« Charged with performing a dance by BTS | Main | Cold War nonsense »

November 29, 2021



There is another aspect to this story that needs to be firmly established and covered in our educational system.

According to Martin Gilbert in his Routledge Atlas of the Arab-Israeli conflict, 580,000 Jews living in the Arab world, some communities going back 2500 years, subject to continual pressure and persecution fled their homes and lands to move to the new sate of Israel. Some colonialists then!!!!

An Arab friend of mine, long-time in the UK, told me that Bagdad was once the Middle Eastern city with the largest Jewish population.

Mick H

That's another important argument against the facile "settler colonialism" accusation. A hundred years ago Jews constituted something like 30% of the population of Baghdad. Now all gone.

John the Drunkard

Also, the 'settler' narrative implies the pre-existence of some sort of nation called 'Palestine.' Note that doesn't have an Arabic sound at all does it?

If we're going to accept any notion of 'Palestine' based on the division of the Ottoman Empire after WWI, we'll have to accept that every middle-eastern state was carved out by 'colonialists.' A good 80% of post-Ottoman Palestine was immediately sliced off to form Jordan, and placed under the rule of a king imported from Arabia under Anglo-French sponsorship. Do any Palestinian academics complain about this loss? Nope. The conquered peoples of 'Jordan' have never sought to recover their sovereignty. So long as the interlopers are Arab tyrants, no one objects.

The objection to Israel is rooted in hatred of Jews. Turks, Persians, Egyptians, Arabs etc. have all held sway over differing portions of the Levant/Middle East without this hysterical rage in response.


“ The objection to Israel is rooted in hatred of Jews. ”

That’s undoubtedly true, but I think also there is a belief that once an area is Muslim it must always remain Muslim.


I must register a dissenting opinion.

The idea that "indigeneity" gives special privileges over incomers strikes me as uncomfortably close to ideas of blood and soil. The BNP member in Bradford has no more right to the city than any other person born and bred in Bradford.

No the rights of Jews stem from four things
1. The Romans never managed to banish 100% so a tiny residual population remained, or at least in close proximity.
2. The return of Jews to Israel was slow but continuous until the late 19th century when it picked up pace and then quickened by the 1930s. So they have had a virtually continuous presence.
3. The Arabs fought a war of annihilation which they lost.
4. Jews were expelled from Arab countries and were welcomed into Israel.

The Jews are there now. That's far more compelling a reason for them to remain than any idea that they held a right over the land due to "indigeneity".

Mick H

Yes, I take your point. I suppose the reason for stressing the issue of indigeneity in the case of the Jews and Israel is because that's the main claim that the Arabs have over the land of Israel/Palestine. In fact it's the only claim: that they're the original inhabitants who've been expelled by the nasty Jews. So it's worth pointing out that it's nonsense.


"So it's worth pointing out that it's nonsense."

Yes agreed.

I find it hard to take such claims seriously. So many famous Palestinians like Edward Said or Yasser Arafat can trace their origins to outside Israel, either directly or within a generation or two.


I heard that the number of Jews kicked out of Arab lands was something like 850,000.

Mick H

Yes, I've seen that figure.

The comments to this entry are closed.