History of Jews in the Arab world

Currently there are numerous misconceptions surrounding Jewish refugees who were allegedly caused by Arab nations during the years that the state of Israel was established. The notion of collective punishment and discrimination under Arab rule has widely been accepted as a fact based on interpretations from verbal accounts on the historic events surrounding the Arab-Israeli conflict. History paints a different picture of those accusations when the complete story is put into perspective.

Since the beginning of the British frontier in the Middle East, not only was Palestine a British colony following the dismantling of the Ottoman Empire at the end of WWI, but the Empire had also controlled Egypt since conquering the French in 1882, as well as Sudan in 1899 and Yemen as early as 1839. The land that was once borderless under Islamic rule was slowly being sliced up and became provinces under the British Commonwealth.

At the outbreak of World War I, an emerging Zionist movement became prominant throughout Europe and was thriving economically. Many of the Jews of Europe excelled in trade, usury and public relations.

Two of its significant leaders, Dr Weizmann and Baron Rothschild, helped fund Britain’s victory in their European campaign during the Great War. They had only one request in return for the favour they bestowed on the Commonwealth for its victory, and that transpired in the form of the historic Balfour Declaration which was written to Rothschild in order to hand over one of the regions in the Middle East to establish a Jewish-only state.

This declaration was in direct contradiction to the promise given to Arabs to play a significant part in Britain's establishment of monarch-lead nations following their help in dismantling the Ottoman Empire at the end of WWI.

Since the Kingdom of Egypt was part of the British Commonwealth prior to this, it was already an open gateway to the Middle East for the Jewish community before they could claim a land of their own. Egypt subsequently made exemptions to rulings over compulsory visas in favour of Jewish immigrants. Naturally, many Jews flocked to this hub of multiculturalism across the Mediterranean from their origins in Europe. Many Egyptians today tell the tale of Jewish neighbours who had become friends over the years with many cultural exchanges including family recipes and traditions. Egypt provided a safe haven for many Jews who comprised of Sephardi Jews (migrating from Morocco and other Arab countries), Ashkenazim Jews (predominantly from Eastern Europe and those from pre-WWII), Jews from southern Europe, and the native Jews who had already existed in Egypt for centuries (namely the Karaites and Rabbanites) and who were previously living under the laws of the Islamic province of Egypt.

Regarding the lifestyle of these indigenous Jews before British rule, the Islamic governor of Egypt had ordered that others could not interfere with their way of life nor in their celebrated holidays. They were considered Dhimmis or "protected subjects". Their protection came with the precondition that a jizya or "poll tax" must be paid to provide security, build roads, help fund places of worship and other benefits that ultimately influenced fundamental practices of modern governance today with modern tax. While Muslims did not pay jizya, they were obligated to pay zakat, which is part of the tenants of their religious obligations. Obviously since Dhimmis were not required to perform one of the obligatory pillars of Islam, another method of taxation was required of them in society.

In the Muslim world, Jews also obtained high social positions such as doctors, clerks, tax collectors, and even received special positions in the Egyptian courts as early as the 9th century. There are historians today that prefer to consider these minority groups "second-class citizens" simply because they were excused from Muslim duties and the Shari'a Law, yet they were otherwise equal under the laws of property, contract and obligation, and were given rights to maintain their own religious rites and freedoms. Incidentally this provided more flexibility and allowances than what is currently provided in Western society today for those who wish to establish their own religious laws within sub-communities for minorities.

Further to this, under British occupation treatment towards Jews was no different. The Jewish community which had otherwise been persecuted abroad was embraced by Egyptians citizens. Some Jews during British rule even had their entries at the royal court and were able to contribute to the nation's public transport, cotton industry, sugar refinery, banking, department stores, real-estate developments, agriculture, as well as having jobs as accountants, shopkeepers, teachers, and merchants. They had just as much opportunity to fulfil a successful life as any other Egyptian citizen at the time.

Following the popular uprising against British rule in 1919, Britain ended the protectorate in 1922 and the Kingdom of Egypt became nominally independent, although still dependent on Britain financially. This did not phase Jewish migrants.

In 1932 and 1933 the Egyptian government conducted a campaign offering Egyptian citizenship to any resident of Egyptian territory who wanted it. Some Egyptian Jews were among those who took advantage of the offer and became Egyptian citizens, while others chose to remain stateless, though it became more difficult for stateless residents to become citizens later on.

Due to the end of capitulations between Egypt and European countries in 1937, which shielded foreign nationals from the law of the land, and due to high unemployment in Egypt which increased dramatically when many businesses closed after WWII, these foreign nationals, including many Jews, found it difficult to maintain jobs especially because they did not have Egyptian citizenship.

Jewish migration from Europe was growing during WWII and it didn't take long before the Nazis followed them. Amongst many other things, one of the main reasons why Hitler attempted to conquer Egypt was an attempt to eliminate the Jews from Egypt.

These two critical issues created the first wave of Jewish emigration. As a result, they fled based on their own fear and insecurity. But while an attempted eradication of Jews in Egypt was unsuccessful, many Jews still remained in Egypt; especially the higher class citizens that had much of their wealth invested in the country.

After the Nazis failed, the Kingdom continued to maintain its own laws. Some of the Ottoman systems that still existed were sustained by the Egyptian monarchy. At the time, Ottoman systems maintained legal protection for non-Muslim minorities which obviously included the autonomous Jewish communities. Any crimes committed against these Jews were not represented by the Kingdom of Egypt, and were rather considered criminal acts of racism. Although demonstrations and riots broke out following the commemoration of the Balfour declaration with some Egyptians lashing out violently against all who supported the letter to Rothschild, these protests consequently subsided with increased security by the Egyptian government to provide guards to protect the Jewish Quarter.

The Egyptian Kingdom's protection was maintained even after the independence of the state of Israel regardless of the fact that war was declared against the Zionists who took Palestinian territory unilaterally.

Egyptian rulers implemented martial law and stamped down their authority on any Zionist supporters living in Egypt as they were officially declared enemies of the state following the invasion of Palestine. Particular emphasis on "Zionist supporters" rather than Jews themselves was made because it was the growing secular movement with it's intention to take Arab land that was a threat to the nation. This law was not exclusive to Zionists however, as many Egyptians were arrested for violence within a nation that suddenly became volatile. The Muslim Brotherhood became outlawed and so were many other opposition organisations. Egypt was completely alienated due to being in a state of war.

Some Jews (primarily Ashkenazim Jews) were extremely fearful of the animosity of the war between Israel and the Arab world that they decided to migrate to the newly formed state especially because Zionist campaigns encouraged them to run to the hills and take land while it was "there for the taking". This is in contrast to what many people describe as an "exodus" in 1948, especially when the Jews themselves describe this ritual as the spiritual "aliyah" or ascension as was the Jewish aspiration since the Babylonian exile.

Egypt's status changed over the next few years when a military coup overthrew the monarchy in 1952 for failure to protect their neighbours from the humiliating defeat against the Zionist movement's invasion. Other reasons for the coup also included political corruption due to remnants of British influence which had helped form the Zionist state.

The state of Egypt was then transformed into a military ruling nation where emergency laws were enforced. One of the most significant changes due to this law was the deportation of those who lived in Egypt without visas or any other kind of evidence to prove Egyptian citizenship. This wasn't a direct attack on Jews, especially since British and French supporters were primarily considered enemies of the state for their support in the attempted invasion of 1956 by France, Britain and Israel, and so were subsequently expelled from Egypt.

Despite these expulsions, there were still Jews who claimed they were still making a good living from their growing businesses even up until the late 1960's and were reluctant to leave the country empty-handed. They were able to stay because they had citizenship and were not supporters of the enemies of state.

Egypt was drastically changed from having open borders to being in a state of security. This behaviour is common throughout the world today and is mirrored in Western countries such as the US with the establishment of the Office of Homeland Security in response to the September 11 attacks in 2001.

This harsh environment regarding the changes in Egyptian policies were mainly due to the undeniable and overwhelming fear that resulted from the establishment of Israel because the Zionist state posed a very imminent threat for a potential expansion beyond Egypt's borders, as it ultimately did in 1967.

Thus military rule created instability and political uncertainty in Egypt, even when considering the significant shifts in alliances from the Soviet Union to the US and up until the days of Mubarak's downfall. Many Jews actually decided to leave Egypt voluntarily, pre-empting repercussions from the political instability. This is no different than the Egyptian citizens who also fled from their own homeland and became migrants in countries across the world including the United States, Australia, Canada and the United Kingdom, particularly after the 1967 invasion. These Egyptian migrants were not considered refugees, just as the Jews were not. They fled for much the same reasons, and were considered migrants because applications were never made for refugee status with the UN. Jews either migrated to the United States, France and Australia or had answered to the Israeli call to establish settlements on Palestinian soil.

Currently, some Jews claim that racial discrimination against the few remaining Jews in Egypt still exist today especially because of an isolated incident recently regarding the prevention of a marriage between an Egyptian and a Jew. The reality is that even amongst Jewish sects there are significant cultural differences. The Karaite Jews (followers of the Torah) and the Rabbanite Jews (followers of the Talmud) have their own separate synagogues and their own separate schools, and although they both recognise each other as the indigenous Jews of Egypt who lived there for centuries, mixed marriages were an issue for their cultural traditions, let alone cultural differences between Sephardi Jews from Spain, or the Ashkenazim from Eastern Europe.

Some also claim that discrimination against Jews existed because they were denied the right to vote in elections, however this claim does not take into consideration the fact that all of Egypt including its citizens were denied the right to vote in any national election that existed ever since military rule took control of the country, with the staged formalities of elections to try and show Egypt's "democracy".

There has been a common trend amongst the Jewish Diaspora to isolate the sufferings of Jewish people during the time of war so that their own stories would be vindicated by excluding stories of suffering from the general population in the region as a result of the cruelties of war.

Incidentally this victimisation is also used with the constant reminders of genocide that occurred as a result of the holocaust during WWII while failing to describe the many tens of thousands of men, women and children who also suffered collectively from the war. Somehow the words "holocaust" and "exodus" have only been attributed to the Jewish people and astonishingly these words are not accepted nor tolerated to be used in conjunction with any other suffering people as a result of collective punishment in warfare.

Its time that we started sympathizing for humanity collectively when a population suffers at the hands of invasions and political and economic instabilities throughout the world. This ongoing story of suffering is not exclusively kept for the Jews.

Why is the two-state solution the best option for Arabs?

In the eyes of the Arab world, the obvious choice regarding a solution to the endless debate concerning the Palestinian/Israeli conflict is a clear undivided bi-national state consisting of Jews and Arabs living side by side as one. Pure in its concept of multiculturalism and democracy, this unity of the two nationalities is a concept they have been familiar with for more than 1000 years. This sober thought plays the perfect tune in the name of humanity and it is probably the simplest choice when considering that Arabs in the region outnumber the Jews, so there isn't anything too complex about this solution.

However it still remains an Arab utopia and continues to be a distant reality.

So why shouldn’t this be the card they play regarding their policies towards Israel? Realistically, the Arabs are in no position to demand democracy or demand any kind of recognition.

It is obvious that the significant demographic imbalance in the region comes at a disadvantage for the Israelis. They have clearly shown they would rather not opt for a solution best suited for pure democracy; otherwise, as Netanyahu put it, it would "end Israel as we know it". Regardless of how politically incorrect this statement is and how it implies that the state of Israel and pure democracy cannot coincide, the reality is, Israel is here and will remain here for a while no matter how forceful it was created in the first place.

While generally humanity cries out for democracy in its purest form, human history shows that the strongest ultimately survives. Some may argue this case even from an evolutionary perspective. Even when we go back to the time when Hitler was defeated for trying to conquer Europe; simultaneously, Britain and France were conquering the Middle East and their dominance prevailed in deciding the future of the region. It was never a conscious choice of morals to defeat the aggressive nature of the Nazi regime, because these dominant forces sliced the Arab lands and created the borders we see today in much the same way Nazi Germany began with Austria and Poland.

Britain and France, being the victors of the Great Wars, established monarchies in the Middle East that would benefit their respective Empires for strategic and economic gains regardless of what the inhabitants of the land preferred.

The sooner the Arabs submit to the idea that democracy isn't what will decide the fate of the existence of one race over another in the region and realise that the two-state solution is realistically the only solution they can push for regarding the region that was once called Palestine, the sooner they can prevent their own leaders from making ill decisions that result in the loss of more Palestinian lives when trying to fight against this phenomenon.

They simply need to come to terms with the fact that they lost the war against Israel and land was conceded. This was the case in 1949 when the Arabs had no choice but to sign a truce. This truce must be honoured just as their prophetic leader did with the Meccans 1400 years ago because it is as much a viable solution for long term success.

Many decades from now the tides may turn and the balance of power may shift just as it did when Salahudin emerged to end the violent occupation of the Crusaders in Jerusalem that lasted for almost 100 years, but the Arabs are far from providing any kind of shift similar to that today despite what is right or wrong. Israel has only existed for 60 years, and Arabs are already impatient in trying to force their own will against the situation.

Power ultimately determines what is put on the negotiation table, and as is the case today, there isn't much that Palestinians can negotiate with. The more they try to ignore this reality, the more innocent lives will be taken by an overwhelmingly powerful and violent regime.

The only thing the Arabs are currently in a position to do is prevent Israeli war crimes from continuing against their own people because it may threaten the very existence of their legitimacy in the region. This is the reason why the bid for a sovereign state of Palestine within the borders that were agreed upon during the 1949 truce had only developed in recent history, especially when previously Palestinians were more inclined to inhabit a borderless land unsoiled by man-made lines drawn on a map.

Despite Israel’s inability to adhere to the Fourth Geneva Convention to ensure that the demographic situation sways in their favour at all costs, and despite being condemned by the International Community, Israel still stands unchallenged.

Yet international support against the heinous crimes against humanity is the only thing that the Arabs have. The stronger their policies are in gaining traction with international support for the Palestinian cause, the better equipped they would be in defeating the occupation and succeeding in having their own sovereignty for the millions of displaced refugees. Fighting violence with violence hasn't seemed to work out well for the Arabs who currently lack strength in unity.

Regarding long term outcomes, Arabs should learn from their own history because Mecca was given back to the displaced Arabs without a single drop of blood spilled from the truce they had with their Pagan enemies.
Salahudin also returned Jerusalem without having to push the Christian occupiers "out to sea"; in fact he provided a safe passage for them back to their places of origin and indeed offered a place of sanctuary for those who chose to stay in the Holy Land.
South Africa was also liberated with the power of the people prevailing over an oppressive force that could not maintain power against the natural demographic balance. That force also fell without violence with the use of pure democracy.

It is in the best interest of both civil Arabs and civil Jews to have a truce today simply because too many innocent lives are being taken in this conflict. This truce is the pre-67' two-state solution.

Was Israel Purchased or Palestine Stolen?

Too frequently in discussions on the Arab-Israeli conflict are arguments brought to the table when justifying the colonization of Palestine as a "lesser of two evils" when comparisons are presented that describe land attained by violent conquests throughout the ages during the Imperial era.

Too often we hear the same cry against the barbaric rule of the Roman Empire; or the conquering Crusaders marching into Jerusalem with horses "knee-deep in blood".

The frequency of these historic events which illustrate examples of brutal occupation doesn't necessarily make them the standards by which we consider "historical norm" to be the accepted methods of occupation. Moreover, simply by using these examples to fuel the argument for justifying Israeli occupation puts the Zionist methodology within the same category as these archaic forms of conquests.

When focussing on the matter of colonialism however, there is a grave difference between the British colonization verses the current Zionist occupation. Even though Britain colonized most of the surrounding regions, just as the Ottoman Empire did before them, the colonies were still identified as Arab land with the presence of British military rule. Occupation itself is not illegal under the Fourth Geneva Convention, however the Jewish state has not adhered to the rules of the Occupying Power's responsibility under these laws, engaging in ongoing land confiscations, home demolitions, expanding settlement construction, systematic deportations, civilian displacements, residency revocation, water resource reallocation, economic strangulation, child imprisonment, violent checkpoint misconduct, border blockades, airspace "no-fly" restrictions, and maritime seaport blockades. All these impositions have been deemed violations of international law with regards to the rules of occupation.

In order to justify these actions, some traditionalists like to claim that the Jews were the original inhabitants of the region so it is their "right" to do as they please with "their" land. However they weren't the original people. They lived there 3000 years ago when David conquered Goliath, then his son Solomon created a kingdom, then a subsequent civil war ensued two generations later between Judea and Samara, and Nebuchadnezzar conquered and exiled the Jews to Babylon shortly after that. Four generations: A moment in the history of Jerusalem. People lived before the Jewish rule and people lived after the Jewish rule. One cannot compare four generations with one thousand years of Arab habitation.

Starting with the original rallying cry of Zionism - thought up by Israel Zangwill and adopted by Theodor Herzl - the following statement was used from the original Christian quote: "a people without land for a land without people" and that was the first Zionist lie. They knew full well that the region was not a land without people. In fact, they had sent a delegation of Rabbis to inspect the territory. The message that the Rabbis sent back was "the bride is beautiful, but she is married to another man". From the very beginning, the Zionists knew that their entire project was based on fabrication.

During the time when Palestine was under British authority, land ownership within each sub-district (as shown in the figure) shows a significant percentage of Palestinian Arab ownership compared to the Jewish people and the British forces.

The cause and effects of the British Mandate when permission was given for a mass Jewish immigration in the 1930's as a gesture of appreciation for Rothschild's funding of WWI, caused great unrest throughout the entire region. While early explanations of the Palestinian refugee crisis alleged that Arab leaders urged them to flee in radio broadcasts so that they wouldn't get in the way of attacks from Jewish forces, there was no evidence to support this. At the time British and US intelligence, as well as the BBC, were monitoring Arabic language radio broadcasts in the region and none of them recorded exhortations to flee.

Palestinians today still consist of the largest population of refugees in the world totalling 4.3 million as confirmed by the UNHCR, and are displaced in Syria, Jordan and Lebanon. To claim that they sold their land to become refugees is a complete misrepresentation of historical events.

There are claims that suggest the Jews purchased 10% of the land prior to the mass migration in the late 1930s / early 1940s, and there is in fact evidence to suggest that 10% of the population in the region that was called Palestine were of Jewish heritage; however that still does not include the rest of the land that was either unilaterally declared the state of Israel, annexed, or occupied. Israel's PR campaigns do not clarify the specific details of the amount of the land that was actually purchased compared to the remainder that was taken by force.