Talk:Jewish exodus from Arab lands/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 Article listed as a source 2 What this article needs 3 Not happy with article 4 From the article 4.1 Points to add 4.2 Non-Jews 4.3 Moroccan Sephardim 5 Why is this article disputed? 6 Lavon Affair and other Jewish treason caused the exodus 7 NPOV Tag is being removed by bigoted editors who disagree with content of article 8 UN role 9 NPOV 10 Lavon Affair is now part of the article 11 Quality of this article 11.1 The Jews from Arab lands were not "going on vacation" to Israel 12 Accuracy 13 Iraqi story 14 Rest of the Arab world 15 Advocacy groups 15.1 Verbatim quotes and citations in Wikipedia articles 16 Motivations of Zionists 17 Totally disputed 18 Motivations of emigrants 19 Treatment of Jews in Arab lands 20 Split up article 21 Copyvio

Article listed as a source

This page has been cited as a source by a media organization. See the 2004 press source article for details. The citation is in: "Will Israel Become an Arab State?", NewsMax.com, January 12, 2004.

I removed the link because the website mentioned drastically oversimplifies things (it seems to be for children rather than for adults)

It lists figures, what's wrong with that? --Uri

the figures are not the problem, the problem is the text beside the figures and maps. Would you really say the following presents a full and fair treatment of the refugee issue? Things are not as simple as this website presents: "Approximately 720,000 Arabs, encouraged by their leaders to leave, fled from what is now Israel between April and December, 1948.(1) The Arab leaders promised them that they would soon be able to return following Israel's destruction. In some cases the Jews, including Israel's first Prime Minister, David Ben-Gurion, urged the Arabs to remain, promising that they would not be harmed.(2) Those who remained became full and equal citizens of Israel, while those who chose to leave went to neighboring Arab states. Instead of welcoming their Arab brothers, and integrating them into the mainstream of their societies, the Arab states kept them in squalid refugee camps and used these Palestinians refugees as political pawns in their fight against Israel." I think, wikipedia is better off without links to this site (our own articles provide much more content)--Elian

Then we must provide equivalent content. By that, I mean refugee number listings. --Uri

What this article needs

What it needs:

• a less victim-oriented history

??? The Jews have always been victims. The innocent peace-loving Jews came down from the hills to settle on the lands of Caanan and Philistia, only to be victimised by the evil natives, etc., etc., for 3000 years.

• a list of the main migrations with dates, counts, and some basic information about each
• a new name! There have been many more Jewish refugees in history than this. What about the 1492 expulsion from Spain for example? Maybe something like "Jewish refugees to Israel" or "Jewish refugees from Arab lands"?
  • May I assume this referred to an earlier name? "Immigration to Israel from Arab lands" seems unproblematic to me as an article title. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:23, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
    • The article title at the time was "Jewish refugees", I'm pretty sure. --DanKeshet
• some NPOV. At the moment the Jews were "forced to leave" and the Palestinian refugees were merely "created". The first one actually gives a completely false impression in that readers will think the Arab states physically required their Jews to leave. It wasn't like that at all in most of the cases. Usually Jews were forbidden to leave until Israel and its allies mounted a campaign for their release. Of course the Jews usually had good reasons for leaving and may have even felt they had no reasonable choice, but that is not what people will understand by "forced to leave". zero 08:15, 10 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Do we really need all these all-caps quotes? RickK 07:53, 30 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Not happy with article

I'm not happy with this article. Referring to all Jews who left Arab countries for Israel as refugees is highly inaccurate, while the term "Jewish refugees" shoudl encompass other periods, such as pre- and post-World War II. The passengers on the Saint Louis were clearly Jewish refugees--much more than the Jewish immigrants from Yemen to Israel. Danny 08:07, 30 Aug 2003 (UTC)

So let's change the name. What about "Jewish emigration from Arab lands to Israel"? It's a bit long but it's hard to make it shorter. If the destination (Israel) is not the main issue, then the time period is need, such as "Jewish emigration from Arab lands after 1948". --zero 12:03, 30 Aug 2003 (UTC)

It's a whopper but I suggest "Jewish emigration from Arab lands to Israel after 1948" (there was an important, if small, movement of Jews from Yemen to Ottoman Palestine in the 1880s). But to me, "Jewish refugees" conjures up images of the Evian Conference and the Bermuda Conference. This is entirely off the mark. Danny 13:05, 30 Aug 2003 (UTC)

If we use "Jewish emigration from Arab lands to Israel", it will be no problem to add a section about the earlier migrations. Alternatively reverse it to "Jewish immigration to Israel from Arab lands". If you agree to either of those, go ahead and change it.zero 14:42, 30 Aug 2003 (UTC)

From the article

Points to add

periodical pogroms, particularly the pro-Nazi rule in Iraq in the early 1940s, details of which measures caused the flight and how did it happen, measures taken from Israel to save the refugees (Yemen?)

---

Erm, Jews have lived in Arab lands since 586 BC and almost all of this time they have been Dhimmis? I can give at least a millennium when they didn't live under Muslim rule... DanKeshet 06:46, Nov 10, 2003 (UTC)

• Nov 2003! Wow. And no one has really addressed this.

---

Why do we only talk about Arab lands, ignoring the 100,000 Jews from Iran who were in the same situation? Keith from Calgary 06:21, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

• Hmm. Probably would not be bad to treat that in same article. It would mean retitling this. Also, I believe the bulk of that migration is later (I'm not super-knowledgable on this, could someone chime in who is?). If so, combining might not be the greatest idea. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:26, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

---

Non-Jews

I am missing some comparison with similar exoduses like Christians (Maronites, Latin, Coptic, Orthodox) from Egypt, Palestine, Lebanon. Did they coincide in time? Had some of them higher pressures?

Moroccan Sephardim

The Morocco section should mention that by the time the Spanish troops took to conquest Spanish Morocco, they were surprised to find friendly "Moors" (the Moroccan Sephardim) that helped them and spoke something similar to Spanish. In retribution, Spain conceded some favors to Sephardim.

Why is this article disputed?

Why is there still a NPOV tag on this article? Jayjg 18:08, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Few or none of the issues addressed earlier on this talk page have been dealt with. The article as it stands is very weak and contains hardly any information about the subject. An example sin is the phrase "Arab governments ..." when in fact there were vast differences between the situations in different countries. And why the long list of advocacy groups? They should be just a link each. What about the groups that advocate for the rights of these immigrants in Israel (where they claim to be severely discriminated against)? --Zero 01:10, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I am returning a full disputed tag to this article. It reads like a propaganda bulletin. I am also placing an RFC request. Some outside editors might bring a fresh neutral perspective. I have not edited this article myself, but I prefer not to begin, before other fresh editors have studied it. --AladdinSE 05:55, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

• Aladdin: You have not given a single fact or argument why this article is "TotallyDisputed", I am therefore removing the sign. IZAK 02:34, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• • Having read through the discussion here, I can not find a single argument on factual or rhetorical grounds that would indicate that this article is biased. There are some suggestions on how to improve it, e.g., less about the organizations (probably deserve their own article), and more specifics on the various migrations, but objections largely fall into the "inconvenient truths" category. --Leifern 10:09, 2005 Apr 4 (UTC)

Lavon Affair and other Jewish treason caused the exodus

Why does SlimVirgin insist on whitewashing Jewish and Israeli culpability in the plight of Arab Jews? --User:STP

Baloney, whoever you are! IZAK 02:53, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Lavon affair is a much more complex story that barely seems relevant to this article. Even if the allegations of bombings to disrupt US-Egyptian relations are true (which is debatable), they are at best lousy pretexts for punishing Jews. They are certainly not "proof" of everything. The Lavon affair revolves around the arrest, torture, conviction, and execution of Egyptian Jews who worked as spies for Israel. --Leifern 04:54, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC)

NPOV Tag is being removed by bigoted editors who disagree with content of article

The Lavon Affair and other Israeli crimes using Arab Jews as their agents contributed to the expulsion of Arab Jews from their homelands. There are a bunch of bigoted editors who cannot face the truth about Israeli culpability in this history so they censor the information and then delete the NPOV tag. -- User:STP April 4, 2005

So you're saying that it's completely legitimate for Arab governments to collectively punish all Jews for alleged crimes of a few? How does that make the Arab regimes look any better? By that standard, every Muslim in the U.S. should have been expelled after 9/11, a position I surely would reject. --Leifern 13:54, 2005 Apr 8 (UTC)

What nonsense you spout, and you sound veeerrrryyyy straaaannnnggggge if you talk of "Israeli crimes" as if there are no "Arab crimes". Hahahahahaha. There is no basis for the tag! IZAK 03:27, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

User:STP's edit is self-evidently POV. "Middle Eastern and North African Jewish communities, came to an end in the 1940s and early 1950s when most Arab governments forced hundreds of thousands of Jews to flee after ... treachery and treason such as the Lavon Affair terrorist attacks." It doesn't even make sense: whose treachery and treason are you talking about? You're also deleting a bunch of links for no reason. STP is believed to be a sockpuppet of banned User:Alberuni, in which case his edits may be reverted for any reason, and he may be blocked. The only reason I'm not doing it myself is that I can't be certain it's him. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:32, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

It is a violation of Wikipedia policy to remove an NPOV tag when the POV is being disputed on the Talk page. It is also a violation of policy to alter another editor's edits on the Talk page as SlimVirgin did by altering the heading of this section. Furthermore, the treachery exhibited by Israel in the Lavon Affair, recruiting Egyptian Jews for terrorist attacks in Egypt, greatly contributed to all Arab countries mistrusting their Jewish populations. This added greatly to the burden of the Arab Jews, especially after the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from the Holy Land by European Jews - in the name of a Jewish State. This is not easy for hardcore Zionists to accept but it is true and you should attempt to adress it rather than censor it. Read Moshe Sharret's diaries cited in Israel's Sacred Terrorism, for a needed education. User:STP

It is a violation of morality to be a scoundrel! Because User:STP has in fact been cited for vandalism by User:ElTyrant, see Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress#Current alerts#April 4 [1] and is suspected by both User:SlimVirgin and User:Jayjg of being a sock puppet of banned User:Alberuni see User talk:STP [2] and Mossad "Project"? No, it was Mossad terrorism [3]. UserSTP is also guilty of using anti-Semitic slurs, such as: "traitor Jews can't be trusted" [4] ; "Judaism is a cult but Jewish cultists, of course, deny it" and added the blood libel: ":Ethnocentric Jews killed Jesus 2000 years ago and in the past century they have killed thousands of Palestinians, Lebanese, Jordanians and other innocent victims in their quest to maintain their racist state." [5], and again repeated it "The Jews killed Jesus, among many others" [6] ! So who is this guy to "complain" when he should be booted off Wikipedia ASAP. IZAK 11:53, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I would be very careful about insinuating that other editors are dogs (your wiki link to "scoundrel" in your comment was in fact a link to the Wikipedia Dog article. That was very below the belt and a clear Personal Attack. If you have such objections to this person, it's hypocritical to stoop to such a level. It's inflammatory and gets us no where. --AladdinSE 12:04, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

I couldn't find a suitable link to Scoundrel so I chose the next best way to dab, which was "dog", and I think that it's actually unfair to the dogs to have someone who publicly exclaims blood libels as User:STP did a number of times (did you read the rest of what I wrote by the way?). It's time you stopped defending the wrong people on Wikipedia and adjusted your perspective/s so that you understand clearly that no self-respecting Jew (which is what I try to be) will take open and vile Anti-Semitism insults and not react. Or do you prefer Jews who go like "sheep to the slaughter"? Oh, and who was it that said, "beware of the wolf that hides in the sheep's ("NPOV") clothing? IZAK 13:06, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That is a spurious argument. You were not obliged to link to "scoundrel" at all. Calling someone a scoundrel even without the link is out of line in the first place, no matter how offended you are by any user's actions or political predilections. The Wikipedia:No personal attacks policy is absolute. There are no exceptions for when an editor is more than usually incensed at another editor. If you believe an editor has crossed a line and actually broken Wikipedia policy then pursue the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution steps that are afforded to you. That is the proper way to react, according to policy. Here instead of desisting, you have compounded your error by claiming that insinuating he/she is a dog is unfair to dogs. Do you really need another ban placed on you? Why give anyone ammunition to be used against you? Just stay cool. I am not here to defend any particular user, or to be told how I should reset my priorities. I did not join Wikipedia to get into pissing contests on Talk pages, to see who can hurl insults in the wittiest and most self-righteous way. I dislike personal attacks anywhere and I certainly dislike such ugly inflamatory language in a Talk section designed for consensus. I do not doubt your commitment against anti-Semitism and other ideals, but your emotionalism and knee-jerk reactions are exhausting and a constant source of distraction across several article Talk pages. --AladdinSE 03:24, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks for the advice, I am impressed you say it at all. However, for what it's worth, some people around here need to know that Jews and Israelis on Wikipedia are live self-respecting human beings too (and not just "objects" to "caricature" and subject to Holocausts and expulsions), and when a nut comes along and hurls violent invective at them, there is actually bleeding going on in that Jew's heart -- not just an unfeeling cyber-automaton saying "ho-hum". At any rate, how I deal with mad-hatters like User:STP and other "mad dog" Anti-Semites on Wikipedia needn't concern you, I have made my choices and I think they are are still well-within the bounds of human morality which is more important than mere "rules" (which so concern you, really are you a lawyer, you haven't told us yet?) And as for you, stick to your ways and I will continue to debate you as best I can in the spirit of good-natured scholarly rivalry, as long as you don't resort to hate speech or other such-like anti-Jewish, anti-Zionist and anti-Israel provocations on Wikipedia (unfortunately I cannot react to all those gross POV violations, but those that come my way, and I am able to respond to, I do fully...as you can tell... and I even ENJOY it!) Yet, this should in no way make you feel "...to be undergoing exhausting (and a) constant source(s) of distraction across several article Talk pages" because after all that's what Wikipedia article Talk pages are there for, to "talk" right? (especially when it concerns hot-button controversial subjects, there will always be challenges to deal with around here.) Take care and thanks again for your genuine concern (which I seem to sense, I only hope it's sincere.) IZAK 08:04, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Very well, do as you will. I have said my peace. --AladdinSE 09:30, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

UN role

Why "See also United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East" if the UN is said, just prior to that, to have had no role? -- Jmabel | Talk 05:57, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

Now moved to the bottom of the page, with the other "See also's". IZAK 10:39, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

I would suggest returning the NPOV tag to the page, since there does seem to be a POV dispute. As far as I can tell, there are no specific factual disputes, though.

Are there specific points people feel need citation? Specific statements people think are biased? (And, for that matter, are there disputed facts?). A clear list would help us move toward resolving this quickly. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:34, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

Starting list:

• It would be useful to have something about the various refugee organizations other than their own self-descriptions. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:34, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Could we clarify the wording about Dhimmi vs. the pre-Muslim era? "Except for intermittent periods when Jews in Arab lands were able to contribute to their countries of residence..." is really confusing; the last phrase ("...able to contribute...") has no clear meaning. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:34, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
• What is the relevance of "See also United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East"? -- Jmabel | Talk 06:34, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

On April 2 I put in an RFC regarding concerns for NPOV. Some fresh perspectives from editors not heavily involved in articles dealing with the Arab-Israeli conflict might prove helpful. --AladdinSE 07:32, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

Aladdin what are you really saying and asking for here? That you expect editors who know nothing about this subject to give their POV opinions? Who exactly are those "editors not heavily involved in articles dealing with the Arab-Israeli conflict" that you wish to drag into these serious topics? Do you think that science or mythology or other such contributors will come up with "different facts" about what really happened to those close to one million Jews who were kicked out or fled from their former homes in Arab lands? Why not tell us which points specifically you find untrue or false in the article and then we can take it from there instead of calling in a hoped-for "lynch mob" that will never materialze in any case. C'mon, do you really think the unkown people you want to involve here will actually help you to change the unbendable and immutable and undeniable facts of the Persecution of the Jews which is what this article is really all about? What's next...consulting oracles or such-like? IZAK 10:37, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Again, my user name is AladdinSE, not Aladdin. Editors not immersed in articles related to the conflict have a much better chance of weeding out, with a more neutral eye, POVs that the rest of us might have missed, due to possible biases that we may not even conscious of. Lastly, please try to relax. Why are your responses always so emotional and accusatory? Nobody is being dragged into this. RFC was designed specifically to help editors to solicit other perspectives. I am not "really" trying to say anything, I just say what's there. It is not just facts other editors can introduce or shed light upon, it also the Neutrality by which the information is presented which they can help safeguard. Not everything and everybody is a conspiracy. --AladdinSE 10:37, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

IZAK, while I respect your right to your concerns about some of the people who may be participating in this page, I hope you will not use your fight with them to avoid responding to me: you asked me to take a look at this page, I've done so, I've made remarks, but for the most part you are replying to others and not to me. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:43, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

Jmabel, sorry, you are correct, well I have followed up on some of your observations: By moving and putting United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East at the bottom "See also" section; I also took care of some other "POV" of concerns of some Users by now writing about the alleged role of the Lavon Affair in Jewish immigration to Israel, which means that this article has moved to a truer actual NPOV I guess, and would now not need to have a NPOV template as you suggested. Some of your other points have been addressed and edited by some other Users. The question about more information about the Jewish refugee organizations will have to wait, and in the meantime what information exists in the article is more than adequate. Again, pardon me, but it's just that some other people around here have raised their "lobbying efforts" and want to turn everything around to represent Arab arguments only which goes against all the rules about non-POV writing and editing. IZAK 06:28, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Lavon Affair is now part of the article

See Immigration to Israel from Arab lands#Lavon Affair, for more information. This should restore "neutrality" and remove User:STP's arguments for having the NPOV template inserted here....for now. IZAK 06:16, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Quality of this article

This is got to be one of the worse articles in the mideast area of Wikipedia. Neither IZAK nor STP show any sign of knowing anything at all about the subject except for their personal prejudices. Trying to fix it at the moment would only create a fight with those who don't want it fixed, but the NPOV tag stays. --Zero 11:51, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Zero: What EXACTLY is it that requires this article to have the "NPOV" tag? Please explain, the tag cannot be there without valid stated REASONS please. Thank you. IZAK 12:00, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It has hardly any actual information and what is there is largely wrong. The Iraqi chronology, for example. Worse than that, you (and earlier writers) have been presenting it entirely from a particular political point of view. You wrote "the Persecution of the Jews which is what this article is really all about" above -- that is an explicit admission that you are here to push that POV and are not interested in a neutral position. Actually it deserves the "totally disputed" flag. --Zero 13:59, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Zero: You fail to understand the difference between a discussion page and the body of an article itself. Please don't be ridiculous, because each and every one of us as human beings has a POV within us, nobody here is a "NPOV-angel"! What I, and everyone else here, try to do is to write articles that are balanced and that will include all points of valid and relevant views based on reality to create a balanced encyclopedia article. After all, it was me (see [7] ; [8] and [9] ) who yesterday wrote and included what may even be considered to be "unflattering" information about the Israeli leadership in the Immigration to Israel from Arab lands#Lavon Affair after I considered what the objectionable User:STP was trying to convey. It's also totally pathetic of you to claim that because I view this subject as basically part of Persecution of the Jews in history, that I therefore "push that POV and (are) not interested in a neutral position". What illogical nonsense that is, because anyone is free to check my actual writing and see what the truth and the facts really are, and see if it is ultimately NPOV or not in the article itself, and not on the discussion pages which are meant for more free-dealing forums for differences of opinion or for opinion sharing because we are not "writing" the Torah here, just a plain DECENT encyclopedia based on facts...You know, a "neutral point of view" is not the same thing as having "no point of view". Think about it! IZAK 05:58, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Tell you what Zero; why don't you re-write it to be accurate and NPOV, and I'll support you and restrict my edits to the Talk: page and/or support of your version. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:49, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I just did a revision, but I still think it needs a lot of work. For example, those three Jewish advocacy groups should be only listed in the External Links section, not given verbatim POV entries within the article that is supposed to be part of an encyclopedia, not a blog or a mirror for partisan websites. --AladdinSE 14:17, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

I have removed the "Jewish refugee advocacy groups" section. They are listed in the external links section. These verbatim POV entries within the article are unacceptable. If an editor wants specific information from these groups to be included in the article, then please assimilate it into the appropriate areas of the article, in a neutral manner, of course. --AladdinSE 16:10, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

This is indeed ridiculous. The Jews of most Arab countries - including Yemen and Algeria - left due to fears (very probably justified) of persecution, but certainly not due to any new discriminatory laws; yet this article treats the most extreme case in the Arab world, Iraq, as if it were a typical example, and collapses all the "Arab states" into a single entity, as if most Arab states had even existed at the time. I'd love to see Zero helping, but I'm happy to work on trying to start improving this. - Mustafaa 21:07, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Anyone care to provide documentation for "some Arab governments promulgated edicts that removed Jews from public service and barred them from entering universities, traveling abroad, or buying and selling property"? Then, at the very least, we could state which governments did what. - Mustafaa 21:34, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I actually agree that the quality of the article would be improved if we enumerated the specific ways in which Jews were discriminated against and persecuted in each Arab country where they lived. And also what happened to their property when they left. I would also be in favor of listing the pretext for the pogroms, riots, etc. --Leifern 21:48, 2005 Apr 5 (UTC)

Indeed it would. After reading this article, though, I was quite surprised to realize the title was "Immigration to Israel from Arab lands"; if it's actually going to cover the much larger topic of the Jewish exodus from the Arab world, as seems likely, then the title should say so. - Mustafaa 21:55, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Good point. It may be that (with retitling?) the focus of this should be the departure of Jews from Arab lands (and possibly Iran as well, since the reasons are so similar). The camps in Israel would remain highly relevant to that, but North African Jewish emigration to France, Spain, and elsewhere could be covered in the same article. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:30, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

The Jews from Arab lands were not "going on vacation" to Israel

"Exodus"? (so who was playing Pharaoh then?), "departure" (were they going on a "trip" as tourists?), they left "due to fears"? (like fears of lynching, robbery or rape maybe?). Methinks that this article is about to become a meaningless thriller of all things, rather than addressing the reality of what really happened. Unfortunatley, judging from the type of OPINIONS and edits we are now seeing above, this article may now become a false report about how almost a million Jewish people "left" their homes in the lands of the Arabs in the 20th century (before and after there were Arab states), and oh so "merrily, merrily, down the lane" landed up in the "promised land of milk and honey", making it sound that there were no serious political, military, and Anti-Semitic factors that forced them out, because they feared for their lives, and they were in fact refugees forced to flee to Israel. IZAK 06:33, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Apparently IZAK has not heard of Zionist aspiration, the wish to return to Israel that Jews have held for millennia, since now he is saying that Jews would only go there if they were forced to. Ok, that was only a semi-serious comment. --Zero 10:15, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes Zero, I am glad you realize how dumb that comment was. No matter how much Jews have dreamt of returning to Zion, it has never been a "justification" to kick them out like Arab dictators did, (or agitate to have them kicked out as some Israeli agents may have done), of the homes they live in for over two thousand years in Arab lands. When did I say that "Jews only go to Israel if they are forced to"? Can you find the place where I have said this? It is you that is putting words into my mouth, so please stop. (By the way, if you live in Israel, how and WHY did your family move there?) If you would like my personal views, I will be glad to share them, but please do not assume that you can be my "spokesman" today or ever. Thanks. IZAK 11:36, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Accuracy

A good example of the errors in this article is the stuff about dhimmi status. In fact, most of the traditional restrictions on Jews were abolished throughout the Ottoman empire in 1856, and by early in the 20th century practically everything else (including the poll tax and the exemption from military service) was gone. So during the period most relevant to this article, dhimmi status simply did not exist for the Jews in Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon and Syria. [Bulletin (British Society for Middle Eastern Studies) Vol. 14 (1987), p. 254; and lots of other places]. This is just one example.

While de jure dhimmi status was revoked, was de facto status ever changed? I thought that any significant improvements had more to do with British and French control of the territories after 1917, rather than Ottoman regulation; thus when the British and French control was diminished/removed after the war, the issues resurfaced. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:41, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Certainly de facto status changed. Ask any Syrian Christian if dhimmi status played any part in their lives after independence (Egypt was already under British rule in 1917, of course.) Measures aimed specifically at Jews are bad, but have nothing to do with "dhimmitude" and everything to do with national paranoia about Israel. - Mustafaa 19:54, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Iraqi story

I wrote a brief account of the Iraqi affair 1950-1, which is the case I know the most about. I'll put it here for discussion first. Information about the reception of the Iraqis in Israel is yet to be added. I'm less sure about the later social debate within Israel since then (anyone heard of the Iraqi Black Panthers?) Maybe that should be a different article.

I'm basing the following on notes I made from multiple sources some years ago but I'll be happy to provide references for individual parts if asked. I think that a similarly detailed account should be attempted for each of the main countries involved, since they were not the same and can't be described in the same sentences. --Zero 12:59, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Like most Arab League states, Iraq forbad the immigration of its Jews for a few years after the 1948 war on the grounds that allowing them to go to Israel would strengthen that state. However, intense diplomatic pressure (probably combined with thoughts of plunder) brought about a change of mind. At the same time, increasing government oppression of the Jews fueled by anti-Israeli sentiment, together with public expressions of anti-semitism, created an atmosphere of fear and uncertainty.

In March 1950, Iraq passed a law of 1 year duration allowing Jews to emigrate on condition of relinquishing their Iraqi citizenship. Iraq apparently believed it would rid itself of those Jews it regarded as the most troublesome, especially the Zionists, but retain the wealthy minority who played an important part in the Iraqi economy. Israel mounted an operation called Ezra and Nehemiah to bring as many of the Iraqi Jews as possible to Israel, and sent agents to Iraq to urge the Jews to register for immigration as soon as possible.

The initial rate of registration was slow, but it accelerated after a bomb injured three Jews at a cafe. Two months before the expiry of the law, by which time about 85,000 Jews had registered, a bomb at the Masuda Shemtov Synagogue killed 3 or 5 Jews and injured many. The law expired in March 1951 but was later extended after the Iraqi government froze the assets of departing Jews (including those already left). During the next few months, all but a few thousand of the remaining Jews registered for emigration, spurred on by a sequence of bombings that caused few casualties but had great psychological impact. In total about 120,000 Jews left Iraq.

In May and June of 1951, the arms caches of the Zionist underground in Iraq, which had been supplied from Palestine/Israel since 1942, were discovered. Many Jews were arrested and two Zionist activists, Joseph Basri and Abraham Salih, were tried and hanged for three of the bombings. A secret Israeli inquiry in 1960 reported that most of the witnesses believed that Jews had been responsible the bombings, but found no evidence that they were ordered by Israel. The issue remains unresolved: Iraqi activists in Israel still regularly charge that Israel used violence to engineer the exodus, while Israeli officials of the time vehemently deny it.

Looks good in general, but references would be invaluable, if for no other reason than to avoid future editors on either side claiming the contents are false. Also, I think you mean "emigration" in the first sentence. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:44, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As to specifics, I think the section should note a number of other things:

• The June 1941 Baghdad pogrom which killing almost 200 Jews and wounded almost 1,000 more.
• Regular anti-Jewish riots from 1947 to 1949.
• Zionism becomes a capital crime in 1948.
• Jews once again forbidden from emigrating in 1952.
• Jews forbidden to sell property and forced to carry yellow identity cards after 1963.
• Jewish property expropriated, bank accounts frozen, telephones disconnected, dismissed from public posts etc. after 1967.

As it is, the view of the condition of Jews in Iraq seems a bit too rosy. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:55, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I've heard of the Sephardi "Black Panthers". What was the name of that guy who continued writing his novels in Arabic even after reaching Israel? But yes, this looks good. The points Jayjg mentions should probably be mentioned, if confirmed by reliable sources ("regular anti-Jewish riots", in particular, is distinctly vague.) - Mustafaa

The "Jews once again forbidden from emigrating in 1952." is already covered; the law was of 1-year duration. - Mustafaa 20:01, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

General history: [10]

Baghdad pogrom: [11] [12]

Why Jews left Iraq: [13] [14]

Personal account: [15]

Why Jews left Arab countries: [16] [17]

--Jayjg ^(talk) 20:47, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I was hoping for something a little less transparently partisan and POV-pushing than ME Forum or Jewish Virtual Library, but some of these links are good. - Mustafaa 23:33, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Some equally POV-pushing links from the opposite side: [18] [19] [20]. - Mustafaa 23:43, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This one is interesting too: [21]. - Mustafaa 00:22, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Naeim Giladi, mentioned in those links, is an extreme example of an Iraqi anti-Israeli activist. He was (really) a member of the Zionist underground in Baghdad, but after some time in Israel he became disillusioned and moved to the US renouncing his Israeli citizenship. Of course, by virtue of the fact that he is an activist and clearly feels quite bitter about it, his testimony has to be treated very cautiously. --Zero 11:43, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I'll add the 1941 Farhud, since it did play a large part in the process that lead to the departure of the Jews 10 years later. As Mustafaa said, "regular anti-Jewish riots" is too vague (and also not correct; there were some during the 1948 war but not afterwards that I recall). I'm not sure about the 1960s though. This is not supposed to be an article about Jews in Iraq but rather about the mass immigrations to Israel. The story of the Jews remaining in Iraq after that ought to be told in Wikipedia somewhere, but probably not here. --Zero 12:30, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Now I'll give some references. The part about the 1960s inquiry in Israel is from Israeli archives quoted by Black & Morris, Israel's Secret Wars, p93. They also quote an intelligence report from 1952 saying that many Iraqi Jews were happy about the hanging of Basri and Salhi. As additional evidence that the idea that Zionists did the bombing was very common, Mordecai Ben Porat (mentioned in one of the paragraphs that keeps somehow popping into and out of the article at a fine rate) said in 1978: "All those who know me and who know that I was sent by Israel to Iraq during this period hold me responsible for bombs thrown at this time. This is an untrue accusation, totally without foundation." (Jeune Afrique, 22 Feb 1978) One of the best sources for this story and also for Jews in other Arab countries including earlier times is Norman Stillman's two-volume "Jews in Arab Lands". I especially like his reprinting of many primary documents. Concerning the bombings, his conclusion that they are unsolved is the correct one imo. There is a lot of literature claiming otherwise, in both directions, but no proof is offered. One thing I can report is that a story that a Zionist agent Tajjar spilt the beans about Israeli complicity (told in David Hirst's book for example) is false. He did not, and Hirst's sources don't contain what he says they contain. The general sources for what I wrote, in approximate order from anti-Zionist to pro-Zionist: Shibak, The lure of Zion (1986); Woolfson, Prophets in Babylon (1980); Davis & Mezvinsky, Documents from Israel (1975) - reprints an article from Black Panther magazine; Rejwan, The Jews of Iraq (1985); Hillel, Operation Babylon (1987); Cohen, Jews of the Middle East, 1860-1972 (1973); Schechtman, On wings of eagles (1961). It's hard to give citations for each individual statement, but I'm willing to try with regard to particular items that you tell me need sources. --Zero 12:30, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I just came across the following in Ella Shohat, Rupture and Return, Zionist Discourse and the Study of Arab Jews, Social Text 21.2 (2003) 49-74:

The displacement of Iraqi Jews, for example, was not simply the result of a decision made solely by Arab Jews themselves. Even if some Arab Jews expressed a desire to go to Israel, the question is why, suddenly, after millennia of not doing so, would they leave overnight? The displacement for most Arab Jews was the product of complex circumstances in which panic and disorientation, rather than desire for aliya, in the nationalist sense of the word, was the key factor. The "ingathering" seems less natural when one takes into account the circumstances forcing their departure: the efforts of the Zionist underground in Iraq to undermine the authority of community leaders such as Haham Sasson Khdhuri; the Zionist policy of placing a "wedge" between the Jewish and Muslim communities, generating anti-Arab panic on the part of Jews; the anti-Jewish propaganda, especially as channeled through the Istiklal or Independence Party; the failure of most Arab intellectuals and leaders to clarify and act on the distinction between Jews and Zionists; their failure to actively secure the place of Jews in the Arab world; the persecution of Communists-among them Jews who opposed Zionism; the secretive agreements between some Arab leaders and Israeli leaders concerning the idea of "population exchange"; and the misconceptions, on the part of many Arab Jews, about the differences between their own religious identity, affiliation, or sentiments and the secular nation-state project of Zionism, a movement that had virtually nothing to do with those sentiments, even if it capitalized on a quasi-religious rhetoric.

It is a pretty good summary. In case you are wondering about the "secretive agreements": the Iraqi government was negotiating with Israel on a deal that would "swap" Iraqi Jews for displaced Palestinians, but the Arab League got wind of it and squashed it. --Zero 12:30, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That does sound like a good summary; as is usually the case in real life, large population movements are caused by multiple factors. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:55, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Rest of the Arab world

Some rather more citable sources:

• Communal Identities and Ethnic Groups, for instance, seems distinctly more citable, though it has little Iraq-specific detail.
• For Morocco, see Ethnicity and Cultural Identity (and [22].)
• Excerpts from The Jews of Arab Lands in Modern Times

- Mustafaa 23:41, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Advocacy groups

The Jewish refugee advocacy groups deserve mentions and links, but we really don't need a paragraph here of quoted mission statement on each. Want to write articles about each of these groups? Great, they each deserve one. But this article shouldn't be waited down with that much quotation from advocates. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:13, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

I entirely agree. I'm moving Subsection Verbatim quotes and citations in Wikipedia articles above from the "Quality of this article" section to this section. --AladdinSE 12:04, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

Verbatim quotes and citations in Wikipedia articles

If there is a wikipedia policy that allows whole sections of an encyclopedia article to be nothing but verbatim entries form partisan websites, then please someone point me towards where that is explained, and I will concede the point about the advocacy groups section, which I have just deleted. If it really is allowed, I will happily concede the point, although it is very strange indeed and seems anything but but encyclopedic. --AladdinSE 01:07, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

• In response to AladdinSE's inquiry: There are no rules as such "forbidding" reasonable quotes in articles. See for example a discussion of this point at Wikipedia talk:Copyrights#Quotations for the following observations:

I presume that it is ok to make quotations from copyrighted texts, as long as it is clear that it is a quote and a reference given to where it came from? What about long quotes, is there a limit on the length of quotes allowed before it infringes copyright?

This would often come under fair use. There are no fixed rules on how long the text can be, but you should make it clear it is a quote and cite the source. See Wikipedia:fair use for more about this. Angela. 17:18, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)

Quotations are a well-recognized form of fair use - the Berne convention explicetely reocgnizes it. See Wikipedia:Copyright FAQ. →Raul654 17:22, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)

Sure, I agree to your concerns. I'll post something in that forum a bit later. Although, my question is because I have about 9 other articles waiting to be posted, all along the same lines. PZFUN 22:08, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC) [23]

See some articles that I am aware of that have always retained some lengthy quotes, such as: [24] (quote from Josephus in Destruction of Jerusalem) and [25] about Edmund Allenby, 1st Viscount Allenby#Jerusalem proclamation. There are more but, the above discussions and citations should suffice to prove to you that it can be done and respected. IZAK 02:30, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Here [26] is another example of passages inserted from primary sources, see Josephus on Jesus with quotes from texts inserted. IZAK 09:08, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Those examples you are citing are 1. (Josephus) A historical account by an ancient historian and 2. (Allenby) An official government proclamation, used in context as a historical document. What you are inserting are not at all "reasonable quotes" but verbatim mission statements taken from advocacy websites which are biased by definition. You are not just including a reasonable quote as part of a much larger detailed sub section, your entire section is a verbatim quote. Also, the Talk section you quoted above does not support your position, they are referring to an entirely different type of reference and quotation process, and even if it did support your position, it is a Talk discussion and not official Wikipedia policy. Thank you. --AladdinSE 11:18, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

Once again you want "plu-perfect" examples! Are you a lawyer by the way, because your style of "argumentation" is overly legalistic? I was providing instances where there are paragraph-size quotes from reliable sources. I did not claim it's an exhaustive list of Wikipedia examples (there are obviously lots more out there), as I don't know what is happening on all the half-million Wikipedia articles (do you?) The discussion from the talk section was meant to be instructive, not definitive, and it does not run against my words or reasoning either. Bottom line, I feel bad that you consider true victims of Arab oppression, the Jewish refugees from Arab lands, to be "partisans" (makes them sound "oh, so brave"), and that you only seek to portray the Arabs as "victims" (especially in Palestine -- when they are nothing of the sort as they agressivley blow up thousands of innocent Israelis in cafes and shopping malls) as they are the opposite of that by far! This article is about the Jewish refugees, so their words are not only needed but are crucial. Again I say, it would be like excluding the views of Holocaust victims when discussing the Holocaust. What can be simpler to understand...but who was it that said, "none is so blind as he who will not see" (or something like that)? Thanks. IZAK 12:46, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think AladdinSE has a point about the Jewish refugee advocacy groups section. The article looks as though it's advocating on their behalf. Perhaps the quotes could be cut down to a sentence for each, or just a brief description of each without quotes? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:25, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

I've reduced that section, and have deleted WOJAC as it closed in 1999 (though I've left the link in external links). I also removed the headers for the sections that had no content. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:05, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

Looks much much better. A good compromise edit. --AladdinSE 03:25, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

Motivations of Zionists

Sephardic and Mizrahi Jews are among the most ardent Zionists and Israel, and none that I've ever met express any trust or nostalgy toward Morocco. I have no doubt that there are plenty of people who will attribute cynical "Zionist plots" for anything that ever happened in the Middle East, but this is fringe speculation that has no place here. --Leifern 14:10, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC)

Totally disputed

Zero and others are insisting on inserting apologist propaganda into this article that somehow blames "Zionists" who wanted cheap labor and Mossad for the widespread discrimination and persecution of Jews in Arab countries. Until and unless this article actually treats allegations as allegations, it's a shameful joke that panders to antisemitic tendencies. --Leifern 13:52, 2005 Apr 8 (UTC)

Given that there is barely a single word of mine in this article, your charge is pretty pathetic. --Zero 14:37, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You are the one who keeps reverting to versions that are distortions and lies. Therefore I hold you responsible for that action, whether you wrote a word. --Leifern 14:55, 2005 Apr 8 (UTC)

Hi Leifern, regarding your recent edits about Egypt, it would probably help if you were to provide good references; in fact, if everyone could do that, there'd be less to disagree over. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:08, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

This article is being turned from one about Immigration to Israel from Arab lands to one about treatment of Jews in Arab lands. I think it should revert to its narrower purpose. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:13, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm okay about making it narrow, but there should be an article about treatment of Jews in Arab lands that is referenced in this article. --Leifern 18:49, 2005 Apr 8 (UTC)

I think it should be neither, but should be moved to Jewish emigration from Arab lands; emigration to Israel from Arab lands cannot be treated in isolation from Jewish emigration to the France or the US from those same countries. As for the quote given, Leifern's interpretation of it as implying that "Anti-Zionists allege that emigration was largely motivated by Zionists looking for agricultural laborers" is frankly bizarre. The quote, whose accuracy there is no reason to doubt, means exactly what it says: that Zionist recruiters were more eager to bring over working-class Jews accustomed to agricultural labor than the more urbanized Jews of the north. It says nothing about the Moroccan Jews' motivation one way or another. - Mustafaa 07:04, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

1. What most Jews of Moroccan descent will tell you is that although they have much affection for the late king, they fled widespread bigotry and occassional persecution, not that they were recruited to Israel as land laborers. Israel's policy with respect to immigration is to accept and if necessary transport pretty much any Jew who wants to enter. I don't dispute that the quote is accurate, but it does little to explain the entire situation. And the source - which is very charitable to the conditions in Morocco - explicitly states life was difficult for Jews in Morocco.

2. You may be right about changing the title of the article, but the term "exodus" may be more apt than "emigration," "Jewish exodus from Arab lands or maybe Jewish refugees from Arab lands.

"Refugees" is too narrow - it would exclude most Moroccan Jews, for instance, by any reasonable definition. "Exodus" might work. - Mustafaa 01:10, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have moved it; I think the new title reflects the contents of the article more accurately (though others might disagree.) - Mustafaa 01:52, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Motivations of emigrants

All the available literature indicates that emigration from Arab lands was overwhelmingly motivated by a need to get away from discrimination and persecution. Yes, the extent of such hardship varied; and there are some Jews that miss the homes of their births, but there is broad consensus that neither Zionist nationalism nor economic interests motivated the moves. --Leifern 16:45, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)

I see no evidence of such a "broad consensus". The religious motivation for moving to Israel is obvious, and by all accounts I've read was the primary factor in the Yemeni Jews' exodus. Iraqi Zionist activists have already been discussed above, and you yourself have acknowledged that many Sephardim are strongly Zionist; the ideological factor cannot be ignored. Neither can the economic factor, which has been among the largest causes of all emigration from the Arab world. If economic factors alone have been sufficient to persuade something like a million Algerians or Lebanese to leave their countries, what basis is there for assuming that this failed to motivate even a single Jew? As Shohat says above, "the displacement for most Arab Jews was the product of complex circumstances". - Mustafaa 01:01, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Treatment of Jews in Arab lands

Aladdin, your efforts to whitewash the treatment of Jews in Arab lands are pathetic! All in all, Jews were horribly mistreated in all Arab lands for the most of the time they were there, or - let's face it - they wouldn't have left in droves. It was bad for everyone in these societies, but it was bad for Jews because they were Jews. It is no defense that things were even worse in Europe. --Leifern 00:57, 2005 Apr 13 (UTC)

Once again, I've corrected the several trivially obvious errors in the pocket treatment of Jews' ancient status in Arab lands - see page history. I've temporarily left "limited access to the legal systems", but will remove it unless evidence is provided. - Mustafaa 01:08, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think the issue here may be the ability of Jews to give testimony in Muslim courts. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:30, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Split up article

I've been thinking about Jayg's point that this article is too much about treatment of Jews in Arab lands. It would be better to focus this on the exodus itself, including statistics, timing, destinations, etc., and set up a separate article, either for each relevant Arab country, or for all Arab countries. I prefer the former with a category. As is becoming apparent, practices varied by country and by time, and a lot of arguments are about what parts to emphasize. What do others think? --Leifern 11:36, 2005 Apr 13 (UTC)

I think the issue is that their treatment was certainly one of the causes of their leaving; how would you disentangle that? Jayjg ^(talk) 16:32, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I would disentangle it with one simple rule of thumb: anything before the 20th century is almost certainly irrelevant. Pre-20th century stuff can more appropriately go into Jews in Tunisia, Yemenite Jews, etc. - Mustafaa 22:25, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. What do others think? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:30, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't think we should limit ourselves to the twentieth century, but I'd propose that we have one section for each Arab country that has some basic facts (how many Jews lived there in 1948, how many live there now, and where the difference went, ideally with statistics), a description of the circumstances and timing of their leaving, and then a brief paragraph on how long there had been a Jewish community there, and a summary of conditions. There would then be a link to the main article. I would also propose that we provide links to articles about Jews in Arab lands where there had been Jews prior to 1948 but none at that point (e.g., Jordan and Saudi Arabia). I'm sure we'll argue about the circumstances of the departure, but what's an article about this subject without at least 300 pages of arguments? --Leifern 10:43, 2005 Apr 14 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:38, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I see - you want to create individual articles on the exodus of Jews from each country. I thought you were referring to articles on Judaism by country more generally. I'm not against that in principle, but, as long as we sensibly keep 14th-century stuff and the like in more appropriate articles, I don't see any of them as likely to get large enough to justify separate articles (though I'd love to be proved wrong), and (like IZAK) I'd rather read one big article than a load of stubs. - Mustafaa 01:04, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In order to split the article, you must insure that you will have enough material to fill each spin-off article, otherwise all you will be doing is creating a string of orphan stubs -- satellites of this article. There is meaning in having one general topic, no matter how diverse its geographic reach, contained within one article only for now.IZAK 04:27, 14 Apr 2005

What titles are suggested for the spin-off article? --AladdinSE 04:26, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

I strongly favor articles by country - Jews in Bahrain may not merit an article, but Jews in Morocco certainly does. However, Jews in Iraq, Jews in Morocco, etc. mostly redirect to one article, which would seem the obvious candidate. - Mustafaa 09:20, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Interesting. Is that where they should re-direct? It seems to me there is a difference between describing a historical Jewish community in a Muslim country, and describing the relationship between Islam and Judaism. On the other hand, it might be too difficult to disentangle one from the other. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:40, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I think none of them should redirect - each of these is an encyclopedic topic in its own right - but fixing that would be a fair amount of work. - Mustafaa 01:04, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Mustafaa: Methinks you are missing a crucial point here (and I hope it's not a case of twisting the story around so that we are attempting to " stuff the 'tail' into the 'mouth' ".) This article and any possible spin-offs of it are NOT about "Jews LIVING IN Arab lands x-y-z", RATHER, this article and any others it may spawn are about "Jews KICKED OUT OF Arab country a-b-c". Get what I mean? We will not co-operate to publish lies. We want the truth about why about one million Jews living in Arab lands were in an "Exodus"/expelled/immigrated/fled/left/etc., etc., from all those nice new Arab states founded primarily during the twentieth century. IZAK 09:36, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood Leifern's point above. This article should be about Jews leaving Arab countries, but a large and increasing proportion of it deals with Jews in Arab countries many centuries before they left, and this part needs to be moved somewhere more appropriate. Oh, and histrionics about LIES really don't help the tone of this discussion. - Mustafaa 09:47, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Copyvio

The Libya section was a clear copyvio from the sources it mentions at the bottom; anyone know how to remove this from the history? - Mustafaa 02:29, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• The policy on this sort of this (copvio insertion into article with previous history) is that we just leave it there unless there is a complaint from the copyright holder, then we willingly remove it. Only developers can do these removals, and you know how backlogged they are. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:01, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)