Hi, Robert.

You wrote:
"When Muslims claim that the presence of Jews is intolerable to their political, religious or national sensibilities, the reaction should not be appeasement, but to send in more Jewish citizens and let the jihadists know that Jews do not live at the sufferance of anyone."

- start mussar -

Do you volunteer?

Care to move to Iran to make a point?

Or to buy a home in the West Bank? The latter would be fairly easy and safe for you, and there are some truly beautiful communities. So friendly and so close to Jerusalem . . . . you write from home and plenty of people "commute" to America. Surely you could fly to Hollywood for meetings whenever necessary . . . And yet you live in Los Angeles . . .

Who, exactly, are these Jews who should be "sent in" to places to make a point?

- end mussar -

Sarah:

Thanks so much for the Mussar. I have no intentions of moving to Iran. But Jews who live in Iran should have the freedom to live anywhere they want, right? Including, let's say, Israel.

Do we agree?

And thanks for pointing out my lapse in language. Jews should not be "sent to live anywhere." My use of language was flabby. I apologize.

There are hundreds of thousand of Jews who would volunteer to move to many areas of Eretz Yisroel that are now off-limits, considered illegal. No one has to be sent anywhere.

There are Jews in Hevron who fight a lonely battle to live as Jews in that ancient Jewish city. I'm sure you don't question their right to live there.

The point is: your home, no matter where it is, is not any safer than the homes of Jews who lived in Gaza.

Not after Gaza.

" ... There are hundreds of thousand of Jews who would volunteer to move to many areas of Eretz Yisroel that are now off-limits, considered illegal. No one has to be sent anywhere.

There are Jews in Hevron who fight a lonely battle to live as Jews in that ancient Jewish city. I'm sure you don't question their right to live there. ..."

there is a huge waiting list of families willing to live in Chevron, but not allowed to do so by the Israeli gov.

the settlers there say:

"we're not afraid of the arabs,
our problem is the Israeli police"

the problem is not with the arabs saying where Jews can or can't live,
it's with the insane people in Israeli gov. that put the arab desires into law

Rav Kahane once made a proposal that even i considered 'extreme' at the time:

he proposed secession/independence of the settlements, and said that the settlers of his select communities would be responsible for their own defense,

am beginning to see the thinking behind this,

instead of fighting the arabs, *and* the Israeli police, why not fight 'just' the arabs

(am not advocating it,
it's just too painful to see how much suffering the Jews in Israel have to go through to keep a calm in the non-religious non-historical areas orbited by Israeli liberals,

and they won't even have *that*
if the arabs have their way)

It always amuses Seraphic Secret that those who become outraged at the idea of expelling Arab fifth columnists from Israel are usually the first to advocate the expulsion of Jews from, well, anywhere the Arabs have threatened violence.

That's a very good point.

Hi, Robert. Thanks for responding.

I'd like to know if you have a citation for the statement that "There are hundreds of thousand of Jews who would volunteer to move to many areas of Eretz Yisroel that are now off-limits, considered illegal."

I can believe that there are hundreds, thousands, of such people, but HUNDREDS of thousands?

Let's look at the facts: Only 260,000+ Jews have volunteered to live in areas of the West Bank that ARE allowed by the Israeli government.

Are you saying that there are hundreds of thousands of Jews whose attitude is "We'd gladly move to Hevron or deeper into the Shomron, etc, but since the government won't let us do that, we'll just stay within the Green Line where we are now"?

If only 200+ thousand Jews have moved to Efrat and Kochav Yaakov and Neve Aliza, etc, what makes you think that an equal number of Jews would jump at the chance of moving even closer to the Arabs and further from Israel's big cities if only the Israeli government would allow it?

I submit: Ultimately we will lose the West Bank not because the Israeli government doesn't care about it, and not because NO Jews care about living there, but because not ENOUGH Jews care about it ENOUGH to go live there.

If MILLIONS of Jews moved to the West Bank, then there would be a Jewish majority there and Israel could annex it. But as things stand, we are caught in a catch-22: Too many Jews have moved there to force them to leave without a lot of trouble and anguish and expense, but not enough have moved there to annex without destroying Israel's character as a Jewish state. Israel has backed itself into a corner. And meanwhile there is STILL no one with whom to negotiate a peace treaty which could safely include Palestinian citizenship with full rights to the Jews who now live over the Green Line.

The main problem is that the Palestinians as a group are anti-Semitic a**holes. But Israel put its cards on the table by allowing Jews to move to the West Bank, in order to create facts on the ground, and we called our own bluff: We really DON'T care about that land THAT much. Not enough to move there in huge enough numbers.

Sarah:

Thanks so much for the articulate response.

No, I don't have a citation. It's simply a gut feeling that if the Israeli government were not such an appeasement government hundreds of thousands of Jews would move to all areas of Eretz Yisroel that are now off-limits.

But even if it were just two hundred thousand, don't they have the right to live where they want? How about one-hundred thousand. What about a hundred? At what stage, at what number do you withdraw your support for the right of Jews to live anywhere in the world, for that is what this is ultimately about.

BTW, there are already no-go zones for Non-Muslims in London. Is this acceptable?

I believe that many Jews hesitate to move because they are afraid of setting down roots and then being expelled by their own government. They fear Jews more than Arabs.

Let's look at another, even more insidious effect. This year was the lowest rate of Aliyah to Israel.

Why?

I have no concrete evidence, but my gut feeling is that Jews in the diaspora look at Israel and seriously ask themselves if they will be secure living in a land where Jews expel other Jews from their homes. Where Jews openly advocate for their genocidal enemies on a daily basis. I'm speaking, of course, of the foreign funded Peace Now and groups of their ilk.

Israel will only lose Yehuda and Shomron if she allows her chattering classes to block the Torah loving Jews who do care about the land, from settling the land, and yes, fighting the Arab terrorists at every step.

Defeatism is not a tactic for survival, it's simply slow-motion national suicide.

I repeat: expulsion of Jews from Yehuda and Shomrom will mean the end of the State of Israel. That has been the Arab strategy of "stages of defeat" for several generations.

The division of Jerusalem comes next, where the obvious ethnic cleansing will occur, and then Jewish Jerusalem will fall under slow and steady siege until the chattering classes once again advocate an "international city."

From there it's but a short step to the strangulation of Tel-Aviv and Haifa.

You see, you Chaya are talking about Yehuda and Shomron, and they are talking about the end of Israel, the end of a Jewish presence in the middle east.

America and the West faced the same threat from Germany and Japan over 60 years ago. The intellectuals also voted appeasement, said these great powers could not be defeated.

Of course, the intellectual were wrong. They almost always are. Germany was smashed into rubble and Japan was blasted into atoms.

I submit that the terrorists can be defeated, and should be brought to their knees, and until an entity such as Gaza is utterly blasted into nothingness there will never be peace in the middle east.

The division of Jerusalem comes next, where the obvious ethnic cleansing will occur, and then Jewish Jerusalem will fall under slow and steady siege until the chattering classes once again advocate an "international city."

I'd like to point out that Jerusalem, having become majority charedi, is no longer a place the left cares very much about. They don't care much about the fate of charedim, to put it mildly.

Kishke:

Thanks so much. very true. Hence Olmert's rush to negotiate the division of Yerushalayim.

It's time for this disgraceful Prime Minister and his enablers to be replaced by responsible leaders.

Robert,

You responded to Sarah:
Let's look at another, even more insidious effect. This year was the lowest rate of Aliyah to Israel.
Why?
I have no concrete evidence, but my gut feeling is that Jews in the diaspora look at Israel and seriously ask themselves if they will be secure living in a land where Jews expel other Jews from their homes. Where Jews openly advocate for their genocidal enemies on a daily basis. I'm speaking, of course, of the foreign funded Peace Now and groups of their ilk.
------------------------------------------
As an oleh that has returned, I think your analysis is spot on.
It is why I returned….How could I invest my future in a society and nation that will not lift a finger to defend me(look at S’derot) and will possibly throw me out of my home for a make believe peace agreement.

I’m sure some may brand me a quitter; I am not concerned what others may think of me.

However, anyone who is considering aliyah, especially if they have a family, in my opinion would be irresponsible not to think about the facts currently on the ground, and how the current policies of the Olmert government may impact their family.

Once I see the changes I need to see……I look forward to returning.

Describing Muslim countries that are lacking in Jews as "Judenrein" seems sensationalistic and not apt. Most of the Mizrahi Jews left, or in some cases were kicked out of, their original countries during the riots after Israeli independence, just as many Palestinians were being kicked out Israel, or left in subsequent decades as their communities were becoming depleted. Small Jewish populations continue to exist peacefully in a number of Muslim countries, such as Bahrain. I don't think there is a Muslim country besides our ally, Saudi Arabia, in which Judaism is actually illegal. The Arab world was not emptied of Jews like Vilna in 1944, which is what "Judenrein" connotes, so it is not an appropriate usage in my opinion.

There is probably less aliyah not because of the actions of Israel's government towards the settlers, but because most of us in the Diaspora are fortunate to be living in greater comfort and security than that precarious country is likely to see. Most of the Jews who once lived in difficult conditions in the Middle East or the former Soviet Union have already migrated.

Faderb:

Your information is wrong. We will quote from a paper by Yaakov Me'ron from the 1995 Middle Eastern Quaterly:

In a key address before the Political Committee of the U.N. General Assembly on November 14, 1947, just five days before that body voted on the partition plan for Palestine, Heykal Pasha, an Egyptian delegate, made the following key statement in connection with that plan:

"The United Nations . . . should not lose sight of the fact that the proposed solution might endanger a million Jews living in the Moslem countries. Partition of Palestine might create in those countries an anti-Semitism even more difficult to root out than the anti-Semitism which the Allies were trying to eradicate in Germany. . . If the United Nations decides to partition Palestine, it might be responsible for the massacre of a large number of Jews."

Heykal Pasha then elaborated on his threat:

"A million Jews live in peace in Egypt [and other Muslim countries] and enjoy all rights of citizenship. They have no desire to emigrate to Palestine. However, if a Jewish State were established, nobody could prevent disorders. Riots would break out in Palestine, would spread through all the Arab states and might lead to a war between two races."

Heykal Pasha's thinly veiled threats of "grave disorders," "massacre," "riots," and "war between two races" did not at the time go unnoticed by Jews. For them, it had the same ring as the proposition made six years earlier by the Palestinian leader Hajj Amin al-Husayni to Hitler of a "final solution" for the Jews of Arab countries, including Palestine. But the statement appears to have made no lasting impression, to the point that a historian of the Jews in Egypt has described Heykal Pasha as "a well-known liberal.

Particularly noteworthy is that although Heykal Pasha spoke at the United Nations in his capacity as a representative of Egypt, he continuously mentioned the Jews "in other Muslim countries" and "all the Arab states," suggesting a level of coordination among the Arab governments. Indeed, four days after his statement, Iraq's Foreign Minister Fadil Jamali declared at the United Nations that "interreligious prejudice and hatred" would bring about a great deterioration in the Arab-Jewish relationship in Iraq and in the Arab world at large, thereby reinforcing the impression that Heykal Pasha was talking not just on behalf of Egypt but for all the independent Arab states. Further confirmation came several days later, after the General Assembly had decided in favor of partitioning Palestine, when, "following orders issued by the Arab League,

Muslims engaged in outrages against Jews living in Aden and Aleppo.

Another indication that Arab rulers coordinated the expulsion of Jews from their terrorites comes from a Beirut meeting one and a half years later of senior diplomats from all the Arab States. By this time, March 1949, the Arab states had already lost the first Arab-Israeli war; they now used this defeat to justify an expulsion that had been officially proclaimed before the war even began. As reported in a Syrian newspaper, "If Israel should oppose the return of the Arab refugees to their homes, the Arab governments will expel the Jews living in their countries.

According to Walid Khalidi, perhaps the leading Palestinian nationalist historian and a highly reputable source, "The Arabs held their ground throughout the period from November 1947 to March 1948. Up to March 1, not one single Arab village had been vacated by its inhabitants, and the number of people leaving the mixed towns was insignificant.

The mass departure from Palestine of 590,000 Arabs began only in April 1948; yet , Heykal Pasha had publicly and very formally announced a program to expel Jews from Arab countries fully five months earlier.

To understand how and when the expulsion of Jews from the Arab countries was actually carried out, we look at the Iraqi case in some detail, then others more breifly.

IRAQ

As mentioned above, the Iraqi authorities openly and formally identified themselves with Heykal Pasha's threats just four days after he uttered them. Foreign Minister Jamali addressed the United Nations in this manner:

"The masses in the Arab world cannot be restrained. The Arab-Jewish relationship in the Arab world will greatly deteriorate. . . . Harmony prevails among Muslems, Christians and Jews [in Iraq]. But any injustice imposed upon the Arabs of Palestine will disturb the harmony among Jews and non-Jews in Iraq; it will breed interreligious prejudice and hatred"

By "the masses in the Arab world," Jamali in fact meant his own government, which soon took a series of steps, including anti-Semitic legislation, against its Jewish population. This began with a 1948 amendment to the Penal Code of Baghdad, adding Zionism to other ideologies and behavior (communism, anarchism, and immorality) whose propagation constituted a punishable offense. Laws in 1950 and 1951 the deprived Jews of their Iraqi nationality and their property in Iraq, respectively.

At times, Iraqi politicians candidly acknowledged that they wanted to expel their Jewish population for reasons of their own, having nothing to do with retaliation for the Palestinian exodus. Perhaps the most interesting incident took place at the tail end of the Israeli war of independence, in late January or early February 1949, when Iraq's Prime Minister Nuri Sa'id described a plan to expel Jews from Iraq to Alec Kirkbride, then the British ambassador at Amman, and Samir El-Rifa'i, head of the Jordanian government.

Kirkbride recounts that Nuri came out with the astounding proposition that a convoy of Iraqi Jews should be brought over in army lorries escorted by armoured cars, taken to the Jordanian-Israeli frontier, and forced to cross the line.

Quite apart from the certainty that the Israelis would not consent to receive deportees in that manner, the passage of Jews through Jordan would almost certainly have touched off serious trouble amongst the very disgruntled Arab refugees who were crowded into the country.

Either the Iraqi guards would have had to shoot other Arabs to protect the lives of their charges. . .

Samir and I were flabbergasted and our faces must have shown our feelings. . . .

I replied, at once, that the matter at issue was no concern of His Majesty's Government. Samir refused his assent as politely as possible but Nuri lost his temper at being rebuffed and he said: "So, you do not want to do it, do you?" Samir snapped back: "Of course I do not want to be party to such a crime." Nuri thereupon exploded with rage and I began to wonder what the head of the diplomatic mission would do if two Prime Ministers came to blows in his study. We then broke up in disorder, but I got them out of the house whilst preserving a minimum of propriety.

Nuri probably chose the British embassy in Amman as the site at which to disclose his plan to the head of the Jordanian government because high-ranking British officials had often spoken of the need to exchange Palestinian Arab and Arab Jewish populations, and he most likely expected British understanding of, it not support for, his scheme.

Similarly, when Nuri visited Jerusalem on January 13, 1951, he met 'Arif al-'Arif, the Palestinian leader who served as Jordan's district commissioner for Jerusalem. 'Arif asked Nuri to hold up the departure of Jews from Iraq "until the problem of Palestine and of the refugees had been solved," or at least "for one or two years." Nuri refused to do so. Revealingly, his reasons bore only on considerations of internal Iraqi policy:

"The Jews have always been a source of evil and harm to Iraq. They are spies. They have sold their property in Iraq, they have no land among us that they can cultivate. How therefore can they live? What will they do if they stay in Iraq? No, no my friend, it is better for us to be rid of them as long as we are able to do so."

Nuri candidly acknowledges here that he wanted the Jews out of Iraq, and never mind what consequences their exodus might have for the future of the Palestinian Arabs.

In conversation with foreign diplomats, however, Nuri presented the expulsion of Iraq's Jews in a very different light-as an exchange of population. On no less than six occasions in 1949, he made this point with foreigners.

(1) In talks with the U.N. Reconciliation Commission in Baghdad on February 18, 1949 (in other words, even before the Beirut meeting of Arab diplomats in March 1949, when the Arab states coordinated their stand on the matter), he threatened harm to the Jews: "Iraq has thus far been able to protect its 160,000 Jews but . . . unless conditions improve and unless Jews now demonstrated their good faith with deeds not words Iraq might be helpless to prevent spontaneous action by its people."14

(2) To an American diplomat in Baghdad on May 8, 1949, Nuri mentioned his idea of a "voluntary exchange on pro rata basis of Iraqi Jews for Pal[estinian] Arabs," adding the threat that "firebrand Iraqis might take matters into [their] own hands and cause untold misery to thousands [of] innocent persons."15

(3) On August 8, 1949, he raised with an official of the British Foreign Office the idea of "an exchange of population."16

(4) On September 29, 1949, a member of the British embassy in Baghdad reported Nuri's wish "to force an exchange of population under U.N. supervision and the transfer of 100,000 Jews beyond Iraq in exchange for the Arab refugees who had already left the territory in Israeli hands."17

(5) On October 14, 1949, Nuri spoke with U.N. officials about the exchange of "100,000 Baghdad Jews and 80,000 other Jews in Iraq for [an] equivalent number [of] urban Arab Palestinian refugees."18

(6) To the Clapp Mission in 1949,19 Nuri presented the Jewish expulsion from Iraq as part of a population exchange.20

This (and other evidence) leads to the conclusion that while the Iraqi government sought to present the explusion of Jews as a crowd-driven retaliatory act for the exodus of the Arab refugees from Palestine, it in fact had a full-fledged plan in place before the Arab refugee problem even came into existence.

This interpretation resolves a number of historical questions. It explains the origins of the otherwise mysterious legislation in 1950 depriving Jews of their Iraqi nationality. For example, Shlomo Hillel cannot understand how this complete reversal of the Iraqi attitudes happened, and suggests that Nuri Sa'id did not really intend immediately to apply the law.21 This author respectfully disagrees: take into account the U.N. declarations, the anti-Jewish legislation, and the government persecution of Jews, and it becomes clear that the deprivation of Iraqi nationality was but another step in a plan of expulsion.

The Iraqi plan of expulsion also explains the bombing of the Mas'uda Shem Tob Synagogue in Baghdad on January 14, 1951, as Jews were registering there to emigrate to Israel. Zionists have been accused of causing the violence in the hopes of spurring the Jews to leave Iraq, an accusation whose truth so eminent an authority as Elie Kedourie has said "must remain an open question."22 But knowing of the authorities' expulsion plan suggests that not Zionists but Muslim Iraqis were behind the incident . That an Iraqi army officer arrested for throwing the bomb belonged to the opposition Istiqlal Party points to that faction's responsibility.23

OTHER ARAB COUNTRIES

Similar patterns of Jewish exodus existed in other Arabic-speaking countries, including Yemen, Libya, Syria, Egypt, Algeria and Jordan.

YEMEN:

Yemeni persecution of Jews prompted a trickle of Jewish emigration to Palestine from the third quarter of the nineteenth century on. Heykal Pasha's speech merely added momentum to the longstanding Yemeni policy of discrimination against and degradation of Jews, based on a particularly pedantic interpretation of the Islamic law. A bribe from the American Joint Distribution Committee to Yemen's ruler, Imam Ahmad ibn Yahya, led to his agreeing to the mass exodus of Jews to Israel in 1949-50 by airplane via Aden, an operation known as "On Eagle's Wings" (or, in journalistic lore, "Magic Carpet"). The Jews of Yemen, relying on their own means, sufferng losses of life and deprivations, traversed the desert to Aden by foot and on donkeys. There, the Jewish Agency lodged them in camps and eventually boarded them onto planes that took them to Israel. In this way, some 50,000 Yemeni Jews reached Israel during the two-year period.

We lack information about the Yemeni government's decision-making process. But this case provides the clearest example of Jews' being persecuted and expelled for reasons having to do with Islamic law.

LIBYA:

In Libya, as in Yemen, the exodus of the Jews began even before Heykal Pahsa's declaration at the United Nations. Attacks on Jewish quarters in Tripoli and other cities occurred in 1945, leading to a death toll the British put at 130 Jews. In other words, Jews began leaving Libya three years before the establishment of Israel and seven years before Libya gained independence. Their departure turned into a mass exodus as soon as Israel gained independence and the gates opened to Libyan Jewry. As in Iraq, internal policy appears to be the reason both for the Jews' expulsion and for later rhetoric inviting them back.

SYRIA:

In Syria, too, the majority of Jews departed before independence in 1946, and long before Heykal Pasha's statement and the establishment of Israel. As in Yemen and Libya, crude pressure on the Jews of Syria-such as the 1947 pogrom in Aleppo and the rape and murder of four Jewish girls who allegedly tried to smuggle themselves out of Syria-caused a substantial emigration.

While Syria is distinguished from other Arab countries by the fact that its legislation does not manifest discrimination against Jews, Heykal Pasha's policy was indeed applied there, too. The government seized control of Jewish property in Syria on the basis of emergency legislation and gave it to Arab refugees. Thus, Palestinians were settled in Damascus's Jewish ghetto, while the Alliance Israélite Universelle School, finished 1n 1939, became a school for Palestinian children. A diplomat at the French embassy in Damascus intervened with the Syrian authorities about this school and was told that the Syrian Jews had to provide room for the Arab refugees, the latter having been expelled by their Palestinian co-religionsits.

EGYPT:

In some cases, the execution of the Arab plan of expulsion extended over a period much longer than that of the military hostilities. In Egypt, the expulsion reached its climax only after the overthrow of the monarchy by disgruntled army officers back from the Palestinian battlefield. In Algeria, which did not attain independence until 1962, the expulsion took place later yet.

Jews in Egypt faced acute problems in the 1940s but these did not set their mass departure in motion. Rioting against Jews occurred in November1945, then resumed in June-November 1948, the latter time inspired by the war with Israel. An amendment to the Egyptian Companies Law dated July 29, 1947, required that 40 percent of a company's directors and 75 percent of its employees be Egyptian nationals, causing the dismissal and livelihood of many Jews, 85 percent of whom did not possess Egyptian nationality. A letter to the editor of Akhir Sa'a in 1948 offers some insight into the predicament of Egyptian Jews:

It would seem that most people in Egypt are unaware of the fact that among Egyptian Muslisms there are some who have white skin. Every time I board a tram I hear people pointing at me with a finger and saying "Jew," "Jew." I have been beaten more than once because of this. For that reason I humbly beg that my picture (enclosed) be published with the explanation that I am not Jewish and that my name is Adham Mustafa Galeb.
This testimony rather directly refutes the fine rhetoric of Heykal Pasha about Jews' enjoying "all rights of citizenship."

Cairo was slow in carrying out the plan proclaimed by its own diplomat, Heykal Pasha; only during and after the Suez Crisis of 1956 did Egyptian Jews leave in substantial numbers. At that time, the Egyptian Nationality Law was amended to prohibit "Zionists" from holding Egyptian nationality,29 Army Order no. 4 then confiscated property of individuals and associations;30 and supervision, imprisonment, or expulsion followed. The amendment to the Nationality Law of 1956 defined the term Zionism as "not a religion but the spiritual and material bond between those defined as Zionists and Israel." A furthur ministerial decree in 1958 indicates that all Jews between the ages of ten and sixty-five leaving Egypt would be added to the list of persons prohibited from reentering the country. Clearly, these decrees had little to do with the Arab refugees of a decade earlier.

ALGERIA:

In Algeria, no significant Jewish emigration occurred until the summer of 1961, and then nearly the entire population was gone within the year. Algeria's independence from France was the key event here; Jews were no longer welcome after the French depature. The Algerian Nationality Code of 1963 made this clear by granting Algerian nationality as a right only to those inhabitants whose fathers and paternal grandfathers had Muslim personal status in Algeria. In other words, although the National Liberation Front in Algeria was known for its slogan "A Democratic Secular State," it adhered to strictly religious criteria in granting nationality.

JORDAN:

No Jews lived in Transjordan in 1946 (when it became an independent state), as a result of Winston Churchill's 1921 decision in favor of "preserving [the] Arab character" of Transjordan and the resulting British policy forbidding Jews from settling there. Legislation passed in 1954 declared that only non-Jews coming from the former British Mandate of Palestine were entitled to Jordanian citizenship. What is so striking about Jordan is that although it lacked a Jewish population, it still shared in the general Arab trend of excluding Jews. Further, it actively discriminated against Lebanese and Syrian Jews.

SILENCE, DENUNCIATION, AND ACCEPTANCE

A strange silence prevails over the expulsion of the Jews from Arab countries. Out of fifteen books (mainly autobiographies) written by Iraqi politicians and other public figures, only two make any reference to the farhud, the Iraqi pogrom of 1941 that first shook feelings among the Jews for the land of their very ancient residence and was the first step in their leaving the country. In his memoirs, Tawfiq as-Suwaydi, head of the Iraqi government and the man with whom the agreement to transport Jews from Baghdad to Israel by air was reached, "does not recall, if only by way of a mere hint, the actual departure of the Jewish communities from his country."

On the Israeli side, the establishment did little to break the silence about the dire circumstances of the Jewish exodus from Arab countries. Quite the contrary, the romantic "magic carpet" image for the migration from Yemen and the "Ezra and Nehemiah Operation" name attached to the Iraqi migration stress the positive, glossing over the unhappy circumstances of the Arab expulsions. Jean-Peirre Péroncel-Hugoz, a Frence orientalist and journalist at Le Monde, notes with surprise "that Israel only very rarely emphasizes the fact that a part if its population left property and space it legitimately owned in the Arab countries of its origin."

Palestinians are the only Arabs vocally to denounce the expulsion of Jews from Arab countries. This began in January 1951 with a telegram from 'Aarif to the Arab Legue after he failed in his efforts to persuade Nuri to stop the exit of Jews from Iraq. "Were every area of Arab land where Jews reside to retain the Jews and their property as a pledge, two problems would easily be solved, that of Palestine generally and that of the refugees in particular." Along these lines, the Palestinian National Covenant calls for sending the Jews back to their lands of origin. Nabil Hga'th, Yasir Arafat's advisor, twenty years ago drew attention to the invitation that the Sudan and Libya sent to "their" Jews to return, and called upon the Arab states to legislate a kind of "Law of Return" for Jews of Arab origins.

Remarkably, some Palestinians have come to see Jewish sovereignty in Israel in terms of a population exchange, and as the necessary price to be paid for the Arab expulsions. 'Isam as-Sirtawi, who participated in some well-known terrorist operations but later excelled in seeking contact with the Israelis, told Ha-'Olam Ha-zé editor Uri Avneir that he gave up terrorism against Israel and instead began promoting negotiations when he realized that Israel serves as the asylum for Jews expelled from Arab countries; and that there is no going back along that path. Sabri Jiryis, director of the Institute of Palestine Studies in Beirut, enumerated in 1975 the factors leading to the establishment of the State of Israel. The Arab states had much to do with this, for they expelled the Jews "in a most ugly fashion, and after confiscating their possessions or taking control thereof at the lowest price." These Jews then participated in the reinforcement of Israel, its strengthening and fortification to the degree we see it as present. . . . There is no need to say that the problem of those Jews and their passage to Israel is not merely theoretical, at least from the viewpoint of the Palestinian problem. Clearly, Israel will raise the question in all serious negotiation that may in time be conducted over the rights of the Palestinians. . . . Israel's arguments take approximately the following form: "It is true that we Israelis brought about the exodus of the Arabs from their land in the war of 1948 . . . and that we took control of their property. In return however you Arabs caused the expulsion of a like number of Jews from Arab countries since 1948 until today. Most of these went to Israel after you seized control of their property in one way or another. What happened, therefore, is merely a kind of 'population and property transfer,' the consequences of which both sides have to bear. Thus Israel gathers in the Jews from Arab countries and the Arab countries are obliged in turn to settle the Palestinians within their own borders and work towards a solution of the problem". Israel will undoubtedly advance these claims in the first real debate over the Palestinian problem.

In brief, 'Arif, Sirtawi, and Jiryis recognize that the expulsion of a million Jews from the Arab countries renders the return of Arab refugees infeasible. This realization is compounded by the fact that almost half a century has elapsed since the beginning of the refugee problem, both Arab and Jewish, within the Arab-Israeli conflict. Those individuals to be involved in any future rehabilitation program will mostly be heirs, and even grandchildren, of the original refugees.

CONCLUSION

Accounts of the late 1940s widely assume that the Arab exodus occurred first, followed by the Jewish expulsion. Kirkbride refers to "a decision of the Iraqi government to retaliate for the expulsion of Arab refugees from Palestine by forcing the majority of the Jewish population of Iraq to go to Israel."

In Libya, too, there is a similar tendency to associate the uprooting of the Jewish community with the establishment of the State of Israel. "Jews," John Wright argues, "were forced out of Libya as a result of events leading up and following the foundation of the State of Israel in May 1948."

But these accounts oversimplify the actual sequence of events: as we have seen, in a good many cases, Jews were forced out well before the Palestinian exodus. As 'Arif, Sirtawi, and Jiryis acknowledge, the Arab states contributed substantially to the Palestinians' present predicament. A recognition of the full wrong done to the Jews of the Arab countries should put to rest Palestinian claims for restitution by Israel. As Péroncel-Hugoz correctly points out, the Jews "left property and space [they] legitimately owned" in the Middle East. In coming to Israel, then these Jews brought with them certain rights.

This information not only straightens out the sequence of events fifty years ago but it refutes exorbitant claims made in the name of Palestinians. A recognition of the true nature of those events represents the best chance for a swift resolution of the Palestinian refugee question today. With so many issues that will have a lasting effect on the future of their populations awaiting the attention of Israeli and Palestinian negotiators, this is one case where the two sides would do well to let history stand and call it even."

See Lance's comment above about why he left Israel. There are consequences to appeasement.

Finally, the tiny number of Jews who still live in Arab lands do not live in peace, but in utter fear and silence.