. 206. ISBN 978-1-135-76862-1.
(Nuri's threats) "encouraged Iraqi officials to abuse the departing jews before they boarded the planes and to destroy their baggage"
- Benny Morris (2008). 1948: a history of the first Arab-Israeli war. Yale University Press. p. 413. Retrieved 13 July 2013.
"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."
- Charles Tripp (2002). A History of Iraq. Cambridge University Press. p. 122. ISBN 978-0-521-52900-6.
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.
- Moshe Gat (4 July 2013). The Jewish Exodus from Iraq, 1948-1951. Routledge. p. 2. ISBN 978-1-135-24654-9.
Shiblak attitude:" the threat was not grave enough to explain maas emigration of Jews to Israel." the zionists used "drastic measures, such as bomb throwing, so as to jolt the Jewish community, most of whom preferred life in Iraq to emigration to Israel."
- Orit Bashkin (12 September 2012). New Babylonians: A History of Jews in Modern Iraq. Stanford University Press. p. 185. ISBN 978-0-8047-8201-2.
…fight against Zionism, the state engaged in a process of collective punishments…unjustly designated an entire community as second-rate citizens. These undemocratic measures …pushed the Jews to emigrate from Iraq
- Esther Meir-Glitzenstein (2 August 2004). Zionism in an Arab Country: Jews in Iraq in the 1940s. Routledge. p. 216. ISBN 978-1-135-76862-1.
Any tension in the Middle east would impinge directly on the situation of the Jews. Their chances of having stability or equality in Iraq appeared slim., and therefore it is understandable that many members of the community… wished to leave Iraq…The timing was determined by the Iraqi government, Israel was the only available option, and the magnitude of the emigration was due to the growing insecurity of the Jewish community in 1950. … In a different, non catastrophic context, as occurred in other Muslim countries such as Iran and Egypt, one might have expected a much slower, drawn out exodus and a range of destinations, with Israel being only one of them, not necessarily the main one
- Moshe Gat (4 July 2013). The Jewish Exodus from Iraq, 1948-1951. Routledge. pp. 123–125. ISBN 978-1-135-24654-9.
- Orit Bashkin (12 September 2012). New Babylonians: A History of Jews in Modern Iraq. Stanford University Press. p. 277. ISBN 978-0-8047-8201-2.
- Cite error: The named reference
KacowiczLutomski2007was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - Eyal 2006, p. 86: "The principal significance of this plan lies in the fact, noted by Yehuda Shenhav, that this was the first time in Zionist history that Jews from Middle Eastern and North African countries were all packaged together in one category as the target of an immigration plan. There were earlier plans to bring specific groups, such as the Yemenites, but the "one million plan" was, as Shenhav says, "the zero point," the moment when the category of mizrahi jews in the current sense of this term, as an ethnic group distinct from European-born jews, was invented." sfn error: no target: CITEREFEyal2006 (help)
- Hacohen 1991, p. 262 #2:"In meetings with foreign officials at the end of 1944 and during 1945, Ben-Gurion cited the plan to enable one million refugees to enter Palestine immediately as the primary goal and top priority of the Zionist movement. sfn error: no target: CITEREFHacohen1991 (help)
- Ehrlich, Mark Avrum (2009), Encyclopedia of the Jewish Diaspora: Origins, Experiences, and Culture, vol. 1, ABC-CLIO, ISBN 9781851098736,
A Zionist plan. designed in 1943–1944, to bring 1 million Jews from Europe and the Middle East to Palestine as a means and a stage to establish a state. It was the first time the Jews of Islamic countries were explicitly included in a Zionist plan.
- Meir-Glitzenstein 2004, p. 44 #1: "After it was presented to the Jewish Agency Executive, the One Million Plan became the official policy of the Zionist leadership. The immigration of the Jews of Islamic countries was explicit or implicit in all the declarations, testimonies, memoranda and demands issued by the Jewish Agency from World War ll until the establishment of the state." sfn error: no target: CITEREFMeir-Glitzenstein2004 (help)
- Ofer 1991, p. 239:"This tactical approach, the demand for "control of aliyah" and the immediate immigration of two million (later, one million) Jews, was the declared policy of the Jewish Agency Executive until the end of the war." sfn error: no target: CITEREFOfer1991 (help)
- Ben-Gurion's diary, 30 July 1945, Ben-Gurion Archives. Midreshet Sede Boker, Quote: "We have to bring over all of Bloc 5 , most of Bloc 4 , everything possible from Bloc 3 , and pioneers from Bloc 2 as soon as possible."
- Meir-Glitzenstein 2004, p. 39. sfn error: no target: CITEREFMeir-Glitzenstein2004 (help)
Cite error: A list-defined reference named "AdelmanBarkan2011p179" is not used in the content (see the help page).
- All unassessed articles
- B-Class Israel-related articles
- Top-importance Israel-related articles
- WikiProject Israel articles
- B-Class Palestine-related articles
- High-importance Palestine-related articles
- WikiProject Palestine articles
- B-Class Arab world articles
- High-importance Arab world articles
- WikiProject Arab world articles
- B-Class Jewish history-related articles
- High-importance Jewish history-related articles
- WikiProject Jewish history articles
- B-Class Syria articles
- Mid-importance Syria articles
- WikiProject Syria articles
- B-Class Egypt articles
- Mid-importance Egypt articles
- WikiProject Egypt articles
- B-Class Iraq articles
- Mid-importance Iraq articles
- WikiProject Iraq articles
- B-Class Iran articles
- Mid-importance Iran articles
- WikiProject Iran articles
- WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration articles