What They Don't Want You To Know About Muslim-Jewish Relations In History

This review was written by Elliot A. Green and is reposted with permission

What They Don't Want You To Know About Muslim-Jewish Relations In History

Malka Hillel Shulevitz, ed., The Forgotten Millions: The Modern Jewish Exodus from Arab Lands. London & New York: Cassell, 2001 (2nd ed.).

Reviewed by Elliot A. Green
(An earlier version of this article was published in Hebrew in Nativ, Sept 2001)


Some of the most important events and historical processes get the least attention. In the oceans of ink spilled over the Arab-Israeli conflict relatively little attention has been given (in Israel too) to the historical background of the Jewish immigration --or flight-- to Israel from Arab countries. Partisans of the Arab cause tended to either falsify reality or ignore it. This has included Communists and leftists as well as spokesmen for Western interests in the Middle East. This whole subject has been an area where Communist ideology and practice converged with Western moral and political prejudices and interests.

The existence of oppressed Jewish (and other) minorities in Arab lands has long been an embarassment to certain Western journalists and policy-makers, as well as to Communist ideologues. The mainstream of American journalism in the 1940s and 1950s typically portrayed the Arab world as a region where people were kind, where toleration of Jews and other minorities was the rule, and where only Israel's presence spoiled the longing of the naturally anti-Communist Arab Muslims to join the Baghdad Pact. Soviet propaganda likewise advocated Arab unity, although in behalf of "anti-imperialist" and "progressive" goals and under Soviet rather than Western sponsorship.


In this atmosphere, Western and Communist politicians, communications media and educational institutions overlooked or minimized the wrongs committed by Muslim-Arabs against dhimmi (non-Muslim) peoples, or even against fellow Muslims who resisted Arab nationalism. Consider how the mass murder of Iraqi Kurds by Saddam Hussein (by poison gas among other means) and the genocide of southern Sudanese Blacks are usually overlooked by the media, by self-styled "human rights" bodies, by UN agencies, and by politicians generally. Ethnic cleansing of Kurds in Iraq intensified in 2000 and 2001, yet the veil of silence and distortion stayed in place as the media has focussed on alleged wrongs committed by Israel against Arabs in the course of Arab-initiated warfare.

The facts about the age-old suppression of Jews and Christians in Muslim society according to Islamic law could not be emphasized in the simplistic historical presentations of Western exponents of Arab nationalism. Arnold Toynbee, a historian highly placed in the British academic-diplomatic establishment (Studies Director at the Royal Institute of International Affairs, etc.), described Jews and other minorities as "fossils of ancient faiths" that should have vanished long ago. On a less distinguished level, Christina Jones, author of a brief account of Quaker (Society of Friends) missions in the Land of Israel, briefly described traditional Arab treatment of Jews as she saw it, as follows:

Jews in Palestine... lived in excellent relations with their Arab neighbors.

The Arab people are capable of the utmost generosity and to their everlasting credit have a better record of tolerance than their brothers of the West... There is no indication of racial animosity at that time [1917] on the part of the Arabs...1

Jones was not a famous academic like Toynbee, yet her modest work may have had considerable influence due to the heavy representation of Quakers in the American foreign policy establishment dealing with the Middle East, and in particular in agencies caring for the 1948 Arab refugees. Toynbee's words show a certain annoyance with ethnic and religious groups that spoiled the Arab world's uniformity and unity.

The Communist Soviet Union had announced its favoritism for Muslims against non-Muslim minorities shortly after the Bolsheviks took power, when they issued an "Appeal to the Muslim Toilers of Russia and the East" to support revolution, on 3 December 1917. This manifesto, prepared by Stalin's Commissariat of Nationalities, also asserted the right of peoples to self-determination, but gave the national-territorial claims of Muslim peoples pride of place over those of non-Muslims. Consider:

Constantinople must remain in the hands of the Muslims...2

The Ottoman capital probably had a Greek majority at the start of WW I, and if not, other non-Muslims (Bulgars, Jews, Armenians, etc.) probably made up a majority together with the Greeks. Consider next:

We declare that the treaty for the partition of Turkey and the wresting from her of Armenia is null and void. As soon as military operations are brought to an end, the Armenians will be guaranteed the right to decide freely their political destiny.3

Hence, the Armenians had the right of self-determination too. But they should not exercise their rights against Turkish (Muslim) claims of sovereignty. They should wait till the end of "military operations." The treaty promising removal from Ottoman control of Ottoman-ruled parts of Armenia was "null and void." Further, not only did the Bolsheviks leave the areas in question to the Ottoman Empire, but after the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk (March 1918), the Bolsheviks ceded to the Ottoman Empire large areas of historic Armenia and Georgia which the Russian Tsars had conquered in the nineteenth century, thereby exposing Armenian subjects of Russia to a continuation of the mass murder perpetrated by the Muslim Ottoman Empire against its own Armenian population during WW I. Additional massacres naturally ensued.

Some observers saw Brest-Litovsk--with its territorial concessions to Germany and the Ottoman Empire, Germany's ally--as Bolshevik compensation to the German Empire for helping the Bolsheviks take over the rival Russian Empire. Article IV of the Treaty states:

Russia will do all in its power to ensure the rapid evacuation of the eastern provinces of Anatolia and their restoration to Turkey. Ardahan, Kars, and Batum will be evacuated without delay by Russian troops.

The article does not mention Armenia or Georgia by name. So much for Bolshevik devotion to self-determination. This episode, like the Nazi-Soviet Pact, is one of those that Communists avoid discussing or are unaware of. Instead of bemoaning the lethal results of Brest-Litovsk, the Communists habitually advocated --in practice-- devotion to Muslim militant demands over the rights of dhimmis.

In Israel too, what is called the "left" has found the reality of Arab-Jewish relations in history to be an embarassment. How after all can the Arabs be depicted as oppressed victims of Jews if in the long perspective of history the situation was the opposite? How can Israel be depicted as Nazi if it is widely known that in fact most of the Arab nationalist movement was pro-Nazi? That the main leader of the Palestinian Arabs collaborated with the Nazis in the Holocaust? This attitude or one with similar results for historiography has long influenced the writing of history textbooks for Israeli schools, long before the "new historans" came on the scene. Indeed, there have been exceptions among the "left." Consider Sami Mikha'el's novel, Sufah beyn haD'qalim, about a Jewish boy in Baghdad who lived through the murderous pogrom of 1941. However, the rule for the Left has been to embellish the history of Arab-Jewish relations in favor of the Arabs.

Swimming against the stream of general reluctance among the communications media and the academic establishment in the West (and Israel too) to put Muslims, particularly Arabs, in a bad light, Malka Hillel Shulevitz has compiled a book of articles, most written freshly for this collection, dealing with the above and related themes. The resulting anthology can serve as a useful introduction to the field for newcomers and can provide useful information and concepts for the specialist. Shulevitz wisely chose Mordecai Nisan to present the political, social, and historical background of Middle Eastern minorities from a theoretical standpoint and a global perspective in today's world. Nisan wrote a book some years ago considering a series of those Middle Eastern minorities that have had political-territorial aspirations opposed to Arab (or Arab-Muslim) nationalism, or that have a distinct identity, supplying a theoretical explanation which contradicted not only Arab nationalism but the Western Arabists.

Bat Yeor, herself born in Egypt, presents in detail the principles of dhimmi status in the Islamic state, and the history of Muslim-dhimmi relations (particularly with Jews) in what is called in Arabic Dar al-Islam (the House of Islam). The concept of dhimma supplies most of the explanation of how Muslims have viewed Jews throughout the ages. Moreover, when the Ottoman Empire gave Jews and Christians a more equal civil status (mid-19th century), Muslims still viewed them from the traditional viewpoint. This attitude embraced modernizers such as the Young Turks --and more recently, their admirer Sadat in Egypt.

Bat Yeor believes that, "For Israel, the study of jihad... is essential." That is, she sees knowledge of jihad in its various aspects and ancillary concepts, such as fay and dhimma, as relevant to understanding our present conflict with the Arabs. The Hamas Charter asserts that land conquered from non-Muslims is fay, that is, collective booty of the Islamic Umma. This applies of course to the Land of Israel. The dhimmi status for Jews is still seen as valid by many --probably most-- Islamic authorities. Shaykh Muhammad Abu Zahra of Al-Azhar University declared (1968) that Jews living in Islamic lands were dhimmis who had "betrayed the covenant" of dhimma which granted them protection, by harboring sympathy for Israel. Therefore Muslims and the Muslim state no longer had an obligation to protect them.

Very relevant to the present situation of constant murders, shootings, suicide bombings, etc., is the historical core of dhimmi status. The Quran (IX:29) states that Muslims must, "Fight against [unbelievers]... until they pay tribute out of hand and are utterly subdued." The tribute in early Islam included a head tax called the jizya, which in the Ottoman Empire was abolished in the mid-nineteenth century (under European pressure), though remaining in effect in other Islamic lands into the twentieth. The receipt for the jizya was a license to live another year. Therefore, Bat Yeor points out, "life" was "not considered a natural right" but a right which a dhimmi must purchase annually. The murders on the roads of Samaria and at the Tel Aviv discotheque are most reasonably understood in the context of dhimma and jihad, rather than as reactions to "occupation." Bat Yeor adds that Christian Judeophobia too --both Western and Middle Eastern-- is a factor in hostility to Israel.

Ya'akov Meron contributes a substantial piece arguing that the Arab League planned an expulsion of Jews from Arab lands before the UN Partition Resolution (Nov 29, 1947). Indeed, Arab delegates to the UN, in particular those of Egypt and Iraq, had hinted at their intentions in speeches at the UN before the vote on Partition, warning that Partition might endanger Jews in Arab lands, intensify antisemitism and lead to massacre of Jews. These veiled threats must have made a chilling impact on Jews in Arab lands where memories of the pro-Nazi stance of the local Arab governments and nationalists must have been fresh, especially in Iraq, Syria and Egypt, as well as in Libya where Arab mobs had accepted the occupying Germans' invitation to plunder the Jews; likewise the calls to murder Jews issued over Radio Berlin during WW2 by Amin el-Husseini, Mufti of Jerusalem. Meron's documentation flies in the face of some "new history" writings, and vitiates claims made about the Jewish exodus from Arab lands by assorted anti-Zionists --Western and Communist alike-- that the expulsion of Jews from Arab lands was a reaction to alleged expulsion of Palestinian Arabs by Israel, and/or that Zionist agents had terrorized the Jews into leaving (perhaps Jews would have felt safe in Baghdad despite the 1941 massacre?). Meron argues on the grounds of documents that the Arab leaders wanted the Jews out so that they could take over their property.

Perhaps because of the various upheavals that Egypt underwent after 1948 --defeat in war, overthrow of the monarchy, etc.-- this policy was not implemented there until Nasser amended the Egyptian Nationality Law in 1956. This new law led to mass imprisonment of Egyptian Jews and confiscation of their property under various pretexts and subsequent decrees.

The policy had been implemented earlier in Iraq (1950-51), where Nuri Sa`id, the pro-British prime minister, worked intensely on the expulsion project, which was blamed after the war on the displacement of Palestinian Arabs but in fact had been decided by the Arab League before the UN vote. Sa`id advocated his plan to British and American diplomats, using the arguments of an exchange of populations or retaliation for the displacement of Palestinian Arabs. However, speaking to the Palestinian Arab intellectual, `Aref al-`Aref, he explained:

The Jews have always been a source of evil and harm to Iraq...

Malka Shulewitz and Raphael Israeli contribute a joint article on twentieth century population displacements, as a comparison with that of Palestinian Arabs. This article is essential for considering the Palestinian Arab refugee situation in its global and historical context. The fact that at least 25 million Germans and Indians (including Hindus, Muslims, and Sikhs) became refugees about the same time as the Palestinian Arabs is commonly forgotten or unknown today, even to well informed people, particularly the young. The article shows how the Palestinian Arab refugees were treated differently than other, much larger groups of refugees. Whereas the Germans and Indians were resettled the Arabs were kept in camps. Yet, the principle of population exchange and thereby of resettlement had been accepted in international law, as in the Convention of Adrianople (1913), the Treaty of Neuilly (1919) and the Lausanne Convention (1923).

However, resettlement for the 1948 Arab refugees for Israel has not been accepted by the international community. Instead, the Western powers perpetuated the Arab refugee problem and status through the UN agency called UNWRA. The United States has historically been the most generous donor to the UNWRA and much of the staff has been American, particularly members of the Quaker sect. We may add, if it is not obvious, that perpetuation of the refugee problem has been a major factor embittering and exacerbating the conflict between Israel and the Arabs, especially considering the terrorist role of Arab youth raised in the refugee camps and educated in UNWRA schools. The perpetuation of the camps has also endowed the Arab cause with a certain humanitarian veneer that has been necessary to disguise its character as a jihad embodying religious hatred and contempt, and a sense of Muslim and Arab superiority in race and in rights.

Avi Beker's piece focusses in more detail on how the UN has perpetuated the Arab refugee situation, refusing the solution of resettlement, in contrast to its acceptance in other cases, as mentioned above. In other words, the UN has been part of the problem rather than part of the solution. Beker's informative article points out that the PLO takeover of the UNWRA-sponsored refugee camps in Lebanon, which was apparently accepted or approved by UNWRA, and in any case did not lead to a cessation of UNWRA support for the camps, became a threat to internal peace in Lebanon. This phenomenon led to a protest by Lebanese ambassador to the UN, Edmond Ghorra, in 1976, against the PLO's violations of Lebanese sovereignty from its bases in the camps formally under UNWRA supervision, where weapons and explosives were stockpiled and military training provided.

A central role in current Arab claims is played by General Assembly resolution 194 (December 1948) which recommends that "refugees wishing to return to their homes and live in peace with their neighbors should be permitted to do so" (paragraph 11). Beker points out that the Arabs originally rejected this resolution but later focussed on Paragraph 11, reinterpreting it to mean an unconditional right to return. Beker should have added that General Assembly resolutions are in any case considered only recommendations, not law, by the UN Charter itself.

He gives attention to the history and function of the UNWRA agency, correctly concluding that its "primary purpose is in reality to perpetuate and intensify the Palestinian refugee problem while ensuring that the refugees remain in the camps." Beker also discusses the growth in numbers of the refugees, the failure of resettlement and rehabilitation schemes (customarily rejected by Arab states and the Arab League), and the UN attitude toward the various agreements between Israel and Arab states (and PLO).

Walid Phares's survey of Christian minorities in Lebanon, Egypt, Sudan, Syria and Iraq and the Land of Israel covers their history, their aspirations, their current plight, and the attitude of Western powers towards their sufferings. Hence, this article furnishes us with a comparative view on the situation of the Jews (and Israel) in Arab Islam. Consider some of the arguments often made to justify Arab terrorism against Israel: Israelis are colonialists, intruders, "Europeans," culturally alien, etc. If so, and if being "intruders" justifies violence against Israelis, then why the massacres against Christians in Lebanon, Egypt, Iraq, etc.? Most Middle Eastern Christians are descended from non-Arabs (speakers of Coptic, Aramaic, etc.) whose ancestors lived in the Fertile Crescent lands before the Arab conquest. This is true of the Jews too but unlike the European Jews, their ancestors did not leave the Middle East in the Middle Ages. Rather, they have been in place all along. So why are they massacred?

Phares discusses the recurrent episodes of Christian resistance to Arab rule and colonization, notably in Lebanon and Egypt in the Middle Ages, and in Lebanon and Sudan in recent years. Western support for the freedom fighters has not been forthcoming.

In Egypt, both Islamic extremists and the government have oppressed the Copts. The Copts have suffered increased physical persecution since the late 1970s, whereas they had long been discriminated against by the state. After the Camp David Accords with Israel, Sadat jailed the Coptic patriarch, Shenouda III, for sedition, while failing to seriously punish the Copts' persecutors. Since the early 1990s, the Copts have been subject to frequent murders, massacres and other persecution (especially since Oslo), while Mubarak's government failed to protect them (or harassed Coptic victims!), pretending to the outside world that nothing was happening. The genocide and enslavement in Sudan have long proceeded with little outside attention, though the outside attention has somewhat increased in recent years. The Western media typically boycott spokesmen of Christian movements, not only the Southern Sudanese.

Phares focusses on the Western role. An actual policy on the part of the West to stop or prevent crimes against Middle Eastern Christians does not exist. Instead, Phares concludes, "The Western abandonment of the Christian nationalities was general, systematic, and clearly political."

Other articles include Harold Troper on the life of Syrian Jews after 1948, oppressed and forbidden to leave by various dictators, as well as the campaign in the West championing their right to leave. Yehuda Dominitz and Penina Morag-Talmon contribute separate articles on the absorption of Jews from Arab countries in Israel (Morag-Talmon also discussing other Oriental communities Jews). The book also includes useful and relevant appendices. These are:

1) the findings of the Tribunal relating to the claims of Jews from Arab Lands, chaired by Arthur Goldberg, former US Supreme Court Justice;
2) testimony of four witnesses before the Tribunal;
3) statements by Shimon Peres and Benyamin Netanyahu on the issue of Jews from Arab lands.

The book is now on its second edition. The first edition has already aroused discussion and been quoted in various later writings.

1. Christina H Jones, Friends in Palestine (Richmond, Indiana: American Friends Board of Missions, 1944), pp 69, 76, 84.

2. See J.C. Hurewitz, Diplomacy in the Near and Middle East: 1914-1956, vol. II (New York 1956), p 28. Other translations, complete or partial, have been published. See J. Bunyan and H.H. Fisher, The Bolshevik Revolution 1917-1918 (Stanford 1934). The date of the appeal varies according to the publication.

3. Ibid.

Technorati Tag: Jews And Arabs and Gaza and Hamas and Operation Cast Lead.