to the ME: Where are your Jews, where is the apartheid?

[Godobeyer]

Having become French citizens following the Crémieux Decree of 1870, the Algerian Jews increasingly identified with metropolitan France, and despite their forced return to second-class indigenous status during World War II, they opted en masse to be repatriated to France on the eve of Algerian Independence, with a ...


From Google

 

[Jedster]

Even tho I appreciate you taking the time to give me your opinion about how things came to where we are today but with respect this is not relevant to the topic which is the claim of almost a million Jews being expelled in Arab countries.

That’s a weird of way of determining the truth.
I mean how is jews saying that it was safe to stay in marocco is demonizing Israel?

I didn't watch the video, I don't doubt that someone said it was safe for Jews staying in Morocco, maybe it was for all I know, but I doubt it from conversations I've had with Moroccon-born Israelis. I doubt that any of the Arab world was safe for Jews then and even now.

I do know that Israel has had better relations with Morocco(unofficially) over the years, than with other Arab countries.
Incidentally a friend of mine was blown up in Morocco around 2008 his name was Peter Moss, here's a link,

https://www.thejc.com/news/peter-moss-a-life-on-the-move-aachxfvk.

These things can happen anywhere there are haters.
Now please give me leave from this dialogue, it brings up all the people I have personally lost. I really don't have more to offer you.

Thanks you.

 

[MayPeaceBeUpOnYou]

I didn't watch the video, I don't doubt that someone said it was safe for Jews staying in Morocco, maybe it was for all I know, but I doubt it from conversations I've had with Moroccon-born Israelis. I doubt that any of the Arab world was safe for Jews then and even now.

I do know that Israel has had better relations with Morocco(unofficially) over the years, than with other Arab countries.
Incidentally a friend of mine was blown up in Morocco around 2008 his name was Peter Moss, here's a link,

https://www.thejc.com/news/peter-moss-a-life-on-the-move-aachxfvk.

These things can happen anywhere there are haters.
Now please give me leave from this dialogue, it brings up all the people I have personally lost. I really don't have more to offer you.

Thanks you.

Sorry for your loss.

Cheers

 

[Quagmire]

Hopefully others will recognize

1. that the post-1948 treatment of Jews in Muslim countries has been deplorable, and
2. that it in no way justifies the callous slaughter of civilians in Gaza nor the systematic acts of terror against Palestinians in the West Bank.

Using the first to deflect condemnation of the second does a disservice to Jews and Palestinians alike.

I haven't seen any estimates that put the Jewish population of the Middle East prior to the foundation of Israel in the millions. For example:

2.4. European and Foreign Country Population Data

The Jewish Virtual Library also doesn't put the pre-Israel Jewish population in the Middle East as "millions," and it is a solidly pro-Israel source.

Jewish Refugees from Arab Countries

Encyclopedia of Jewish and Israeli history, politics and culture, with biographies, statistics, articles and documents on topics from anti-Semitism to Zionism.

www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org

Nonetheless, it is true that many Jews were persecuted and expelled from Arab countries in the early to mid-20th century. Many also moved to Israel voluntarily. I believe that acknowledgement of historical wrongs, both by Arab countries regarding treatment of Jewish populations in that period (including expulsion) and by Israel regarding the Nakba (where over 700,000 Palestinians were expelled from their homes) and massacres such as those in Deir Yassin and Tantura, is necessary for establishing long-term peace.



@Jayhawker Soule's post sums up my thoughts on the above video:



I think that Hillel Neuer asked that question to deflect from criticism of the Israeli government's treatment of Palestinians and its mass killing of civilians. Two wrongs don't make a right, and that applies to all countries, including Arab ones and Israel.

I don't think it's fair to dismiss the Israeli representatives points as simple deflection.

There's another war going on in the theater of public opinion right now and Israel has to defend itself there too. It can't afford to stand idly by and allow the world to only hear one side of the story.

And given, as was pointed out, the record for human rights violations of some (If not all) of the Arab nations represented there as well as their ongoing support for organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah, I think their representatives are being just a tad too smug about their claim to the moral high ground.

Two wrongs don't make a right,

No, but by the same token people who live in glass houses . . .

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I don't think it's fair to dismiss the Israeli representatives points as simple deflection.

I don't think it's "fair" to ignore egregious collateral damage. Apparently we differ.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I don't think it's fair to dismiss the Israeli representatives points as simple deflection.

There's another war going on in the theater of public opinion right now and Israel has to defend itself there too. It can't afford to stand idly by and allow the world to only hear one side of the story.

And given, as was pointed out, the record for human rights violations of some (If not all) of the Arab nations represented there as well as their ongoing support for organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah, I think their representatives are being just a tad too smug about their claim to the moral high ground.

The reason I see the question as deflection is that it doesn't address the arguments against Israel's treatment of Palestinians or its ongoing mass slaughter of Gazans and expansion of illegal settlements in the West Bank; the question points out another issue as if that somehow invalidated the separate points about Israel's policies. I would be surprised (and aghast) if large segments of public opinion didn't turn against any country that killed and maimed so many civilians in one part of a country while gradually and illegally taking land in another part thereof.

I think of this similarly to how I think of the criticism of Russia's invasion of Ukraine and its war crimes there from Western powers—mainly the US, the UK, and France: it is hypocritical and, in my opinion, an example of stones being thrown from within a massive glass house, but it is still valid. To dismiss an argument based on the misdeeds of the messenger rather than an evaluation of the argument's merits or lack thereof seems to me pretty fallacious.

No, but by the same token people who live in glass houses . . .

I can't think of any country without its own human rights issues, albeit to varying extents and with varying frequency, so I don't think there would be any left to call out abuses elsewhere if a country's own human rights violations disqualified it from criticizing another's. That said, even if such a country existed, I think what I said above regarding evaluating the validity of arguments would still apply.

 

[MayPeaceBeUpOnYou]

Jews expelled from Algeria ?

I might continue with the neighbor of marocco
Some things that is interesting to hat I have read.

Algeria like marocco were colonized by the France and the Vichy regime

Unlike marrocco Algeria had a much worse history then marrocco because of the genocide that happened.

Jew were considered a French citizens because of the cremoeiux decree in 1870 on the other hand the indigenous Muslims weren’t.

I don’t know why but everything is what I have read is that France colonial policy in Algeria was very harsh towards Muslims and sometimes also against Jews. The Vichy regime was very harsh against Jews obviously since they were pro German.

I find about the riots in Constantine was the only thing that was worth mentioning.

The other thing that is interesting the Jews fought against the Muslims for their independence. It’s seems like this was because the Jews had a French citizenship.

And lastly because Algeria became independent it’s seems this is when Jews also left to france in 1962.

Jewish Resistance in Algeria

This reading provides historical context about the Jews in Algeria and their resistance to antisemitic attacks.

www.facinghistory.org

History of the Jews in Algeria - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

1934 Constantine riots - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Crémieux Decree - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

So to conclude it’s seems like there were some violence against Jews under the Vichy regime which caused some clash with Muslims. But can we truly say Muslims expelled Jews? Or can we logically say that when Jews took the side of in the war against the Algiers who wanted independence, so them staying in Algeria would be dangerous. So if the Muslims really expelled the Jews then it’s not out of antisemitism but because they fought for the losing side.

Again I am open to be corrected

 

[Quagmire]

I don't think it's "fair" to ignore egregious collateral damage. Apparently we differ.

I don't think "fair" is something you particularly understand or care about Jay.

 

[Flankerl]

Algerians today: Idk bro the Jews just left, no clue why

Algerians in 1962: Only a Muslim can be Algerian, also let's burn down Jewish owned shops and attack them

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I don't think "fair" is something you particularly understand or care about Jay.

That is your prerogative.

Still, for the record,

• I have family and friends in Israel.
• I have my first wife buried in Be'er Sheva.
• I have family and friends here with deep ties to Israel.
• I am active in a Jewish congregation with many more such ties.
• I have been an active supporter of the Israeli civil rights movement for decades.

I care far more deeply and persistently about the Jewish and Palestinian and Bedouin people in that land than I do about your opinion of me.

 

[MayPeaceBeUpOnYou]

Jew expelled out of Tunisia ?

Like the other 2 countries I have done, Tunisia was under control of the French, the Vichy regime and the Nazis were also physical present here.

Most Jews left in 1950 onwards until the 6 day war in 1967

Unlike marocco and Algeria, in Tunisia some synagoges were destroyed and riot of gabes in 1941 was a riots that’s mentioned.

It seems like the antisemitism against Jews in Tunisia was clearly present since it would increase at times of events like the 7 day war.

When the Bizeete crisis happened there was also a increase of Jews leaving Tunisia. Not because they were targeted but because the fights between France and the indigenous people.

Maybe my expectations are way off but when the Zionist claim Jews were expelled from Arab countries, I thought I would find massacres or large casualties which led to Jews escaping straight after. Also something I didn’t accept is that the governments of the 3 countries were fairly fair to the Jews. I am not saying noting happened because violence did increase in some moments in history. But yeah so it seems like Tunisia was the worst and like marrocco and Algeria tension did rise after the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians and the creation of Israel

Correct me if I am wrong or missed something

54 Moslems Sentenced in Tunis for Participation in Anti-jewish Riots - Jewish Telegraphic Agency

One Moslem was sentenced to a prison term of 20 years at hard labor, and 53 others received terms ranging up to 15 years at the conclusion of a four day trial in Tunis yesterday on charges of participating in anti-Jewish riots on June 5, the day war broke out between the Arab states and […]

www.jta.org

Bizerte crisis - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

1941 anti-Jewish riots in Gabès - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

History of the Jews in Tunisia - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[Debater Slayer]

Throughout much of the Muslim world, (the ME and Africa at least), Jews have largely disappeared. The ME used to be home to millions of Jews, but not any more.

In this video from the UN, we see many Muslim majority countries criticizing Israel for committing apartheid, but then question to these individual countries comes:

"County X, where are your Jews?"

If Russia responded to the criticism of its invasion and war crimes from the US and its allies by saying, "You have invaded other countries and committed abuses too. You have no room to talk!" would that be a valid argument? I think it would be a tu quoque fallacy that dismissed sound logic based only on criticism of the messenger rather than the message itself. What about you?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I don't think "fair" is something you particularly understand or care about Jay.

I'm going to have to push back on this.

During my time on this forum, Jay has been the most consistent and staunch advocate for both Palestinian rights in the face of oppression and watchdog against anti-Israel sentiment tipping over into anti-Semitism, and has been doing so on these forums since long, long before October 7th (and long before it was a forum-wide point of rabid discussion, which must be pretty frustrating). They have been attacked quite a lot from both sides, but have remained absolutely steadfast in their position both in a dedication to outing Israeli war crimes against Palestinians but also against rhetoric that seeks to justify, downplay or legitimise the terrorism and beliefs of groups like Hamas and Hezbollah.

 

[icehorse]

If Russia responded to the criticism of its invasion and war crimes from the US and its allies by saying, "You have invaded other countries and committed abuses too. You have no room to talk!" would that be a valid argument? I think it would be a tu quoque fallacy that dismissed sound logic based only on criticism of the messenger rather than the message itself. What about you?

I think the comparison is weak in this case.

Context matters, and I think it's crucial to be honest about the broader context in the ME and northern Africa.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I think the comparison is weak in this case.

Why? If the argument is that countries in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, wouldn't that also apply to the US and many of its allies who criticized Russia validly but still hypocritically? Would it be fair or reasonable to toss aside their criticism of Russia just because they have their own human rights issues?

Context matters, and I think it's crucial to be honest about the broader context in the ME and northern Africa.

I think it's crucial to consider and be honest about the context of any country or region one was discussing. What does this have to do with the issue of dismissing criticism based on a tu quoque fallacy, though?

 

[icehorse]

Why? If the argument is that countries in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, wouldn't that also apply to the US and its allies who criticized Russia validly but still hypocritically? Should their criticism of Russia be tossed aside just because the critics have their own human rights issues?

That's not the argument. If that WAS the argument, I'd agree.

First off, it seems clear to me that the UN is hopelessly corrupted, so I pretty much dismiss any conclusions from that organization. With that said, it strikes me that - even considering the current war against Hamas - Israel is not guilty of apartheid, but most of the rest of the region is.

And to me, that's the message in the video.

 

[Stevicus]

Why? If the argument is that countries in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, wouldn't that also apply to the US and many of its allies who criticized Russia validly but still hypocritically? Would it be fair or reasonable to toss aside their criticism of Russia just because they have their own human rights issues?



I think it's crucial to consider and be honest about the context of any country or region one was discussing. What does this have to do with the issue of dismissing criticism based on a tu quoque fallacy, though?

I wouldn't say it tosses aside any criticism, but it may suggest another possible motive behind making the criticism.

In a sense, even if it may be a non sequitur, it also implies a concession that the criticism is true. If someone says "Country X has committed atrocities," and one responds "Country Y has also committed atrocities," then the second statement would carry an acknowledgement that the first statement is true. So, it doesn't negate or deny the truthfulness or accuracy of the original statement, as much as it's just a way of saying "Look who's talking."

In some ways, I tend to look at the global situation as it always has been, in one form or another. When it comes to the down and dirty of geopolitics and realpolitik, it's not a clean game. I don't really expect governments to behave morally or ethically. Governments, just like the politicians who run them, play to win. It's capitalistic competition on a global scale. It is what it is; I've given up on any dreams of a global socialist utopia built on cooperation and friendship.

But I'm still somewhat cynical whenever there are those who go out of their way to point out "the bad guy" to others. I guess my feelings on the matter are expressed in this scene here:

Spoiler: "Say good night to the bad guy"

 

[Debater Slayer]

I wouldn't say it tosses aside any criticism, but it may suggest another possible motive behind making the criticism.

In a sense, even if it may be a non sequitur, it also implies a concession that the criticism is true. If someone says "Country X has committed atrocities," and one responds "Country Y has also committed atrocities," then the second statement would carry an acknowledgement that the first statement is true. So, it doesn't negate or deny the truthfulness or accuracy of the original statement, as much as it's just a way of saying "Look who's talking."

In some ways, I tend to look at the global situation as it always has been, in one form or another. When it comes to the down and dirty of geopolitics and realpolitik, it's not a clean game. I don't really expect governments to behave morally or ethically. Governments, just like the politicians who run them, play to win. It's capitalistic competition on a global scale. It is what it is; I've given up on any dreams of a global socialist utopia built on cooperation and friendship.

But I'm still somewhat cynical whenever there are those who go out of their way to point out "the bad guy" to others. I guess my feelings on the matter are expressed in this scene here:

Spoiler: "Say good night to the bad guy"

I agree with all of the above. What you said in the second paragraph is also why I think, as I said regarding the video in the OP, that criticizing someone else instead of fully addressing their criticism is a deflective tactic. At the end of the day, politics has always involved cunning, dishonesty, inconsistency, and opportunism, so it's sort of a moot and unrealistic point to say that no country can criticize another if it has committed or is committing abuses. The motives behind the criticism will vary and sometimes be cynical, as you pointed out, but the motives have no bearing on the validity (or invalidity) of the arguments being presented.

 

[Debater Slayer]

That's not the argument. If that WAS the argument, I'd agree.

I see Hillel Neuer's question as a tu quoque, so I think that is indeed part of the argument. If he wanted to address the criticism without basically saying "You're guilty!" as if that invalidated the critics' arguments, he could have tried to do so.

First off, it seems clear to me that the UN is hopelessly corrupted, so I pretty much dismiss any conclusions from that organization.

That's an opinion, and again, I think it is fallacious to dismiss arguments not based on their merit or lack thereof but based on declaring the messengers "corrupt," hypocritical, etc. Since the topic of the UN would probably require its own thread to delve into, though, I won't pursue it here.

With that said, it strikes me that - even considering the current war against Hamas - Israel is not guilty of apartheid, but most of the rest of the region is.

And to me, that's the message in the video.

Whether Israel is guilty of apartheid seems to me a significant question that, again, is far more difficult to answer than the above seems to imply. Amnesty International and many human rights experts have argued that it is guilty of it, although I personally prefer to focus on what the current policies are regardless of what one may call them. At the very least, the ICJ has unequivocally ruled that Israel's occupation of Palestinian territories is illegal, and that occupation has been ongoing for decades. The status quo anywhere else in the Middle East doesn't change this.

Parenthetically, I think the claim that "most of the rest of the region" is guilty of apartheid is downright false as well. Most of the Middle East has widespread religious and gendered forms of discrimination and abuse (both of which are no less heinous than racial and ethnic discrimination, of course), but I haven't seen a single human rights organization argue that apartheid—which would specifically be racial or ethnic segregation—is currently (as opposed to historical examples, of which there are plenty not just in the Middle East but in many other regions and countries around the world) practiced in most of the Middle East.

 

[icehorse]

Whether Israel is guilty of apartheid seems to me a significant question that, again, is far more difficult to answer than the above seems to imply. Amnesty International and many human rights experts have argued that it is guilty of it, although I personally prefer to focus on what the current policies are regardless of what one may call them. At the very least, the ICJ has unequivocally ruled that Israel's occupation of Palestinian territories is illegal, and that occupation has been ongoing for decades. The status quo anywhere else in the Middle East doesn't change this.

Parenthetically, I think the claim that "most of the rest of the region" is guilty of apartheid is downright false as well. Most of the Middle East has widespread religious and gendered forms of discrimination and abuse (both of which are no less heinous than racial and ethnic discrimination, of course), but I haven't seen a single human rights organization argue that apartheid—which would specifically be racial or ethnic segregation—is currently (as opposed to historical examples, of which there are plenty not just in the Middle East but in many other regions and countries around the world) practiced in most of the Middle East.

And we both know there are endless debates on the topic of Israel and Palestine, and it's not my intention to start that topic up again.

The intention of this thread is to highlight what's happening in the rest of the ME, and it strikes me that THAT topic ought to get a lot more attention. As for why the human rights folks don't tread into discussing the ME, I think they're afraid of thought-terminating criticisms like "that's racist" or "that's Islamophobic". A week or so back I started a thread called "gender apartheid", and it's not surprising to me that basically no one wants to discuss that. It's an inconvenient truth.