Israel seeks $300 billion dollar compensation for Jews' property left in Arab countries

According to the Maariv newspaper, Israel is desperately seeking through its pressure lobbies a financial compensation package amounting to around 300 billion dollars from Algeria and other Arab countries where Jews left behind their property and moved to the Zionist entity starting from the spoliation of Palestine in 1948.

• To this effect, a draft law stipulating that any Middle East peace treaty must mention financial compensation for Jews forced to leave Arab states has recently passed a preliminary reading in the Israeli parliament.

• It calls for the issue of Jewish “refugees” from Arab states to be raised whenever the question of Palestinian refugees comes up in Middle East negotiations.

• “The government should raise the issue about payment of compensation to Jewish refugees for the loss of their property and about granting to Jewish refugees who fled Arab countries a status similar to that of Arab refugees who lost their property when the state (of Israel) was created,” the proposed law states.

• The radical Shas party had initially wanted a tougher bill stating compensations for Jewish refugees must be agreed before any further peace negotiations are held.

• The forced creation of the state of Israel led to two substantial population movements in the Middle East. Between 700,000 to 800,000 Palestinians fled or were expelled from their homes, and forbidden from returning by the new Jewish state, while from 1948 through to the 1970s, around 850,000 Jews left Arab countries, with the majority moving to Israel. But the rough equality in scale is just about the only similarity.

• Professor Shenhav once wrote that “any reasonable person” must acknowledge the analogy to be utterly “unfounded”:

• Palestinian refugees did not want to leave Palestine. Many Palestinian communities were destroyed in 1948, and some 700,000 Palestinians were expelled, or fled, from the borders of historic Palestine. Those who left did not do so of their own volition.
• In contrast, Jews from Arab lands came to this country under the initiative of the State of Israel and Jewish organizations. Some came of their own free will; others arrived against their will. Some lived comfortably and securely in Arab lands.

• As well as the fact that Jews in Arab countries were actively encouraged by the Zionist movement to move to Israel, there is another big problem with the ‘swap’ theory – timescale.
• Dr. Philip Mendes points out how “the Jewish exodus from Iraq and other Arab countries took place over many decades, before and after the Palestinian exodus” and “there is no evidence that the Israeli leadership anticipated a so-called population exchange when they made their arguably harsh decision to prevent the return of Palestinian refugees”. Mendes also concludes his analysis by affirming that “the two exoduses…should be considered separately”.

• But the ‘swap’ idea is anyway illogical. One refugee’s right – in the case of the Palestinians, a right affirmed by UN resolutions – can not be ‘cancelled out’ by another’s misfortune.
• Furthermore, “the Palestinians were not at all responsible for the expulsion of the Jews from Arab countries” – while “the Palestinian refugee problem was caused by the Zionists’ refusal to allow the Palestinians to return to their homes in Palestine”.
• Given the historical and logical flaws, the only way this analogy can be so tempting for some is its propaganda value. Dismayingly, but perhaps unsurprisingly, the US House of Representatives was persuaded to pass a bill in April 2008 that not only equated Jewish and Palestinian refugees, but also urged “the administration to raise the issue every time the issue of Palestinian refugees is brought up”.
• The Economist magazine described the non-binding resolution as having very “doubtful value”, as well as showing “once more the power of the pro-Israel lobby in Washington”.