I don't think Porath was saying that Arab Jews were exiled because of an Israeli fifth column. Apparently he does believe that such efforts were made by Israel, but I take his point as simply that the kind of symmetry that some people see between the Arab flight from Israel and the expulsions of Jews from Arab countries is a distortion.
Israelis could argue that there was an element of flight from actual war in the Palestinian case that wasn't true of the expulsions from Arab countries. But it's certainly true that from the point of view of Israel an ingathering of Middle Eastern Jews in Israel was something to be desired, while Palestinians and Arabs in no way desired exile. So in that regard, at least, he's right in arguing that from the point of view of the states concerned -- rather than of the refugees themeselves -- there wasn't a symmetry. It wasn't as though the effects of the two expulsions balanced out for both sides.
It would be interesting to know what Pipes thinks about the book now. In the article you cite he's trying to cover himself for having reviewed the book positively, so he calls for further investigation. Okay, has that further investigation occured and has it been convincing?
As for the British, Germany tried to destroy them, so they took German colonies as trusteeships and gave some to South Africa and New Zealand. But the trusteeships were understood as temporary. They couldn't simply give the land to South Africa or New Zealand permanently to do as they wished.
I'm not interested in hashing this out or making a career out of arguing about it either. I posted the links so that people could make up their own minds.
>>I don’t think Porath was saying that Arab Jews were exiled because of an Israeli fifth column. Apparently he does believe that such efforts were made by Israel,
Porath didn’t call the Jewish recruiting efforts a “Fifth Column.” I did because given the 1,200 years of dhimmitude imposed by Arabs, come-to-Israel recruiting efforts could not have been viewed any other way – especially since those countries were devoted to destroying Israel before it ever got started. Peters details rampant confiscation of Jewish property, incarceration of Jews, refusal in many instances of Arab countries to let Jews out, and many barely escaping with their lives.
>> but I take his point as simply that the kind of symmetry that some people see between the Arab flight from Israel and the expulsions of Jews from Arab countries is a distortion.
>>Israelis could argue that there was an element of flight from actual war in the Palestinian case that wasn’t true of the expulsions from Arab countries. But it’s certainly true that from the point of view of Israel an ingathering of Middle Eastern Jews in Israel was something to be desired, while Palestinians and Arabs in no way desired exile. So in that regard, at least, he’s right in arguing that from the point of view of the states concerned — rather than of the refugees themeselves — there wasn’t a symmetry. It wasn’t as though the effects of the two expulsions balanced out for both sides.
Peters argues that symmetry existed in the numbers of Jews and Arabs that each expelled, but not the reasons. She says just the opposite. Jews wanted out from under 1,200 years or Arab dhimmitude that the 1948 war brought to a head. Israeli Arabs who fought against Jews in the 1948 war were not allowed back into Israel.
She also points out that many of the expelled Arabs had not lived there for hundreds and hundreds of years as Arab propaganda would have the world believe. A huge proportion of Arabs had been there for decades at best and only because Jews created an economy that required workers. Arabs terrorized Jews and Brits over a number of years to keep Jews out. Hence impoverished Muslims from all countries in the Middle East made their way there to take the jobs.
Porath strikes me as disingenuous because he cloaks his argument as a refutation of Peters assertions of symmetry, when he is in fact introducing separate arguments.
>>It would be interesting to know what Pipes thinks about the book now. In the article you cite he’s trying to cover himself for having reviewed the book positively, so he calls for further investigation. Okay, has that further investigation occured and has it been convincing?
Good questions.
>>As for the British, Germany tried to destroy them, so they took German colonies as trusteeships and gave some to South Africa and New Zealand. But the trusteeships were understood as temporary. They couldn’t simply give the land to South Africa or New Zealand permanently to do as they wished.
My understanding is that England wanted the Ottoman Empire to fight on their side in WWI. When they didn’t, after the war, the Brits disbanded the Caliphate and changed their government to a democracy. As part of the arrangement, Palestine which had been ruled by the Ottomans became England’s responsibility.
>>I’m not interested in hashing this out or making a career out of arguing about it either. I posted the links so that people could make up their own minds.
I would like to, but I don’t have the time. I intend to make this question of whether Muslims were made to grab their ankles when it comes to Israel a research project that I will work on when I can.