Talk:Jewish exodus from the Muslim world

Someone removed the Aliyah template without explanation.

This article is featured in the template, so i have restored it.93.96.148.42 (talk) 04:50, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Changes to lead.

Today a change was made to the lead by 174.7.190.142 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). I reverted this change and was subsequently re-reverted by Passionless (talk · contribs). The change altered a sentence in the lead from

"Between 800,000-1,000,000 Jews were expelled from or left their homes in Arab countries due to persecution, antisemitism and political instability."

to make it read

"Between 800,000-1,000,000 Jews left their homes in Arab countries to follow the zionist dream, antisemitism and political instability."

Passionless left the following edit summary with his revert.

Undid revision 417187704 by Steven J. Anderson (talk)the pull factors must be mentioned as well, leaving them out would be tendentious

This edit is rather obviously bad for a number of reasons. Obviously if the IP who originally made it had been interested in actually improving Wikipedia, he wouldn't have left the grammar in such a fractured and nonsensical state. That aside, when Passionless saw the edit made and reverted once, the collegial thing to do would have been to come to the talk page and discuss it. Unfortunately, he just reverted instead and left it for me to bring the dispute here. Since I'm well aware of the 1RR restrictions on I-P conflict articles, I'm not about to touch the article again, not even to correct the abysmal grammatical state it's been left in.

Enough about process, now to the substance. Although the sentence was not cited to any reliable source in either form, this is not always required in the lead, since the lead is supposed to summarize the article, where, presumably, detailed references may be found. A quick perusal of the article will show that the first version of the sentence in question far more accurately summarizes the article which has a lot more to say about persecution and antisemitism in Arab and Muslim countries than it has to say about any so-called "pull factors" or a "zionist dream." --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 03:53, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I fixed the grammar, and 'zionist dream' did seem a bit odd so I changed it, but it is mentioned in the article that Jews left the arab world due to zionism. It may seem under represented in the article, but that's because it would be quite sily to say under each national heading that 'people also left due to Zionism', over and over again, so it is said once at the top of the section on various nations. Passionless -Talk 04:16, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Expelled?

Malik, can you please provide a source for the claim that Jews were "expelled" from Arab countries in this exodus? I found the word "expelled" in the text only twice, and neither referred to such expulsions. Gatoclass (talk) 05:53, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Sure, right after you explain why you removed the word "fled" with an inaccurate edit summary. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:56, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Well you can reinclude that if you like. My objection was to the word "expelled", but in removing it it occurred to me that "left or fled" was somewhat redundant. BTW, please explain why you also reverted "Evacuations" in the British Mandate header. The text in that section does not refer to expulsions but to evacuations. Gatoclass (talk) 06:01, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

When the British Army "orders [somebody] to evacuate", that's an expulsion, not a polite invitation to leave. As far as the use of "expelled" in the lede, when the government seizes somebody's assets and threatens to take them to the border, that's also an expulsion. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 06:05, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

The title of this article is "Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim lands". The problem with the word "expulsion" here is that it conflates seizure of property with expulsion from a country. At the very least this is very sloppy prose that needs to be clarified. Gatoclass (talk) 06:10, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and in regards to the British Mandate section, I think it's clear that the word "evacuation" is far more accurate. I doubt you will find a reliable source that employs the word "expulsion" in this context. Gatoclass (talk) 06:14, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

The article describes the situation in Iraq, in particular, as an expulsion:

On October 12, 1950, Nuri as-said summoned a senior official of the company and made similar threats again, equating the expulsion of Jews with the expulsion of Palestinians.

In 1951 the Iraqi Government passed legislation that made affiliation with Zionism a felony and ordered, "the expulsion of Jews who refused to sign a statement of anti-Zionism."[35]

I think the use of the word "expel" in the lede is adequately supported by what's in the article. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 06:17, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I've restored "Evactuations". — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 06:20, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Thankyou for that. I still think the word "expelled" in the way it is used in the intro to be misleading. I think a more precise explanation is necessary; however, given the points you raise above, I will obviously have to do a little homework before returning to this debate. Regards, Gatoclass (talk) 06:32, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I took a look at those two examples. In the first, Nuri was only making threats - there is no evidence presented in the article that these threats were actually carried out. Likewise in regards to the order - we don't know that any Jews were actually expelled as a result of it. Gatoclass (talk) 06:54, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

"As a result of militant Arab nationalism, Jews were expelled from Libya in 1951 and from Egypt in 1956..." Medding, Peter. Sephardic Jewry and Mizrahi Jews, Oxford University Press, 2008, p. 51. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:37, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Not exactly an informative quote. IIRC, a small number of Jews were expelled from Egypt as foreign nationals. I don't know what he's referring to in Libya, I would have to do some research on that. But my basic objection to the phrase "fled or expelled" is that it implies a moral equivalence between the Jewish exodus and what happened to Palestinians in the '48 war. Since as I understand it, only a small number of Jews were expelled, it's misleading to employ such a blanket phrase in the intro. At the very least, some additional explanation would be appropriate. Gatoclass (talk) 06:59, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

And you seem intent on making it seem like the Jews of the Middle East packed their bags one day and "left" for Israel. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 07:30, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay, look, I think I should apologize for that initial edit, which I admit was clumsy and ill-considered. In my defence, I was irritated by the fact that you added what I considered to be contentious material under the misleading edit summary "copy-editing". However, that is no excuse for carelessness on my part. I concede that my edit might readily have been interpreted as an attempted "whitewash" as you put it, but I hope you will accept my assurance that I had no such intention, I was simply too hasty in trying to rectify what I saw as a misleading claim. Gatoclass (talk) 07:54, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I think "left, fled, or were expelled" covers all the options and is supported by the body of the article. I'm not so sure about the "evacuation" bit. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 11:26, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

"left, fled or were expelled" is so far best and shortest description.Greyshark09 (talk) 11:39, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

"Short" is not a virtue where it leads to misconceptions. There needs to be sufficient explanation to provide an accurate summary of events. Gatoclass (talk) 13:06, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

What misconceptions? Jews left, fled or were expelled from Arab and Muslim countries. This is a fact which is supported by the body of the article, as well as the source Jayjg supplied above. That in your mind it implies some sort of equivalence with another event and you disagree with that is not really relevant here. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:09, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Regardless, it's still a misleading summary when IIRC at best only a tiny proportion of Jews suffered any kind of expulsion. "Expulsion" itself is a somewhat vague term that can apply to a number of different actions.

In any case, I'm not really in a position to pursue this further right now since I don't have the appropriate documentation to hand, apart from the fact that I have other priorities. I'll try to return to this discussion when I can find the time. Gatoclass (talk) 15:03, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

changing page name

It is a bit strange that the title says "Arab and Muslim lands", meaning that except Arabs and Muslims no body belongs to those lands - a dubious statement, which emphasises Pan-arabism. I propose to change to a more balanced title "Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries". I do not make it official suggestion for moving, but just want some opinions on this matter, or any better ideas.Greyshark09 (talk) 11:34, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I can't see a problem with that. Gatoclass (talk) 12:53, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Please share.Greyshark09 (talk) 13:13, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I said I can't see a problem with that. Well, maybe the phrase "Arab and Muslim" is not altogether accurate but I can't think of a viable alternative. But "countries" probably makes more sense than "lands", at least it would seem to on the face of it. Gatoclass (talk) 13:30, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanx, appreciate your support.Greyshark09 (talk) 14:12, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem with changing it to "countries" either. Can't say I feel very strongly either way. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:44, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

It also nudges me, that there might be a shorter or better title, but i think countries is more correct.Greyshark09 (talk) 15:11, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Then, i see there is a point to do so, thus i raise official suggestion on renaming the page.Greyshark09 (talk) 15:11, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Renaming to Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Support, the page was renamed.Greyshark09 (talk) 20:01, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I propose to rename the page to Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries. It is a bit strange that the title says "Arab and Muslim lands", since the meaning is that except Arabs and Muslims nobody actually belongs to those lands - a dubious statement, which might be percepted as Pan-Arabism or some kind of ethnic supremacism across Middle East and North Africa. I propose to change to a more balanced title in this regard. Please vote Support in favor of this move or Oppose if you are against (please provide a reason).Greyshark09 (talk) 15:21, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support per Greyshark09. --Frederico1234 (talk) 20:16, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
• Kommentar my knowledge of the middle east post Ottoman-pre WWII is shakey, but wasn't some territory owned/controlled by non-Muslim nations like France, UK, Italy, and Spain. And wasn't the British Mandate for Palestine only an administration not a state, and weren't there some unclaimed lands like parts of the desert today in Saudi Arabia? So for these reasons I think lands is more appropriate than countries, right? Passionless -Talk 22:03, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, you beat me to it Passionless. I just tried to post exactly the same thing and got an edit conflict :) Gatoclass (talk) 22:08, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

"Country" and "state" do not necessarily mean the same thing. Here's an interesting article on the subject. I think "lands" is a bit awkward. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 08:30, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

If you need clarification then the exodus was from Arab and Muslim countries, which is the main issue of this article. Historic background also deals with expulsions of Jews by Arabs in Iraq and Palestinian Mandate under British partial (Iraqi Kingdom) of full control (British Mandate for Palestine), but this is just background, not the main topic of exodus.Greyshark09 (talk) 16:07, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment But isn't the scope of this article the waves between 1947 and 1972. That is the impression I get from the layout. Evacuation from the British controlled area is under "Background". The lead adds to this confusion since it dates back farther yet it says "countries". The concern over wording that reads like pan-Arabism might be valid so please address it if you lean oppose.Cptnono (talk) 02:22, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support. "Land" is just a more picturesque word for "country", so "country" reads much better. Neither means "nation state". Itsmejudith (talk) 16:10, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
• Comment Greyshark, are you saying the present title is "Pan-Arabist" and 'countries' would be more neutral?--Metallurgist (talk) 22:24, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes in Middle Eastern context it is. The word "land" (Ard' in Arabic) has an important meaning in Arab nationalism.Greyshark09 (talk) 12:21, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support I agree with Greyshark09.The present title suggests that the lands the Jews left behind "belonged" to Arabs and Muslims.Headhitter (talk) 10:15, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

break

So it seems like there's consensus to move? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:26, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

How do we calculate the "comment", does it equal to abstain?Greyshark09 (talk) 17:30, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Btw, even in google there is an evidense for greater use of "countries", rather than "lands". There are twise more results on "Jewish exodus from Arab countries". It can be seen all across the sources, like here [1], [2], [3], [4]Greyshark09 (talk) 17:37, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Looks like Frederico, judith, Headhitter, Greyshark and I support. Passionless and Gatoclass oppose. Not sure about Cptnono (seems like a support) and Metallurgist (seems like an oppose). So that's 5 for, 2 against, 2 unsure. Still looks like consensus to move. If anyone disagrees, please say something. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:00, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

The Google results and the Pan-Arabism mentions are sufficient for me to support.Cptnono (talk) 22:05, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I must add that after revewing results in Google Scholar (which is illiminating self-repeating results), i can not see clear preference of "Arab lands" or "Arab countries" - both mentioned ("Arab states" rarely used). As no clear preference given in letarature, the decision on page name should therefore rely on logic.Greyshark09 (talk) 12:17, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I think that according to WP:MOVE the nominator shoud not be counted in votes, so excepting me the results are as following

Support - 5 (Frederico, judith, Headhitter, No More Mr Nice Guy, Cptnono)

Oppose - 2 (Passionless, Gatoclass)

Neutral - 1 (Metallurgist)

There is a solid majority for moving the page. Any final objections?

The page is renamed according to consensus.Greyshark09 (talk) 20:01, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Wouldn't a more accurate title be "Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim majority countries"? Actually the word "exodus" makes it sound as if the Jews living there were pleased to be delivered from those countries. As it happens, I'm sure they were in hindsight however I'm also sure they would have preferred to have been left in peace.

Also unless I am mistaken, the 2008 population numbers don't add up. The table says <6,400, however when you add up the individual numbers you get <4,840. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.24.28.77 (talk) 23:32, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Population sections on Arab countries and non-Arab Muslim countries

The sections were split and separate entries were added on Iran, Turkey, Afghanistan and other countries and territories, as proposed earlier.Greyshark09 (talk) 16:29, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Yehuda Shenhav's words

I trimmed his quotation I find repetitive and lacking usefulness. The remaining quote sufficiently characterizes his opinion. What really missing is the arguments on which his position is based. This addition would be encyclopedic improvement. Yceren Loq (talk) 15:45, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Section that doesn't belong

What is the section "Evacuations of Jews under the British Mandate for Palestine" doing in this article? Nobody was expelled from the country. Is there a case for keeping it?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Zero0000 (talk • contribs) 11:51, 27 August 2011

Take another look at the title of the article. It says "exodus", not "expulsions". --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 12:19, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Nobody left the country either. They just moved from one city to a nearby city. It is not about the topic of the page. Zero^talk 12:33, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

That is background section, so there is no problem. Anyway, during the Mandate and the previous Ottoman periods, expulsions and flight resulted in displacement, rather than "exit from Empire/Mandate" (case of Armenians, Assyrians, Kurds) - i must also mention the 1934 Thrace pogroms and the 1941 Farhud, where Jews turned displaced in their thousands, but their exit from Turkey and Iraq country was largely delayed until late 1940s and early 1950s, when they had a country willing to accept them - Israel. It is essential to mention it in the background, together with the evacuations within Mandate Palestine, which the sources describe as prequel to general anti-Jewish attitude throughout the Arab and Muslim world.Greyshark09 (talk) 16:49, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Split of section on Iranian Jewish exodus into a separate article

I would like to remind that originally this article began as "Jewish exodus from Arabs lands" or "Jewish exodus from Arab countries". However, after adding Iran, Turkey, Afganistan and Pakistan it was expanded to exodus from "Arab and Muslim lands/countries", which essentially might be WP:SYNTH. I'm not sure we see in leterature exodus from "Arab and Muslim countries/lands", but rather exodus from "Arab countries"/"Arab lands".

We are currently describing here possibly 2 (or even more) separate events - exodus from Arab lands (1947-1970s), which also included some Iranian, Afgani and Pakistani Jews of course; and another large scale Jewish exodus from Iran since 1979 revolution, which resulted from quiet different sircumstances and was essentially notable by itself. I think the Iranian exodus of the late 1970 and 1980s, which is going on to this day (see [5]) and is related "Exodus of Iran's Jews" [6],[7],[8] should require a separate article, while this one should concentrate on the exodus from Arab countries/lands (possibly we need to drop "and Muslim", per WP:RS). Other editors are welcome to share what they think of this.Greyshark09 (talk) 10:08, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

2 years old's proposal...

I agree with you. Pluto2012 (talk) 01:37, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Sources, offers, and 1975 Iraqi government ads in Toronto Star, New York Times, and Le Monde

It should be mentioned how different Arab governments have said they would allow former Jewish citizens of their nations to return and live in the Arab world (Morocco, Egypt, Yemen, Iraq, etc). Putting aside if one considers this a credible offer or possible. The clearest example of this (again putting aside what one thinks of it) was again by the Iraqi government on December 11, 1975 putting full page advertisements in numerous Western newspapers (The New York Times, Toronto Star, and Le Monde) asking any Iraqi Jews who left Iraq to feel free to return to Iraq (again putting aside whether one views this as a genuine offer or not). This page is sourced [9] and is done by someone with a Ph. D. Also the reality of the existence of in particular the Iraqi government advertisements of December 11, 1975 (calling for any Iraqi Jews to come back to Iraq) is admitted even by ideologically Zionist website [10] which state that pro-Zionist groups "scoffed at" the Iraqi government offer.

This info should be included and the sources are valid (written by someone with a Ph. D. and even corroborated to exist in the case of the December 11, 1975 Iraqi government advertisements by pro-Zionist organizations), especially if writings of the "JCPA" is included as the JCPA is an obviously partisan think-tank associated with the Israeli Likud party in particular (so any noting of the legitimate sources I'm providing, putting aside the pro-Zionist source corroborating in particular the 1975 Iraqi government advertisements, being partisan to one side should also then have the "JCPA" links and writings removed for partisan reasons). This info should be included in the "compensation" section as it by itself (the offer, whether one believes it or things like it are genuine or not) would be an offer of not just "compensation" but a return to where one originally came from in the first place. Putting aside that one of the most thorough discussions of the whole issue has been done by Professor Shenhav.[11]Historylover4 (talk) 05:18, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:ONUS and WP:V go to the WP:RSN and get an opinion if those sources are reliable.Thank you--Shrike (talk) 05:27, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps digging up copies of the newspaper articles in question would be preferable. Without these you have the potential of quoting a crank who took things out of context. -- Frotz(talk) 20:48, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

The ad certainly does appear in NYT Dec 11, 1975, page 51. It offers to take back Jews who left since 1948, with full civil equality. It doesn't mention confiscated property though. Zero^talk 02:15, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

No problem the ad is primary source we need some good RS that talk about this issue--Shrike (talk) 04:01, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Would articles written by assorted Israeli and Jewish thinkers calling the ads disingenuous suffice? -- Frotz(talk) 05:14, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

All histories I am familiar with

remark that in many of these communities, Zionist emissaries long before 1948 were active in encouraging the Jews in Arab countries (Libya, Iraq, Yemen are particular instances of strongly documented incentives) to perform aliyah. This is regarded as a significant factor, and is grossly underplayed in this article in order to showcase the persecution hence flight theme. The arc of time is ignored in the lead. I guess there's a lot of work to do, but as it stands this is a travesty of an article, the sort of trash you get in propaganda, in the endeavour to make a perfect parallel between the nakba and some pseudo-historical reverse nakba, occurring almost contemporaneously. Caveat lector.Nishidani (talk) 19:32, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

There was an attempt by the Zionist organization to encourage immigration, but their attempts and success until 1948 War was close to zero. Practically, there had been a constant low level flow of Jews back and forth between Sephardic and Mizrahi communities to those in Galilee, Jerusalem and Hebron (without any relation to modern Zionism); it increased in 19th century, but without any organized attempt of the Jewish Agency and the Zionist organizations (specifically in Yemen and Kurdistan) and became really significant in Libya and Iraq following the 1945 Tripoli pogrom and Farhud accordingly. Mizrahi and Sephardic Jews mostly were very much reluctant to leave for Southern Syria of the Ottomans or later British Palestine. Throughout the exodus, wealthy Jews streamed to Europe and US, rather than to the unstable and young state of Israel, which is quiet a good indication that the push factor was much stronger than the pull factor. The Arab media indeed tried to present to exodus as a covert operation of Mossad and Jewish Agency to "convert" or "abduct" the "Arab Jews", who were peacefully living with their Arab neighbours; however, most accounts show the exodus was rather a massive flight in fear of violence and disposession, loosely coordinated by Israeli agents.Greyshark09 (talk) 20:31, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

My point is that much of the narrative is generic and keyed to a rhetorical, non factual premise. It was an integral part of Zionist policy to draw in the diaspora, it was a fundamental key to its program, and was active throughout the Arab world (often encountering resistance) in the 1940s. The article gives the distinct impression that aliyah post 1948 was due to some internal antisemitism, persecution, pogroms and panic. It was predominantly due to rising conflicty of Arab states with Israel, a lowering of income, messianic hopes, and open incentives to immigrate. Antisemitism had little to do with it, 'flight' is mostly rubbish, and most were not motivated by some calculation their lives, rather than their economic futures, were in danger.

The Yemen case I edited recently shows this, as the Egyptian example I did years ago (I know the Libyan and Iraqi cases well). There was no 'massive flight out of fear' in neither of these cases. The successive wars (the Lavon Affair in 1954 and the Suez war of 56, and the Arab boycotts after successive clashes between Israel and Arab states 1948-1967 made life difficult. The massive effort by Isrtael to draw in the diaspora is almost invisible, . But, I suggest you reread the whole article through, and see if you can understand what someone like myself sees: an attempt to write as if some instantaneous panic swept Jewish communities all over the Arab world in the vicinity of 48, reciprocating the nakba. That's how it reads to me, and there was no such thing.

Still, I don't want to be polemical. I'm just shocked by the tendentiousness of the article, which can easily be improved by simply citing the standard academic histories (not Beit Or or whoever she is) of each Jewish community. No gov docs or lachrymose websites are needed, because there are many very good academic works covering every case.Nishidani (talk) 20:47, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm citing mostly Benny Morris, who is also the main source for the Palestinian exodus article. If Morris can be a good source for the Palestinian exodus article, i don't see how he can be discharged here. Morris clearly said that after 1948 "ground was practically burning under the Jewish legs in Arab countries" and that there was very little choice for the Jewish communities what to do and where to go. Certainly, arrival to Maabarot was not their key priority, and saying that 1 million people moved and abandoned their lives because of promises without a solid reason is non-sense.

some remarks - Lavon affair is not a war (exaggeration), and of course your position correlates the view that the Jewish exodus had been a Zionist operation to draw more sources to counter the Arabs. However, it would be rediculous to write as has someone suggested in the past:

"Between 800,000-1,000,000 Jews left their homes in Arab countries to follow the zionist dream, antisemitism and political instability.".

Aside from being funny, this suggestion clearly shows the Arab League position on the matter.Greyshark09 (talk) 21:06, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I have a visceral dislike of generalizations. I am familiar with the particular histories of most of those communities, and the motivations which led to aliyah vary from one to another, and though Morris is an excellent source on his own field, statements like "ground was practically burning under the Jewish legs in Arab countries" only blur things. If only because the round figure reminds me that Ben-Gurion had elaborated, against his own Jewish Agency, a "one million plan" involving both European and Mizrahi Jews in June 1943, before pogroms in Libya or Aden, and throughout the Middle East, as the Allied Forces won territory, the Mossad Aliyah Bet was active in sending emissaries to the communities, and Jewish Palestinian soldiers attached to the British army were active in reviving Zionist aspirations several years before the State of Israel came into being.

If then you look at particularistic histories, like that of Yemeni Jews (I've just edited that page with some of the relevant info), or Libyan Jews, the reasons for mass emigration are not reducible to flight and fear of Arabs. Maurice M. Roumani, (The Jews of Libya: Coexistence, Persecution, Resettlement, Sussex Academic Press, 2008, see esp. here, which registers a quotation dismissing the thesis of our article as a myth)provides for Libyan Jews several historical factors.

• (a)The racial laws under Fascist Italy of 1938
• (b)the deportation of Jews to concentration camps in Libya, Tunisia and Europe,
• (c)the 1945 and 1948 pogroms and imminent Libyan independence as an Arab state (in Libya the Italian community's probable fate, as violent colonizers, together with postwar economic turmoil caused by their return to Italy)
• (d)factors 1-3 left the community hopeless for a better future in Libya.
• (e)Palestinian Jewish soldiers’ rehabilitation of the community in the war period had an impact
• (f) Zionist mobilisation ‘brought Libyan Jews to a state bordering on euphoria for aliyah'.

Differential factors apply. Messianism was an important factor in Yemen, it was not in Libya.

That's just one example of the point not made. It was, long before 'flight' took place, a specific part of Zionist policy to bring Jews in Arab countries to Palestine, irrespective of conditions there. Nishidani (talk) 09:53, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

There is no doubt, the Jewish communities in ME and NA underwent a series of events, which eventually led to their collapse, and it is not correct to say that messianism brought Yemenite Jews to Israel (even though indeed there was such factor, which initiated immigration as early as 1881) or that only the Farhud fasciliated the exodus of Iraqi Jews (even though several thousand Jews fled Iraq as a result), or only the Arab-Israeli conflict from 1947-1948 was the only cause. There is a discussion on this in the article, and indeed it should be expanded for each community case. In any case, the Zionist policy to immigrate Jews to Israel was quite unsuccessful unless the efforts of the Arab nationalism, which brought to extreme violence (Aleppo, Aden, Tripoli, Oujda and Jerada and other cities), physical expulsion (Egypt in 1956) and cancellation of citizenship (Algeria in 1962) and the general anti-Israeli and accordingly anti-Jewish atmosphere in the Arab World and some adjustent Muslim countries (Iran and Afghanistan).Greyshark09 (talk) 11:00, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

‘Immigration . .was the heart and souil of the Zionist movement; it was perceived as the progenitor of the Jewish state. With the “ingathering of the exiles” as an ideological cornerstone and political independence as a goal, immigration became the spearhead of the Zionist battle. Devorah Hakohen, Immigrants in Turmoil: Mass Immigration to Israel and Its Repercussions in the 1950s and After, Syracuse University Press, 2003 p.1

This, the background I cited above, Ben-Gurion's figures in June 1944, all of the facts concerning the long concentrated planning for mass emigration to Israel on its declaration is ignored, in favour of a mythic narrative that everyone just up stakes and emigrated to get out of an antisemitic, hostile Arab world. It's comic book, polemical history. It's pointless listing a handful of pogroms over a decade in a vast world. They played a factor of course, as did the 24 pogroms or massacres Morris cites as attributable to the Haganah in the 1948 did to the Arab flight. Weizmann himself at the time said it was not this or that pogrom in Baghdad or Cairo or Tripoli that was worrying as much as the fear that in the future a hostile Muslim majority, in the Muslim world that 'has treated the Jews with great tolerance' might, under pressure of the new nationalism (of which Zionism was the most egregious example for its Arab neighbourts) wreck harm. (Roumani p.109). In any case there are dozens of books on this not cited in the bibliography, and the sourcing here is generally disgraceful, so plenty of work can fix much of this, as you suggest. Nishidani (talk) 13:41, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not contesting the fact that this article still requires much work and restructuring; though i consider it to be in a much better shape than prior to my intervention a year ago (I'm working on most refugee issues in the ME, including Refugees of the 2011-2012 Syrian uprising, Kurdish refugees and Palestinian refugees as well - recently the Palestinian expulsion from Kuwait). Jews were mostly escaping uncertainty, sporadical violence, sanctions as well as promises for better life and Zionist aspirations as you have said; no one can also put his finger to the only exact reason for the flight of nearly 1,000,000 Assyrians from Iraq through the last decade, but it is a fact - we again saw sporadic violence against an ethnoreligious minority, a non-intervening government and a general atmosphere of hatred. In the end, except in the Kurdish controlled region, the Assyrian population of Iraq has collapsed. They were not expelled, not officially sanctioned, no genocide made on Assyrians through the last decade (even though fanatic violence took hundreds of lives), but they collapsed and the reasons are clear and no different than in the case of the Jewish exodus several decades earlier.Greyshark09 (talk) 14:01, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Grayshark is correct. I don't think any serious historian contests the fact that the Jews in most Arab countries were subject to discrimination and physical violence. Almost all of them left, leaving most of their possessions behind. They were pushed out. Some may have left because of ideological or financial reasons, but saying that's the main reason is ridiculous. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:55, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Apropos. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:55, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Almost all the sources and references are closely tied to the subject

Almost all of the sources and references are one sided, closely tied to the subject or holds point of view which promote subject of this article as a fact. Problem is that subject of this article is highly controversial and by no means established fact.--Santasa99 (talk) 17:01, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean "as a fact"? The article is quiet clear that there are several points of view on the issue and the title is "exodus" (neutral), not "expulsion" or "flight" and not "immigration" or "voluntary Zionist aliyah". The main section of the articles describes a series of events - the exodus is a fact. What are the reasons for the exodus can be discussed and indeed is discussed.Greyshark09 (talk) 17:12, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh, OK ! I see where this going, so forget the "fact" established or invented ! Almost all of the sources and references are one sided and closely tied to the subject ! I couldn't find any authors/sources which corroborate and/or confirm the main point and subject nor this article as a whole - no Arab, Muslim or any other then Israeli and/or Jewish authors and/or sources are referenced ! This would constitute extreme bias in all other Wikipedia articles/cases sensitive as this one, but not here !--Santasa99 (talk) 18:41, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Then give the sources by Muslims if you have any. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.137.39.36 (talk) 03:26, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

RfC

BAn RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 16:50, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

new section

New section for new topic by -DePiep (talk) 23:31, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Please explain why you restored a tag that says "This article may rely too heavily on sources with too close a tie to the subject to be verifiable and neutral" when it has references from historians, peer-reviewed journals and various mainstream media outlets. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:02, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Nice of you to open a new section. Now can you address the substance of my comment? There are 129 refs in this article, and over 20 books in the references section. Why did you restore the tag? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:40, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Figures regarding European displaced persons

This one needs calcluating: http://www.geschichteinchronologie.ch/judentum-aktenlage/hol/EncJud_DPs-ENGL.html

The israelis claiomed that 550,000 holocaust survivors had settled in Israel: http://www1.yadvashem.org/odot_pdf/Microsoft%20Word%20-%205817.pdf

150,000 arrived from Romania by 1950. http://www1.yadvashem.org/download/education/conf/Stark.pdf Their numbers are not included in offical DP figures and the Romanian Holocaust was largely independent of the German run holocaust most people are familiar with.

The British worked to minimized the definition of DP's so as to prevent them being allowed to enter Palestine. As a result survivors were forced to share accomomdation with former Nazi collaborators from Easter Europe who the Brits gave DP status to. Some of the collaborators had been in Einsatz Gruppen. I can find the reference for this if you're interested.

After Kielce hundreds of thousands of Jews left Poland and headed to Israel, avoiding the British sector where they were regarded as Poles.

The figure of 136,000 refers to survivors of German camps and not to Jewish refugees as a whole. the comparison and the wording are highly offensive and designed to misunderestimate Ashkenazi suffering.

Please remove the reference, which is not necessary for the article.

Telaviv1 (talk) 13:30, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I see your point, thanks for clarification - the source is not precise.Greyshark09 (talk) 20:02, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Lead section

The lead should normally be no longer than four paragraphs, as a general guideline propose, though it is not an absolute rule. This Intro is so confusing and it is really long. So, any suggestions ?

Algerian nationality code

«Almost all Jews of Algeria left upon independence in 1962, particularly as "the Algerian Nationality Code of 1963 excluded non-Muslims from acquiring citizenship",[32] allowing citizenship only to those Algerians who had Muslim paternal fathers and grandfathers» : This is false !

The text is here : http://www.joradp.dz/Jo6283/1963/018/FP307.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.105.115.10 (talk) 23:00, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Question source

Why is the article of Meron being treated as a third-party source? He himself was a major player in the propaganda war. We also have some of his references copy-pasted in here verbatim. Zero^talk 11:30, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me he is expert on the topic.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 14:12, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

If he is an "expert" on the topic perhaps you could point to any per reviewed journals or academic imprints that have published his work on this topic. Dlv999 (talk) 14:25, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I didn't say he isn't an expert. I said he isn't a third party. He's certainly an expert on the current Israeli position since he largely developed it. Yehouda Shenhav (Tel Aviv University) described it in Haartez: The WOJAC figure who came up with the idea of "Jewish refugees" was Yaakov Meron, head of the Justice Ministry's Arab legal affairs department. Meron propounded the most radical thesis ever devised concerning the history of Jews in Arab lands. He claimed Jews were expelled from Arab countries under policies enacted in concert with Palestinian leaders - and he termed these policies "ethnic cleansing." Vehemently opposing the dramatic Zionist narrative, Meron claimed that Zionism had relied on romantic, borrowed phrases ("Magic Carpet," "Operation Ezra and Nehemiah") in the description of Mizrahi immigration waves to conceal the "fact" that Jewish migration was the result of "Arab expulsion policy." I don't mind Meron being cited, but he should be cited as a protagonist and not as an independent source of facts. Zero^talk 22:27, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Now looking more carefully, I see a more clearcut problem. Except for the first sentence and one slightly changed sentence in the middle, this section is an exact copy-paste from Meron's article. The footnote is also a verbatim copy. This makes it a copyright violation and we are required to remove it, which I will now do. Zero^talk 09:09, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Done. Now to look at the text to see what is retrievable. As shown above, Meron was an Israeli official who developed the "Arab expulsion plan" version of the story. No surprise that his article is poor propaganda. Some points:

1. "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...". This "key address" was just a short comment by a committee member, less than one column of text. There was no such thing as the "Political Committee" (it was the Ad Hoc Committee on the Palestinian Question). And Nov 14 was not 5 days before the partition vote. Three errors in one sentence! The last error is explained by the fact that it was actually Nov 24, but it isn't just a typo since Meron repeats the same error in the footnote.
2. "... Heykal Pasha, an Egyptian delegate, made the following key statement in connection with that plan:" And then follows two excerpts presented as quotations. Examination of the original (UN document A/AC.14/SR.30) shows that they aren't quotations at all, but a summary. As the name of the document indicates, this is not a "verbatim record" but a "summary record", i.e. some secretary wrote a summary of what Heykal said. It reads "Mr. Heykal Pasha (Egypt) said that..." (in the French version "M. Heykal Pacha (Egypte) déclare que...") with no quotation marks or any other indication that it is quoting.
3. In the citation to this non-quotations, Meron writes "The original language of this statement is French, so we have altered the U.N's English translation to bring it into harmony with the equally official French text." I was anxious to see what he had changed but it took a while to spot. It comes back to the problem of this not actually being a quotation. In the English version it is too obviously a report from an observer: "If the United Nations decided to partition Palestine", whereas a quotation would have "If the United Nations decides to partition Palestine". This English idiomatic way of third-party reporting is not used in French, so he uses the excuse of the French version (which is also obviously a third-person report but not in this way) to change "decided" into "decides", "lived" into "live", and two similar cases. That's all he changed. Like I said, poor propaganda.
4. Naturally Meron would omit anything that would weaken his claim that Heykal was making bloodthirsty threats, so it is not surprising he missed the sentence "It was not always possible for a government to maintain order when a people saw its blood brothers massacred in a neighbouring country."
5. Between the two (non-)excerpts, Meron writes "Heykal Pasha then elaborated..." but the second excerpt came before the first.
6. in the following paragraph, Meron writes "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." A blatant lie.
7. Meron summarises his analysis of Heykal's statement as "Heykal Pasha had publicly and very formally announced a program to expel Jews from Arab countries" but Heykal did not say a single syllable about expulsion let alone a plan for expulsion. Meron just made up that conclusion out of thin air.
8. In his conclusions Meron writes "as we have seen, in a good many cases, Jews were forced out well before the Palestinian exodus", but there are hardly any examples in his article.

Zero^talk 10:10, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I think this is a convincing demonstration that Meron is not reliable. Pluto2012 (talk) 18:27, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Remark

@Malik Shabazz: Regarding your remark [12], i fixed one sentence that was cut during the section relocation. Was that the problem with the edit?GreyShark (dibra) 17:30, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Thank you for fixing it. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:41, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH playing with Iranian Jews

Cleanup has been made because Israeli user User:Greyshark09 continues with distorting Iranian history. As far as I can see, purpose of this article was to provide information about Jewish forced migrations (1) driven by Israel-Arab conflict and Arab nationalism (2) mainly from 1948 until the early 1970s (3). I have not clue how Iran fits into this since there wasn't any forced migration of Iranian Jews (1), Iran isn't Arab country and it didn't participated in Israel-Arab conflict (2), and there wasn't any migration of larger scale to 1970s (3). The only fault of Iran is that it's a Muslim country, so thanks to persecutions in Muslim Arab countries and 1955 pogrom in Muslim Turkey, it got into evil group of "Muslim persecutors". A nice WP:SYNTH, especially in time of increased Iran-Israel rhetoric conflict. However, it's not the only problem, we have factual accuracy issues also. According reliable sources and censuses (all well sourced), we have 50,000 Jews in 1900, 65,232 in 1956, 60,683 in 1966 and 62,258 in 1976. That's why section about Iran has been moved to "Aftermath". Historians agree there were some migrations but obivously in minor scales, Sanasarian also states they had economic motives. Ex-Mossad David Littman claims 70,000 emigrated from 1948–1978 (included in text), but such numbers make little sense since it implies enormous birth rate from 1900-1956 while Jewish community was highly urbanized in Yazd, Shiraz, Tehran, Isfahan and Hamadan. Even less sense we can found in previous version unsourced claims about "increasing antisemitism since Israeli creation". In Persian urban centres during Iran-Arab disputes? Pure Sci-Fi. Not even Khomeini lately propagated anything against Jews. In fact, due to Arab-Israeli conflicts, Iran received many Iraqi Jews. Regarding migrations in IRI period, from censuses we know that Jewish population dropped to 26,354 in 1986 due to Iran-Iraq War. Considering number (35,000), percentage and proportion in multi-million Iranian migration during same period, such phenomenon can't be described as as "mass migration" or "exodus", and there's no WP:RS for it. The most similar case to Iranian is about Bosnian Jews, 15,000 fled thanks to organized US-Israeli help during Yugoslav wars. Similar help (or challenge) stands for Iranian Jews even today - if family emigrate from Iran, they get £30,000 reward. There's no significant difference between Jewish migrations from Iran or North America, it fits more under Aliyah article. User:Greyshark09 has manipulated once again, misusing metaphor from chapter's title From the Rivers of Babylon to the Valleys of Los Angeles: The Exodus and Adaptation of Iranian Jews refering to ancient Babylonia (from book Gatherings In Diaspora: Religious Communities and the New Immigration) for making ridiculous article called "Exodus of Iran's Jews" (redirected), despite the fact there is no any "exodus" mentioned in all chapter related to Iran (pages 71-94). He even inserted categories like 1948 Arab–Israeli War and Islam and antisemitism [13], included it in completely politically and chronologically irrelevant template called "Jewish exodus from Arab countries 1947–1972" [14], and in this article also [15]. This is pure politically motivated playing with history, an attempt of describing people who voluntarily migrated under danger of war/sanctions and got high cash rewards as "persecuted refugees" or "victims of antisemitism", and even worse - using their numbers as false analogy for justifying expulsion of Palestinians. It may work in some Israeli bulletin of historical revisionism, but not in encyclopaedia. His actions are reverted. --HistorNE (talk) 09:44, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

The comments on the content that you raise are interesting and deserve discussion but you should not attack Greyshark that way. See WP:AGF.

I am not at all aware of the history of Iran but it sounds logical that the case of Iran is different from the case of the other Arab countries given it was on the Western side until Khomeini. Littman is of course not at all a WP:RS source.

Anyway, antisemitism in Iran today cannot be denied so all this should be discussed and analyse carefully.

Pluto2012 (talk) 00:19, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Redirect

I disagree with this redirect. The article and its content are justified given the Exodus of the Iran's Jews is a particular case. All the content from this article could be moved there Pluto2012 (talk) 01:28, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Littman

I have removed this : "[[David Littman (historian)|David Littman]] puts the total figure of emigrants to Israel in 1948–1978 at 70,000<ref>{{cite book|last=Littman|first=David|authorlink=David Littman (historian)|title=Jews Under Muslim Rule: The Case Of Persia|publisher=[[Wiener Library|Institute of Contemporary History]]|location=London|year=1979|page=5|oclc=6129499}}</ref>"

Whatever he did good in his life, he has nothing more than a MSc in history and he remains an anti-Muslim activist given he cannot be dissociated from his wife Bat Ye'or. This makes him "not WP:RS" for the topic.

Pluto2012 (talk) 00:38, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

According to the book The Population of Israel by Roberto Bachi (p.104), the official count of immigrants from Iran for 1948-1968 was 21,349. That is compatible with the Iranian counts and matches other estimates I have seen. Zero^talk 12:23, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Cash for immigration

I think that mentionning this fact is acceptable but this additionnal sentence :

" Remaining Iranian Jews dismissed them as "immature political enticements" and said "their national identity was not for sale"."

is somewhere between WP:OR by generalisation and WP:Undue. Pluto2012 (talk) 00:43, 28 October 2013 (UTC)