Jewish Refugees from Arab Countries:

Jewish  Refugees  from    Arab  Countries:

The  Case  for  Rights  and  Redress

INTRODUCTION

When the issue of refugees is raised within the context of the Middle East, people invariably refer to Palestinian refugees, virtually never to Jews displaced from Arab countries.

In reality, two major population movements occurred as a result of over a half century of turmoil in the Middle East. Securing rights for these former Jewish refugees has never been adequately addressed by the international community. For any peace process to be credible and enduring, it must address the rights of all Middle East refugees, including Jewish and other minority populations that were displaced from Arab countries.

Historically, Jews and Jewish communities have existed in the Middle East, North Africa and the Gulf region for more than 2,500 years. Jews in substantial numbers resided in what are to-day Arab countries over 1,000 years before the advent of Islam. Following the Moslem conquest of the region, for centuries, while relegated to second-class status, Jews were nonetheless permitted limited religious, educational, professional, and business opportunities.

It is important to note that the treatment of Jews by Arab leaders and Islamic populations varied greatly from country to country. By way of example, in some countries, Jews were forbidden to leave (e.g. Syria); in others, many Jews were expelled (e.g. Egypt) or displaced en masse (e.g. Iraq); while other Jewish communities lived in relative peace under the protection of Muslim rulers (e.g. Tunisia, Morocco).

When Arab countries gained independence, followed by the rise in Arab nationalism, state-sanctioned measures, coupled often with violence and repression, made remaining in the land of their birth an untenable option for Jews.

In 1948, the status of Jews in Arab countries worsened dramatically as many Arab countries declared war, or backed the war against the newly founded State of Israel. Jews were either uprooted from their countries of longtime residence or became subjugated, political hostages of the Arab-Israeli conflict. In virtually all cases, as Jews left the country, individual and communal properties were confiscated without compensation.

Since 1948, over 850,000 Jews have left their birthplaces and their homes in some 10 Arab countries. To-day, fewer than 7,000 Jews remain in these same countries.

The fact that Jews displaced from Arab countries were indeed bone fide refugees, under international law, is beyond question.

•       On two separate occasions the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR)

ruled that Jews fleeing from Arab countries were indeed ‘bona fide’ refugees who “fall under the mandate of my (UNHCR) office”.¹

1    Mr. Auguste Lindt, United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Report of the UNREF Executive Committee, Fourth Session – Geneva 29 January to 4 February, 1957; and Dr. E. Jahn, Office of the UN High Commissioner, United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Document No. 7/2/3/Libya, July 6, 1967.

3

•       In all relevant international bilateral or multilateral agreements, (i.e., UN Resolution 242, The Road Map, The Madrid Conference, etc.), the reference to “refugees” is generic, allowing for the recognition and inclusion of all Middle East refugees - Jews, Christians, and other minorities.

This Legal Report is intended to document, and assert, the rights of Jews displaced from Arab countries. Justice for Jewish refugees from Arab countries must assume its rightful place on the international political agenda, as a matter of law and equity.

It is important to underscore that:

1)     The legitimate call to secure rights and redress for Jews displaced from Arab countries is not a campaign against Palestinian refugees. In any Middle East peace proposals, Palestinian refugees will be up for discussion. The history and truth about the plight of former Jewish refugees from Arab countries must be also be acknowledged and returned to the narrative of the Middle East from which it has been expunged;

2)     This Report should not be misconstrued as ‘anti-Arab’. This Report provides an accurate historical narrative about the plight and flight of Jews from Arab countries that has never been recognized by the international community nor acknowledged by Arab countries. Compelling evidence supports the call for justice to redress the victimization of Jews who lived in Arab countries and the mass violations of human rights that they were victims of; and

3)     This initiative is not about money, nor about launching legal proceedings to seek compensation. This Report provides legal facts and evidence to assist all parties in any future negotiations on rights and redress for all Middle East refugees. In the absence of truth and justice, there can be no reconciliation, without which there can be no just, lasting peace between and among all peoples of the region.

The first injustice was the mass violations of rights of Jews in Arab countries. To-day, we must not allow a second injustice – for the international community to recognize rights for one victim population - Palestinian refugees - without recognizing equal rights for other victims of that very same Middle East conflict - former Jewish, Christian and other refugees from Arab countries.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

A)    Why Now?

Why has justice for Jewish refugees not only been delayed, but why has it been denied all these years?

Why has the issue been absent, not only from the international justice agenda, but why has it also been absent all these years from the Middle East peace agenda?

Why is it that the U.N. is preparing, yet again, to commemorate the International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People – on the 60th anniversary of the U.N. Partition Resolution of 1947 – but will ignore, yet again, the plight of Jewish refugees on that commemorative occasion?

Let there be no doubt about it: where there is no remembrance, there is no truth; where there is no truth, there will be no justice; where there is no justice, there will be no reconciliation; and where there is no reconciliation, there will be no peace.

There are a number of compelling, indeed urgent, moral and juridical considerations whose convergence warrants the publication of this Report.

First, there is the importance of rectifying the distorted historical narrative of Middle East refugees, and redressing the painful and pernicious delay and denial of justice for Jewish refugees these past sixty years. In particular, Jewish refugees from Arab countries must be restored to the Middle East narrative from which they have been expunged and eclipsed.

Second, there is the importance of the right to memory and the duty of remembrance of Jewish refugees; the importance for the refugees themselves of bearing witness; and the importance of hearing and documenting this witness testimony.

Third, there is the need to lay bare the truth, to counter the Middle East revisionism and distortion, to expose the cover-up of the historical narrative; and to combat the corruption of truth that inhibits understanding and prevents validation of a victim population, their history, their experience, and their pain.

Fourth, this Report not only details this pattern of state-sanctioned repression of Jews throughout Arab countries, but uncovers, for the first time, evidence of an international criminal conspiracy by the League of Arab States to persecute its own Jewish populations, as set forth more fully in Chapter 2 of this report.

Fifth, there are important developments in international human rights and humanitarian law, where more has happened in the last 15 years than in the previous sixty, which now underpin a right of redress for victim populations, and which apply specifically to the case of Jewish refugees from Arab countries.

Sixth, there is now a panoply of remedies to implement the right of redress in international law. These are not limited to compensation or indemnification of a victim population, but include such components as the right of memory, the duty of remembrance, the search for truth, access to justice, state-responsibility for wrongs inflicted, and the like.

6
 

Seventh, the whole question of refugees – and refugee claims – has now emerged at the forefront of the peace process, be it as a subject matter of the bilateral Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, or as a subject of the forthcoming Middle East peace conference in Annapolis, or as in every narrative of discussions on the Israeli-Palestinian and Middle East peace process. Yet in each and all instances, the reference is only to Palestinian refugees, thereby cleansing Jewish refugees from the Middle East peace process narrative.

Eighth, there is the particular pernicious and prejudicial role of the United Nations, which has systemically excluded the narrative of Jewish refugees from Arab countries from any U.N. narrative on the Middle East, either by exclusively identifying only Palestinian refugees as the sole victim population of the Middle East conflict, or by asserting only Palestinian rights of redress while ignoring those of Jewish refugees.

International law now obliges us to recognize and respect the narrative of victims of human rights violations, and therefore also obliges us to respect justice for Jewish refugees from Arab countries and their case for rights and redress. Only in this fashion can there be movement from remembrance to truth, from truth to justice, from justice to reconciliation, and from reconciliation to peace - between and among all peoples and states in the region.

B)    The Historical Narrative

Historically, Jews and Jewish communities have existed in the Middle East, North Africa and the Gulf region for more than 2,500 years.

Fully one thousand years before the advent of Islam, Jews in substantial numbers resided in what are to-day Arab countries. Following the Moslem conquest of the region, for centuries under Islamic rule, Jews were considered second class citizens but were nonetheless permitted limited religious, educational, professional, and business opportunities.

Upon the declaration of the State of Israel in 1948, the status of Jews in Arab countries changed dramatically as virtually all Arab countries declared war, or backed the war against Israel. This rejection by the Arab world of a Jewish state in their ancient homeland was the event that triggered a dramatic surge in a longstanding, pattern of abuse and state-legislated discrimination initiated by Arab regimes and their peoples to make life for Jews in Arab countries simply untenable. Jews were either uprooted from their countries of residence or became subjugated, political hostages of the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Little is heard about these Jewish refugees because they did not remain refugees for long. Of the hundreds of thousands of Jewish refugees between 1948 and 1972, some two–thirds were resettled in Israel at great expense – others emigrated elsewhere – all without any compensation provided by the Arab governments who confiscated their possessions.

Securing rights and redress for Jews displaced from Arab countries is an issue that has not yet been adequately addressed by the international community. In fact, there were more former Jewish refugees uprooted from Arab countries (over 850,000) than there were Palestinians (UN estimate: 726,000) who became refugees as a result of the 1948 war when numerous Arab nations attacked the newly established State of Israel.

 

7
 

C)      The Mass Violations of Human Rights

The uprooting of ancient Jewish communities from some 10 Muslim countries did not occur by happenstance. State-sanctioned repressive measures, coupled often with violence and repression, precipitated a mass displacement of Jews and caused the Jewish refugee problem in the Middle East. There is evidence that points to a shared pattern of conduct amongst a number of Arab regimes, that appear intended to coerce Jews to leave and go elsewhere, or to retain them as virtual political hostages. These are evidenced from: (a) statements made by delegates of Arab countries at the U.N. during the debate on the partition resolution representing a pattern of ominously similar threats made against Jews in Arab countries; (b) Recently discovered Draft Law of the Political Committee of the Arab League detailing a coordinated strategy of repressive measures against Jews; (c) newspaper reports from that period; and (d) strikingly similar legislation and discriminatory decrees, enacted by numerous Arab governments, that violated the fundamental rights and freedoms of Jews resident in Arab countries.

From the sheer volume of such state-sanctioned discriminatory measures, replicated in so many Arab countries and instituted in such a parallel fashion, one is drawn to the conclusion that such evidence suggests a common pattern of repressive measures – indeed collusion - against Jews by Arab governments.

The Report contains country reports that describe these unmistakable trends. The situations in Egypt, Iraq and Libya are described in greater detail. General ‘snapshot” profiles are provided on 7 other countries, including Algeria, Tunisia, Morocco, Yemen, Aden, Syria and Lebanon.

 

D) The Discriminatory Response of the United Nations to the Plight of Jewish Refugees

From 1948 onward, the response of the international community to assist Palestinian refugees arising out of the Arab-Israeli conflict was immediate and definitive. During that same period, there was no concomitant United Nations’ response, nor any comparable international action, to alleviate the plight of Jewish refugees from Arab countries.

The sole comparison that can be made between Palestinian and Jewish refugees is that both were determined to be bona fide refugees under international law, albeit each according to different internationally accepted definitions and statutes – the former covered by UNRWA and the latter by the UNHCR.

As far as the response of the United Nations is concerned, the similarity ends there. The contrasts, however, are stark:

a) Since 1947, there have been 1063 UN General Assembly resolutions dealing with virtually every aspect of the Middle East and the Arab Israeli conflict.

b) Fully 167 of these UN resolutions refer directly and specifically to the ‘plight’ of Palestinian refugees.

 

8
 

c) In none of these 1063 UN resolutions on the Middle East is there a specific reference to, nor any expression of concern for, the estimated 1,000,000 Jews living in, or being displaced from Arab countries during the twentieth century.

d) Numerous UN agencies and organizations were involved in a variety of efforts, or others were specifically created (e.g. UNRWA) to provide protection, relief, and assistance to Palestinian refugees. No such attention and assistance was forthcoming from these UN agencies for Jewish refugees from Arab countries.

e) Since 1948, billions of dollars have been spent by the international community - by the UN, its affiliated entities and member states - to provide relief and assistance to Palestinian refugees. During that same period, no such international financial support was ever provided to ameliorate the plight of Jewish refugees.

UNRWA, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, was established by United Nations General Assembly resolution 302 (IV) of 8 December 1949 to carry out urgent, direct relief and works programs for Palestine refugees. However, Arab governments, supported by Palestinian leaders, have consistently rejected any proposal or initiative designed to provide more permanent resettlement and housing for the Palestinian refugees, preferring to utilize Palestinian refugees’ continuing plight for political purposes.

E)    The Legal Case for Rights and Redress

In the context of the Middle East, it would be an injustice to ignore the rights of Jews from Arab countries. As a matter of law and equity, it would not be appropriate to recognize the claim of Palestinian refugees to redress without recognizing a right to redress for former Jewish refugees from Arab countries.

The international definition of a refugee clearly applies to Jews displaced from Arab countries:

A refugee is a person who "owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality, and is unable to or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country...”
The 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees

On two occasions, in 1957 and again in 1967, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) determined that Jews fleeing from Arab countries were refugees who fell within the mandate of the UNHCR.

“Another emergency problem is now arising: that of refugees from Egypt. There is no doubt in my mind that those refugees from Egypt who are not able, or not willing to avail themselves of the protection of the Government of their nationality fall under the mandate of my office.”

 

9
 

Mr. Auguste Lindt, United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Report of the UNREF Executive Committee, Fourth Session – Geneva 29 January to 4 February, 1957.

“I refer to our recent discussion concerning Jews from Middle Eastern and North African countries in consequence of recent events. I am now able to inform you that such persons may be considered prima facie within the mandate of this Office.”

Dr. E. Jahn, Office of the UN High Commissioner, United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Document No. 7/2/3/Libya, July 6, 1967.

At the United Nations, on November 22nd, 1967, the Security Council unanimously adopted, Resolution 242, laying down the principles for a peaceful settlement in the Middle East

Still considered the primary vehicle for resolving the Arab-Israel conflict, Resolution 242, stipulates that a comprehensive peace settlement should necessarily include “a just settlement of the refugee problem”. No distinction is made between Arab refugees and Jewish refugees.

On Thursday, November 16, 1967 the United Kingdom submitted their draft of Resolution 242 [S/8247] to the UN Security Council. The UK version of 242 was not exclusive, and called for a just settlement of “the refugee problem.” Just four days after the United Kingdom submission, the Soviet Union’s U.N. delegation submitted their own draft Resolution 242 to the Security Council [S/8253] restricting the “just settlement” only to “Palestinian refugees” [Para. 3 (c)].

On Wednesday, November 22, 1967, the Security Council gathered for its 1382nd meeting in New York at which time, the United Kingdom’s draft of Resolution 242 was voted on and unanimously approved.2 Immediately after the UK’s version of 242 was adopted, the Soviet delegation advised the Security Council, that “it will not insist, at the present stage of our consideration of the situation in the Near East, on a vote on the draft Resolution submitted by the Soviet Union” which would have limited 242 to Palestinian refugees only.3

Thus the attempt by the Soviets to restrict the “just settlement of the refugee problem” merely to “Palestinian refugees” was not successful. The international community adoption of the UK’s inclusive version signaled a desire for 242 to seek a just solution for all – including Jewish refugees - arising from the Middle East conflict.

Moreover, Justice Arthur J. Goldberg, the US Ambassador to the United Nations who was seminally involved in drafting4 the unanimously adopted Resolution, told The Chicago Tribune that the Soviet version of Resolution 242 was “not even-handed.”5 He later pointed out that:

“The Resolution addresses the objective of ‘achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem.’ This language presumably refers both to Arab and Jewish refugees, for about an equal number of each abandoned their homes as a result of the several wars…” 6

2 Security Council Official Records - November 22, 1967 - S/PV.1382 - Paragraph 67
3 Security Council Official Records - November 22, 1967 - S/PV.1382 - Paragraph 117

4 Transcript, Arthur J. Goldberg Oral History Interview I, 3/23/83, by Ted Gittinger; Lyndon B. Johnson Library. March 23, 1983; Pg I-10
5 “Russia stalls UN Action on Middle East.” The Chicago Tribune. November 21, 1967 pg. B9