Month: April 2011

‘Flavours of Babylon’ – a feast for eye and soul


Linda Dangoor has salvaged the secrets of a robust and aromatic, but not spicy cuisine: Iraqi-Jewish cooking. Lyn Julius reviews Linda’s new book, Flavours of Babylon, for The Sephardi Bulletin:

As the saying goes,”Culture is what remains when everything else has been forgotten.” One might add that “food is what remains when all other aspects of culture have been forgotten.”

With only seven Jews still living in Iraq, the ancient Babylonian-Jewish community is on the verge of extinction. However, the secret tastes of its food, aromatic but not spicy, can still be savoured in private homes in Israel and the diaspora. But as the exiled generation die out, the links with Iraq-Jewish culture and food will become more and more tenuous, unless they are immortalised in book form, as Linda Dangoor has done in Flavours of Babylon.

Initially, Linda compiled recipes for her interested nephews. The collection spiralled into a full-blown commercial enterprise – researched, written, photographed, laid-out and published using her newly-honed computer skills by this talented ceramicist-come-graphic designer.

Linda was only ten when she left Baghdad. Seventeen members of her family lived together in a house on the Tigris. She still has vivid memories of eating fresh produce from the garden. Food preparation followed the seasons: a huge amount of pickling and preserving fruit and vegetables took place in summer. She remembers picnicking on the small islands which emerged when the water level was down, and counting stars to sleep on the roof.

The cooking of the Iraqi Jews did not differ markedly from that of the local non-Jews. On special occasions stuffed sheep’s stomach, Pacha, was eaten by all communities. In Baghdad, the cuisine was heavily rice-based (‘A meal without rice is not a meal, it’s a snack’, the book tells us). The family’s cook Gershone, was not especially assiduous preparing rice, and according to Linda, consuming his gritty dishes was like negotiating a minefield.

Meat stews were a staple for the whole region, but Jews often braised their meat (almost always lamb and chicken), making it go further in a sweet and sour tomato sauce, or stuffing it in vegetables. Olive oil was unknown in this part of the Middle East: so as not to violate the laws of Kashrut, Jews cooked in sesame oil, while the height of luxury for Muslims and Christians was to cook with butter. Another dish unique to the Jews was Urugh, a patty made with long-grain rice and fish, or meat. Every Thursday without fail Linda’s family would eat the vegetarian rice and red lentil dish Ketchri, a variant of the Indian Kedgeree. But the signature dish of the Iraqi Jewish household was the Shabbat T’beet, chicken and rice flavoured with cardamon and baked on low embers with eggs that turned brown and sweet. They were eaten with umba, mango pickle imported in bottles bearing lots of medals and a ship on the label, a condiment almost as Iraqi as it is Indian, and nowadays popular in Israel.

Moving to England, Linda was at first bewitched by tinned peaches and instant cake mixes (just add water!). The infatuation with processed foods did not last long, and inspired by her Middle Eastern background, Linda was soon not only recreating her family’s recipes, but inventing new ones, to which the second part of her book is devoted. “Let nothing which can be treated by diet be treated by other means”, said the medieval rabbi and physician Maimonides, and this colourful book is nothing if not conducive to healthy eating.

And not just eating – Linda has a section on teas, infusions and other exotic drinks such as her all-time favourite – Hriri, the hot almond drink consumed at the conclusion of Yom Kippur.

Flavours of Babylon is beautifully presented, a feast for the eye and soul, as well as the stomach. It brings welcome reinforcement to efforts to shore up the fragile memory of Iraqi-Jewish food.

Awafi!*

* Iraqi-Jewish equivalent of Bon Appetit!

Two Jews killed in Moroccan cafe bombing

Michal Wizman, who died with her husband Mesod in the cafe bombing. Their son survives them.

Two Jews* are among the 15 people killed a bomb explosion in the Moroccan town of Marrakesh today, according to Israel National News in Russian.

More than 20 were injured. Almost all the victims are foreign tourists. At first the authorities announced that the incident was a domestic accident – caused by exploding gas tanks – but soon they were forced to acknowledge that what happened had been a terrorist attack. The Jewish couple who died arrived in Morocco for Passover to mark the holiday with an elderly parent.

* a third Jew, a travel writer of British nationality, also died.
Read article in full

Update to the update: a man on the run in a cagoule was arrested on 30 April some 80 kilometres from Marrakesh, and his bag of explosives detonated by police. (Source: Dafina)

Update (The Jerusalem Post): The dead were a pregnant Israeli and her Moroccan Jewish husband. Their two-year old son was being cared for by his grandparents in Casablanca.

The blast at the Argana cafe killed 15 people

Article in Lubavitch newspaper

Article in Irish Times

Couple buried in Israel

Hanania wants compensation – and so do I

A view of Jerusalem (Photo: Mattias Guggisberg)

Oh the injustice. Over at the Jerusalem Post the Palestinian Christian columnist Ray Hanania has been berating the Israelis for treating his family unfairly, by refusing to compensate his family for their land in Jerusalem. Here is an extract of his piece, followed by my comment:

“My family owns 33 dunams – about eight acres – adjacent to Gilo, the Jerusalem “suburb” many around the world consider a settlement, which was founded several years after the 1967 War. That’s about 33,000 sq.m. It’s in a valley that faces Malcha and the sports stadium, surrounded by homes. It’s called the “Tarud” land, and was purchased by my cousin’s grandfather in the 19th century. Most of the brothers and sisters who owned the land have died, and only one cousin remains. He’s given me power of attorney to represent it.

I have tried. Israeli officials know that I own the land as its representative. Yet the government continues to announce plans to develop in that area. They have never contacted me or my cousins. The various reports on expansion have said new construction will take place on land owned by the Jewish National Fund and private land. “Private land?” What does that mean to Israelis? This whole conflict is about how we treat each other. And while Israelis always complain about how Palestinians treat them, only a few care about how they treat us. Jews have been severely mistreated and have had their land and property taken from them in European and Arab countries.

Many have already received compensation from European countries. As part of ending this conflict, perhaps those who fled or were forced out of Arab lands will also be compensated.”

Read article in full

My comment: Yes, it is unfair that the Hanania family has not been compensated for land in Jerusalem. And I sympathise with Hanania’s efforts to fight for compensation. He is relatively lucky, however: the Israelis are aware of Hanania’s claims and he has been free to visit the property he claims is his.

ln what circumstances did he lose this land exactly? Gilo was under Jordanian occupation until 1967. So Hanania’s land was not taken over by Israel in 1948. It could have been taken over in 1967, when Jordanian forces launched a second war of aggression.

There is this telling paragraph in Hanania’s piece:The mukhtar [leader] of the village of Sharafat has repeatedly refused to meet with me – an indication of the growing tension between Christians and Muslims in Palestinian territories that we are not supposed to discuss. It seems there’s discrimination from every direction.

Perhaps Hanania is not telling us the full story. Could it be that in the absence of the Hanania clan, like many Palestinian Christians who have for decades been living abroad, Muslim settlers from Sharafat have moved in onto Ray’s land?

Be that as it may, there is enormous injustice on both sides of the Israeli-Arab divide.

My family lost two homes with large gardens in a prosperous district of Baghdad, a cafe, an office building, and acres of oil-rich date plantations in the Basra area.

Given that there were once 150,000 Jews in Iraq, multiply these losses many times over. Bear in mind the property lost across 10 Arab countries by almost one million Jews, and you get a devastating picture of mass spoliation.

Because Jews have received compensation from European countries, Hanania suggests that Palestinians should receive compensation from Israel, as if Europe had anything to do with the Arab-Israeli conflict, and as if there is no cost for having instigated wars of aggression in 1948 and 1967.

Hanania rather cavalierly suggests that ‘perhaps’ Jews from Arab countries will be compensated for property they lost simply for being Jews. But Arab states have not even recognised the legitimacy of Jewish claims many times greater than Palestinian claims, let alone provided any compensation. Hanania’s is a very big ‘perhaps’. Even though Iraq is now nominally a democracy which respects civil rights, the chances of my family obtaining compensation for our property is, I’ll admit, as likely as a snowstorm in August.

So perhaps Hanania and I should call it quits.

Moroccan Jews recognised as Holocaust survivors

For the first time since the end of the Second World War nearly 70 years ago, thousands of Moroccan Jews will be recognized as Holocaust survivors and receive compensation from the German government.It should be stated that Jews not only suffered under the Vichy ‘statut des juifs’, but North African Jews living in France were deported to the death camps. Ynet News reports (with thanks: Michelle):

According to the agreement drafted over the last few days between the Claims Conference and the German government they will each receive NIS 13,000 ($3,800) in compensation.

Romanian and Bulgarian Jews who were held during the war will be included to receive the same compensation received by concentration camp survivors.

The Claims Conference estimated that 7,000 new compensation requests will be submitted, half from Bulgarian and Romanian Jews and a third from Jews from North African countries, mainly Morocco. Those eligible for the compensation are Jews whose freedom of movement was restricted in some way by the Nazis and their allies. Freedom of movement includes entrance to parks, movie theaters, and use of public transportation among others. At the time World War II broke out, 260,000 Jews were living in Morocco. While Jews from Tunisia, Algeria and Libya were recognized over the passing years as Holocaust survivors and received compensation, Moroccan Jews were never recognized as survivors. So far, only a small number of Moroccan Jews who made aliyah to Israel before 1953 have succeeded in achieving recognition as Holocaust survivors and receiving compensation accordingly.

Read article in full

Jerusalem Post article

Misled are the peacemakers: a reply to Freedland


Last week, the Guardian journalist Jonathan Freedland (pictured) took the part of the erstwhile Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat in a role-play exercise. But the peace agenda discussed was seriously distorted. Writing in The Propagandist, Lyn Julius puts forward an alternative peace plan that addresses the ‘right of return’, Jewish refugees and democratic change in Arab lands:

For most of last week, the Guardian journalist Jonathan Freedland was cast as the erstwhile Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat in arole-play exercise , while Palestinians played Israelis.

Apparently, every time such exercises take place, it is the ‘Palestinians’ who seethe with righteous indignation as the underdog. The ‘Israelis’ suffered too, the negotiators recognise, but that was ‘in the past’.

How has the peace agenda come to be so seriously skewed? The victims of a genocidal project to destroy the Jews in the Middle East have been turned into aggressors, and Jewish suffering downplayed. Who around the negotiating table remembers that it was the Arabs who rejected the UN Partition Plan for Palestine, and launched a war of annihilation against Israel in 1948? Who remembers the Arab League secretary-general Azzam Pasha’s spine-chilling promise : ‘This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades’?

It was a good week, writes Freedland. He negotiated Israel back to the 1967 borders.That was the easy bit, Jonathan. Did the ‘Israeli ‘negotiators’ get the ‘Palestinians’ renounce their ‘right of return’ to Israel proper?

The ‘right of return’: This issue cannot be brushed aside lightly as ‘rhetoric’. Not content with getting a Palestinian Arab state in the West Bank and Gaza, even the ‘moderates’ of the Fatah camp have refused to recognise Israel as a Jewish state. Most recently they again affirmed that their ‘right of return’ was non-negotiable. Thus Palestinians reserve the right to turn the Jewish state into a second state of Palestine, by overwhelming it with millions of returning refugees. The first act of such a Muslim majority-state would be to repeal Israel’s ‘Law of Return’ which entitles Jews, wherever they may be, to automatic Israeli citizenship.

That’s why, in the real negotiating world, Benjamin Netanyahu is right to make Palestinian recognition of Israel as a Jewish state the quintessential issue. (The real Erekat has said flippantly that Israel can call itself what it likes – but does the Arab side accept Israel’s right to call itself what it likes?) If successive Israeli governments did not insist on this point in the past, it is because Netanyahu has realised that the much vaunted ‘two-state solution’ leaves room for ambiguity.

To put it bluntly, Arabs need to become Zionists if there is to be peace. They need to accept that the Jews are an indigenous Middle Eastern people with a right to self-determination in their ancestral homeland.

Refugees: The Palestinian negotiatiors at Freedland’s role-play hold ‘the moral high ground’: the Palestinian refugees are seen as the main victims of an Israeli injustice. But this is another serious distortion.

The Arab refugees are the unintended consequence of a war the Arabs failed to win against the nascent state of Israel in 1948. But it is forgotten that the Arab waged a second war, on their own defenceless Jewish citizens, a war they won easily. This war was not a mere backlash to Israel – it was inspired by totalitarian Arab nationalism and by the rise of Nazism. The Jewish refugees – now comprising half the Israeli population with their descendants – were successfully ‘ethnically cleansed’. Now it is the turn of other minorities.

The peace agenda espoused by Freedland and others misses the fact that the single largest group of refugees created by the Arab-Israeli conflict was not Palestinian. Almost a million Jews were expelled, not just from Jerusalem and the West Bank, but Arab lands, and their pre-Islamic communities were destroyed. In terms of lost property, the Jews forfeited land four times greater than Israel itself. As a matter of law, the Jewish refugees too deserve justice. Recognition of their plight and compensation for seized assets many times greater than Palestinian losses must also be included on the peace agenda. Two sets of refugees exchanged places in the Middle East. The parties to peace must recognise that the exchange is irrevocable.

The peace agenda needs to include a humanitarian solution for Palestinian refugees in Arab countries and their four million descendants. They need to be granted full rights in their Arab host countries – including the right to become full citizens in their countries of birth, just as Jewish refugees were granted full rights in Israel and the West. The Palestinian refugee camps, terrorist breeding grounds, need to be drained. The agency perpetuating Palestinians refugee status from generation to generation, UNWRA, must be dismantled and Palestinians allowed to be absorbed in wider Arab society.

Jihad-driven antisemitism: The peace process needs to address the very cause of the Jewish exodus – the same bigotry which drives the Arab and Muslim struggle against a Jewish sovereign state in the Middle East and marginalises minorities. The conflict is not just between Israel and Palestine; it is rooted in the Arab world’s cultural and religious prejudice against non-Muslims ; and with the rise of Islamism, it is between western values and Iranian-backed Jihad.

Freedland’s peacemaking simply does not address Jihad. Assume that Arab governments are willing to renounce anti-Jewish media- and mosque-driven incitement and violence. Assume they are willing to accept Israel as the state of the Jewish people: how do you deal with the spoilers intent on wrecking the peace? If Israel makes an agreement with the ‘moderates’ of the Palestinian Authority, what about Hamas? If peace with Hamas, what about Hezbollah? The history of the Middle East is littered with the corpses of moderates murdered by extremists. Make peace with one armed fanatic group, and another pops up elsewhere.

Only if democracy takes root in the Arab world can violent extremists be marginalised. Islamists have only become a powerful force because they control the mosques, the only conduit for popular political expression in failing or non-democratic states. To bring about a lasting peace, we need to adopt the Sharansky solution – incremental financial incentives to encourage liberal democracy, the establishment of civil society with real respect for civil and human rights, independent institutions and the rule of law.

If there is lesson for Israel from the Arab Spring, it is that peace deals with illegitimate dictators are at best tactical truces. Democracies do not need to distract their masses with an external bogeyman. Democracies do not go to war with one another.

Peace negotiators, real or make-believe, need to move on from the tired old cliches of the Oslo years. The issues are broader than conventional wisdom suggests. Would someone please tell Jonathan Freedland?

Read article in full

Cross-posted at Harry’s Place andCiF Watch

A thought-provoking comment by Mettaculture at Harry’s Place:

Democracies do not go to war with one another.

mmmmmmm. Well a bit of a sweeping cliché that one. I do not wish to rubbish completely the essence of this cliché, because it is the case that, generally, wars between opposing democratic nation states are defined by their lesser destruction, greater willingness to solve diplomatically and to make reparations (or to simply buy the land being fought over).

Now it is true that many nasty wars have been fought between constitutional Monarchies and Republics where there is a lot of definitional debate about exactly what is a democracy (and of course what constitutes a war vs an invasion or a skirmish, an intervention or a squirmish).

None the less four Anglo-Dutch Wars, the wars between the splintering Bolivarian republics post Nueva Grenada and in central America (Neuva España ) post independence, the Mexican-American War and even the 100 hour football war between El Salvador and Honduras were wars.

But the ‘democracies don’t wage war’ truism is least rue when we consider the really nasty wars, civil wars, revolutions and wars of independence that have consumed so many lives in the last two centuries.

The wars that arise from within a constitutional state either for territorial independence (for some geographically separated colony, province or part of a nation) or within a contiguos territory devided by region, class or ethnicity are often the most brutal wars of all. These wars destroy and disfigure whole civilisations their economic and cultural forms their families and for long decades after their future relationships.

The American Revolution (The American War of independence we Brits call it which indicates that it was British colonists rebelling against lack of local governance),The American Civil War, the first and second Boer Wars, the first and second Balkan war, The Graeco-Turkish War (along with the combined Armenian, Assyrian and Greek genocide), The Spanish civil war, The Partition of India The first Kashmir War, The Invasion of Cyprus, and the Yugoslav war have all been ugly wars characterised by civil and ethnic fracture resulting in acts of barbarism between people who had lived previously as communities of part of a greater whole.

These fratricidal/ethnic/national self determination wars are also characterised by some of the most serious crimes against humanity.

All of these wars arose within the context of struggle for national or ethnic self determination where the constitutional (and increasingly violently contested) forms of relatively democratic government were inadequate to the task of resolving long standing societal or even civilisational factionalism.

Indeed what has always been a causative factor in these wars is that representation in governance has always lagged behind rapidly changing economic and social conditions, with the consequence that politically entrenched powerful groups become locked into a scrabble for resources with the newly emergent ‘demotic’ challengers.

Now it seems Lyn Julius is saying to important things (to crudely precis an important contribution) that we need to be place at the heart of the debate in relationship to Israel’s existential struggle for self determination:

First; There has been an exchange of refugee populations in the Middle East in the creation of Israel. This population exchange no matter how it happened (coerced, ethnic cleansing, voluntary) was done along principally confessional lines (but confessional lines that were believed to reflect ethnicity).

This caused terrible hardship for the refugees but it is done. What is more it was done in exactly the same way that modern nation states were carved out Independence movements from within two great Empires; the Ottoman and the British Empire in India (the third of the territory that remained as princely kingdoms and its preceding Mughal Empire).

The Modern state of Israel (and by the exact measure its surrounding sharp lined new post Ottoman Arab nations) therefore is a deeply rooted political fact of the modern global order of Sovereign Nations States, just as are, via exactly the same historical process) the states of Greece and Turkey (Armenia, Bulgaria etc) and Pakistan and India (Burma and Sri Lanka etc).

This is done we should, we must, accept these political facts as unalterable. Doing this allows us to then talk of compensatory payments to refugees (Jews and Palestinians) and their descendants.

I think this is the most important, the most robust, part of Lyn Julius article.

This should have always been the negotiation position. To have conceded the Palestinian refugee question as a self standing issue, irregardless of the entwined fates of the Jewish, Mizrahi, refugees has been to concede an argument and a set of demands that cannot be solved in those terms without undermining the right of Jewish self determination.

Refugees should be compensated and their civil and political rights recognised in the country of their residence and birth.

My Greek friend does not even consider that he has a right of return to the Anatolian Village that all four of his Grandparents were born in. My Palestinian friend (still after this argument) does believe that he should get his Grandmother’s house back in East Jerusalem and that there should be a ‘one state solution’ that allows him that.

He thinks this even though he is unsure of the chain of title for the property before 1948 and even though his grandparents migrated to the economically booming Palestine Mandate in the early 30’s (he came from Damascus where an elderly Christian Aunt still lives and a Jewish great grandmother died).

My Palestinain friend, an urbane and reasonable person (except on this issue) believes this because he has never really been challenged, within his liberal Anglo-Palestinian cultural millieu, to think anything different other than of his casually daily reinforced unproblematically viewed ‘right’.

The second part of Lyn Julius’ argument that is essentially ‘Israel must work with the Arab spring and democracy movements and do no more deals with dictators for short term security, because we all want democracy and democracies do not go to war’ is weaker.

Not because she is not right, ultimately, but because she may well be making a strategic mistake to see this as a prescription for action rather than the desired goal because, well, it can all go pear shaped in the short term.

Democracies are not easy to establish, or rather they are easy to establish utopically in an 1848 way

They can have a tendency to end briefly, up against a cemetery wall though.

Democratic emergence is also characterised by the release, the unleashing of long subdued ethnic, religious and economic tensions.

Power blocks battle for power and democracies, especially those born in independence movements or civil wars tend to be short lived.

Demotic forces are unleashed and democratic institutions (which take decades to build) can easily be undone.

Israel has fought a democracy, Lebanon, in several of its wars, it has invaded it twice.

This is not because Israel hates democracy or would rather do a deal with a dictator like Assad for stability, but because the Lebanese democracy allows for representation of sectarian and military interest groups inimical to Israel’s existence.

Lebanon may not be a perfect democracy, none is, but its’ electoral structure allows for a balancing of powers which is essential for enough stability in a democracy to build genuinely impartial and robustly independent democratic structures.

None of Israel’s wars with its only democratic neighbour have improved the institutional foundation of Lebanese democracy, on the contrary, Israel’s involvement in Lebanon is on a par with Syrias, in its threat to destroy Lebanese democracy, not by intention as with the Syrians, but by default for the simple reason that very few multi ethnic multi religious democracies are strong enough to resist melt down when drawn into wider conflicts.

Democracies do go to war and Israel and Lebanon with almost certainly be engaged in armed conflict, soon.

I still think that Lyn Julius is right in that unless Israel’s neighbouring regimes become zionists then there is little prospect for peace.

The irony is that only a stable democratic country that recognises another’s legitimate sovereign right for self-determination as much as it values its own can have a majority understand the universality of the principle of self determination and see that Israel’s right to this is unremarkable and that zionism (at least in the mature Westphalian sovereign state world legal order we live in) is quite unremarkably enough simply a political expression of Jewish nationalism.

I don’t have any easy suggestions as to how we get these mature Arab democracies surrounding Israel where a majority think ‘oh yeah Israel its just another country in the Eastern Mediterranean like Greece or Turkey’

I am sure, though, that unless the popular political discourse surrounding this issue begins to see Israel as an ultimate political fact, a geo-political consequence of the creation of Modern Nation States out of Old Empires involving unpleasant and never to be repeated population exchanges, just like the creation of Greece and Turkey or Pakistan and India; then we don’t even get to take the first step.

About

This website is dedicated to preserving the memory of the near-extinct Jewish communities, of the Middle East and North Africa, documenting the stories of the Jewish refugees and their current struggle for recognition and restitution.

Point of No Return

Jewish Refugees from Arab and Muslim Countries

One-stop blog on the Middle East's
forgotten Jewish refugees - updated daily.