Monday, November 07, 2011

Jews were victims of laws worse than apartheid

Bodies of two Jewish students hanged in Baghdad in 1969 on trumped up charges (Corbis)

The latest weapon in the anti-Israel lobby's delegitimising arsenal, the Russell Tribunal on Palestine, is due to reveal its findings today in Cape Town.

The Tribunal, modelled on an earlier, equally one-sided attempt to discredit the US during the Vietnam war, purports to promote Truth and Reconciliation in the Middle East. In reality it has assembled a motley group of 'concerned citizens' - actors and activists and a few big names, such as Archbishop Desmond Tutu - in order to reinforce a malicious and spurious comparison between Israel and apartheid-era South Africa.

Yes, there is a role for a Truth and Reconciliation commission in the Middle East but not on the distorted terms of reference of this tribunal.

Half the Jews of Israel descend from refugees from Arab and Muslim countries, driven out by Nuremberg-style laws persecuting Jewish citizens just because they were Jews. These laws were similar, or worse than apartheid, and often accompanied by episodes of mob violence.

Just to give a few examples:

Jews were not granted (or stripped of) citizenship in Arab states.
Jews had to carry special ID documents marked 'Jew'.
Jews had their communal institutions dissolved or nationalised
Jews were subject to restrictions and quotas.
Jews were sacked from public service jobs.
Jews were not allowed to travel or leave the country.
Jews were subject to arbitrary arrest for being 'Zionists'.
Dozens were executed on trumped-up charges.
Jews had their bank accounts frozen and property sequestrated.
Jews were forced into business partnerships with Muslims.

Result: massive ethnic cleansing such that only 4,000 Jews remain out of nearly a million Jews living in Arab lands 60 years ago.


Yes, there were wrongs committed on both sides, but in its determination to depict the Palestinians as sole victims, this charade will ignore or deny the massive injustice perpetrated against Jews indigenous to the region. In so doing this tribunal denies the whole truth. True reconciliation can never be built on lies or omission of essential facts.

Many anti-Jewish 'apartheid' laws predated 1948

15 comments:

Sylvia said...

Bataween we are of the same mind!
I am half-way writing a long post on how the Russell Tribunal has inadvertently made a stronger case for Muslim apartheid than it did for Israel.

bataween said...

Great, Sylvia - do let me shave a link to your post when you have finished it

bataween said...

'have' a link' sorry!

Anonymous said...

Why are people in general so pro Palestinian refugees.i think it's because the latter have not stopped moaning and appearing miserable. But as for us Jewish refugees, we pushed back our sleves and got to work.
No one seeing my family or even those from Egypt could guess what we have gone through. So maybe we too should start moaning and crying as do the Palestinians.B ut all things considered, we do not want to demean ourselves. We want to keep our dignity
Sultana Latifa, once a refugee but now a fully fleged citizen

Sylvia said...

Their site seems to be down, Bataween, and I need to go through their final conclusions in order to continue. What a shame :)
But there is another angle to this that should concern Jews of Arab and Muslim countries.

Anonymous said...

if you ask the man in the street "what or who is the Russels tribual, he will shake his head not knowing what we are talking about.
so why should I care about that tribunal? It will just fade and disappear as all those who have worked on making us disappear!!!
yen aal abouhom
suzy vidal

bataween said...

You're right, Suzy (al abuhom labu jabem) but these exercises have a drip-drip effect, reinforcing lies against Israel, such as the 'apartheid' lie.
the Tribunal has now pulbished its findings and has managed to find Israel guilty of applying aparthied to Israeli Arabs as well as Palestinians.
And the earth is flat, the Pope's my father and the moon's a balloon.

Sylvia said...

Suzy
Think of it as a 21st Century Tribunal of the Inquisition, who set their own definitions just like the Spanish one did.
Where the old Inquisition defined a Jew as anyone who bathed on a Friday and didn't cook on a Saturday, this one defines israel as an apartheid State.
And who says Tribunal says verdict says punishment.

arrabalero said...

It has to pointed out that this persecution happened AFTER 1948, as a consequence of & reaction to the creation of Zionist State:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_exodus_from_Arab_and_Muslim_countries
http://www.jewishtribune.ca/TribuneV2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4675&Itemid=53

bataween said...

Not entirely true - Arrabalero. Here's my response to you.
http://jewishrefugees.blogspot.com/2011/11/many-anti-jewish-apartheid-laws.html

bataween said...

The Jewish Tribune is simply not correct to say that violence against the Jews occurred after 1948.
The Holocaust pogrom know as the Farhud occurred in Iraq in 1941, and the atrocities in Syria in 1945 and 1947.

Eliyahu m'Tsiyon said...

I see that Arrabalero gets his facts from the very reliable wikipedia.

Actually, Bataween, Sylvia and Suzy, I think that you have to go back more than a thousand years and say frankly and correctly that Arab/Muslim oppression-persecution-exploitation-humiliation of Jews went on for more than one thousand years, since Muhammad's stay in Medina, according to Muslim tradition.

I do like Sylvia's reference to the Spanish Inquisition.

bataween said...

Eliyahu, in my listing examples of 'apartheid' laws I did not mention the dhimma ( non-Muslim status under sharia law) because the dhimmi laws had been abolished by the colonial powers and the law was meant to protect all citizens of the state equally. Institutionalised dhimmi cultural and social prejudice still existed, however.
Yemen in the 20th century was of course an exception, there sharia law was in force.

Eliyahu m'Tsiyon said...

Bataween, I think that we Jews often get so present and future oriented, so we forget that importance of history in the Israeli-Arab dispute. That leaves a void that the Arabs and their allies fill with lies about history.

Now specifically about the dhimma, in countries taken over by European powers [not including Yemen or what is now Saudi Arabia] Jews enjoyed much equality with Muslims under colonial rule. Christians likewise. However, the Muslims continued to believe that dhimma was the right status for non-Muslims. You can see that terrible persecutions and massacres of non-Muslims took place in the Ottoman Empire after the legal abolition of dhimma. The Armenian massacres mainly took place AFTER the Empire had abolished the jizya and other features of dhimma. The Muslims never changed their view of the rightness of dhimma, of the subjection of non-Muslims, the latter's humiliation, persecution and exploitation. The present day events in Jewish-Arab relations can only be understood against the background of dhimma, that is, of the Muslim attitude toward Jews.

bataween said...

Correct.