It feels somewhat inappropriate for me to post anything this week, with Andrew having flown to Houston as a volunteer to treat Katrina’s victims. I encourage everyone to read his recent postings, then use his courage and strength to find your own way to help the millions now in need. And when you add to the Hurricane Katrina recovery the upcoming John Roberts hearings, it’s hard to imagine focusing on anything in Israel or Palestine right now. But one interesting thing came out last week about non-Katrina refugees, under even the usual radar focused on Israel-Palestine, that I wanted to write a few words about. Perhaps the images of Katrina’s refugees can help us all rethink the refugee-related issues that will face Israeli and Palestinian negotiators in the coming years…
Although it may be the ultimate in navel-gazing to quote myself, I do it here only for introductory context. In one of my recent posts, I wrote, “Mention the right of return for Palestinians, and you will be taken by the Miracle of the Circle to late 1940s/early 1950s Iraq or Egypt and asked to discuss the plight of the Jews who were forced to leave those countries.” So it was not much of a surprise when I read (in between reading Katrina coverage) in the Jerusalem Post that several organizations will be meeting in September to discuss their strategy for getting compensation for the Iraqi Jews who left Iraq in the early 1950s. According to a professor who is active with a group called The World Organization of Jews from Arab Countries (WOJAC):
It will help Israel in the peace negotiations. The idea is to make an exchange. Arab countries will not compensate Jews who left Iraq and Israel will not compensate the Palestinian refugees.
What kind of compensation are these organizations looking for? Officials from the organizations are not saying specifically, but apparently it’s in the billions. They are also looking for other concessions as well, such as repairing/caring for the synagogues and Jewish cemeteries left behind by the community (although there are still a few hundred Jews in Iraq). Although they plan to make their first official request to the fledgling Iraqi government, they clearly are looking to tie their claims and demands to the peace talks between Israelis and Palestinians.
What to say about this? First and foremost, before I get carried away, I understand that just because these organizations would like to have their claims included in, impact, or “help Israel” in the final status negotiations, there is obviously no guarantee that they will. There are a lot of parties out there who have issues and claims they would like to see included in the final status talks, but of course, not all of them will. So perhaps I am making a mountain out of am as-yet-non-existent molehill. Would not be the first time.
But let’s assume WOJAC and others even get themselves together to decide to go the Iraqi government first. The professor active with the WOJAC whom I quoted above said later in the article he did not think the Iraqi government would listen.
Not listen? As I see it, if they actually go ahead with making a claim, these organizations should be thrown out of the country and have their visas revoked. Does anyone involved with these groups watch the news? Or have even a passive understanding of what is happening in Iraq today? The fact dozens of people die every week in insurgent attacks and Iraqi Army/coalition raids? That the electricity and other basic utilities are still not functioning? That the future of the country hangs by a thread following the fallout from the negotiations around the constitution? And amidst all of these issues, upon which the lives of tens of millions of Iraqis – and arguably much of the region and world – depend, claims will be made on this government for billions of dollars in compensation, as well as devotion of time and personnel to care for abandoned synagogues? Perhaps I am being insensitive to the tragedies suffered by these Iraqi Jews who left Iraq, but to say that I think making claims for compensation is absurd is, to me, not nearly as insensitive as those claims would be on the current Iraqi government and people.
So let’s assume they do not press ahead with claims on the state of Iraq but instead attempt to have their claims included with, or offset against, those of the Palestinian refugees. Is this justified, or more importantly, just?
The short answer is no.
- Reason #1 is that the Palestinians had nothing to do with the Jews leaving Iraq. The Palestinian people and government are already going to be asked to “pay for” many things they have little to no control over, e.g., every aspect of all of the terrorist activity that goes on in the West Bank and Gaza – something not even Israel can do in its own territory (witness Eden Natan Zada). To ask them now to pay for the actions of the Iraqi government of the late 1940s and early 1950s is, to me, beyond unreasonable. In many ways the Palestinians have been paying for the Holocaust and the Jewish refugees from World War II for the past 60+ years, should they now be paying for the rest of the Jewish refugees as well?
- Reason #2 is that it is not entirely clear what the actions of the Iraqi government were at that time, and how much compensation they would theoretically be responsible for. The history is a fascinating one, and although it was the subject of my aborted college thesis, I am no expert. But I do know that there is some controversy over how much involvement the major Zionist organizations contributed to the conditions that led the Iraqi Jews to leave. Given the course of history, they would have likely left eventually, but there is evidence that the Zionist organizations helped the Jews in Iraq feel uncomfortable (some believe they actually planned bombings in coffee shops, while others say they simply fanned the flames of fear that such bombings touched off). Not to mention the manner in which Israel received this community – placing them in tent camps, some for as much as ten years, and the systemic discrimination faced in Israel by these Mizrahi immigrants that still exists today. Perhaps the Israeli government itself should pay come contributory damages claims?
- There are many others reasons, but my reason #3 is a basic request. These negotiations, this conflict, this tragedy is complicated enough at the moment. Issues like Jerusalem and water and border control may be nearly intractable, but no issue will be more difficult to find resolution to than the Palestinian refugees. Can we really afford to make it more complex by adding an unconnected issue such as this? Of all of the other aspects of the refugee problem, could this end up being what makes it the deal breaker this time?
The story of the Jews who left the Arab countries is tragic. The horrors of Katrina have shown us, despite the dramatically different circumstances, the human trauma experienced by people, like the Iraqi Jews, who lose everything. And I am not sure what the proper compensation mechanism should be for them and would love to hear ideas from readers. But wherever you place the blame for the exodus of Jews from Iraq (and throughout the region), does anyone see the Palestinians (and maybe Israelis, as well, if negotiations break down around this issue) as the ones who should pay the price?
glib but insensitive as all get go
Thank you for admitting that the story of the Jews who left the Arab countries is “tragic.” I would say, its not tragic but criminal. Most of them left with their property confiscated from Jewish communities that had existed for millenia (in the case of Iraq) or centuries in other Arab countries. Poof they are gone. The difference between criminal and tragic is that someone who had a choice did that to them on purpose. Whatever discrimination the Mizrahim experienced in Israel does not excuse the persecutions that occurred in Iraq.
Regarding the relationship to the Palestinians, there is in fact a relationship. The Arab war on Israel was fought by, among others, the Iraqis ( a war of aggression) in 1948 and this war led to the dispossession of the Palestinians. To add insult to injury, Israel, then a poor state had to absorb Iraqi Jewish immigrants who were expelled. Given a choice between helping Jewish refugees who were loyal to the state, and helping Palestinian enemies of the state who wanted to “push Israel into the sea,” they chose the former, meaning the latter got the short stick.
However, Iraqi-Israeli claims are closely intertwined with Palestinian_Israeli claims and other Arab-Israeli issues. It is not for you to determine who is more or less of a victim or whose victimhood does or does not warrant recognition. It is for the parties. If the Israelis of Iraqi descent give up their claims, fine. If you do it for them, you are sticking your nose into their business without their allowance.
Why weren’t you able to finish your thesis?
A Facile Comparison
I agree with Brad.
The story of the Mizrahi is an important one. No one - Jewish, Arab, or otherwise - should be forced to leave home and country because of religious or racial persecution. Israel was absolutely wrong to drive out Arabs within its borders, and Iraq and other Arab states were equally wrong in driving out Jews.
Maybe, if Iraq becomes a stable and prosperous country, the issue of compensation should be raised. At the very least I would hope that Jews would be able to return and live in Iraq and practice our religion freely.
What’s objectionable in WOJAC/JJAC approach is the facile notion of a trade: Mizrahi compensation for the Palestinian right of return.
For one thing the stories of the two groups are quite different.
Israel, looking to populate the Jewish state, was quite eager for immigrants. In a similar vein, Israel fought hard to get a monopoly on settling Holocaust survivers, even to the extent of negotiating directly with Nazi Germany for exclusive rights. Mizrahi may not have been well treated, but they were given the rights of citizens immediately and have, over time, largely assimilated as Israelis.
The Palestinians were rejected by other Arab states, or housed in refugee camps. They do not have the rights of citizens in any country to which they have migrated. They have maintained a very active national movement, of which the right to return has been the centerpiece. Right or wrong, this movement unquestionably has widespread support among Palestinians.
In contrast, there has been no widespread Mizrahi movement pressing for return to their homeland. While the Mizrahi are quite real, their “right of return” is something maintained by Zionist organizations as a counterclaim to the Palestinian demand and, to the best of my knowledge, not supported at the grassroots level.
Historically and culturally, the two groups are not equivalent.
The JPost article underlines the propaganda aims of the organizers:
Has anyone asked the Mizrahi population what it wants? Is it willing to sacrifice compensation, should any be offered? Maybe these Jews and their descendents would rather have their property back, or be able to return to Iraq, if given the opportunity. Mordechai Ben-Porat may have been a tireless advocate for their cause, but I would like to see some evidence that he, Haddad and Urman have a constituency or a mandate to make this trade. Once again, the Mizrahi are being used for political ends with little regard for their actual rights or interests.
The notion of exchanging the Mizrahi for the Palestinian right of return is one of those legalisms that have been an essential part of Israel’s negotiations with the Arab world, and have really served us rather ill. Sometimes I think we’re so enchanted with our own cleverness that we forget we’re making things up. Obfuscating the difference between our refugees and theirs, we will fail to understand the force and importance of the right of return to the Palestinians.
Thanks to Andrew for a reply
Thanks to Andrew for a reply that was more effective and coherent in making the points on this complex issue than I was.
“Glib” and “insensitive” are two words I never want to see attributed to my posts or thinking on the issues. But I do not think I was either.
The issue I was hoping to raise was not whether the story of the Iraqi refugees is, or is not, “tragic” or “criminal,” or the history of 1948, but rather whether the appropriate end to that tragedy or history is to exact compensation from the Palestinians, or to use the tragedy to somehow offset the tragedy and history of the Palestinian refugees. Reviewing some of the details of the history of the Iraqi Jews does not answer that question. Maybe it’s a question that does not have “an” answer, just answers that each side would like to see.
Once something is “criminal,” it normally means that someone, or some group of people, can be found guilty of the crime and held to account, with proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The question for me is whether that is possible in this case, and I simply do not believe it is.
I am interested to know more about why you think “Iraqi-Israeli claims are closely intertwined with Palestinian_Israeli claims and other Arab-Israeli issues.” Will — should — everything that has happened in the region involving Israelis/Jews and Palestinians, every tragedy and crime, on all sides, over the past 38, 57, 100 years, somehow have to be resolved in the final status negotiations? Part of me would like to think so, but I wonder how that can happen. And if it can’t, where is the line drawn? Where would you draw it?
Finally, personal issues prevented me from finishing the thesis.