Jews were victims of laws worse than apartheid

Bodies of two Jewish students hanged in Baghdad in 1969 on trumped up charges (Corbis)

The latest weapon in theanti-Israel lobby’s delegitimising arsenal, the Russell Tribunal on Palestine, is due to reveal its findings today in Cape Town.

The Tribunal, modelled on an earlier, equally one-sided attempt to discredit the US during the Vietnam war, purports to promote Truth and Reconciliation in the Middle East. In reality it has assembled a motley group of ‘concerned citizens’ – actors and activists and a few big names, such as Archbishop Desmond Tutu – in order to reinforce a malicious and spurious comparison between Israel and apartheid-era South Africa.

Yes, there is a role for a Truth and Reconciliation commission in the Middle East but not on the distorted terms of reference of this tribunal.

Half the Jews of Israel descend from refugees from Arab and Muslim countries, driven out by Nuremberg-style laws persecuting Jewish citizens just because they were Jews. These laws were similar, or worse than apartheid, and often accompanied by episodes of mob violence.

Just to give a few examples:

Jews were not granted (or stripped of) citizenship in Arab states.
Jews had to carry special ID documents marked ‘Jew’.
Jews had their communal institutions dissolved or nationalised
Jews were subject to restrictions and quotas.
Jews were sacked from public service jobs.
Jews were not allowed to travel or leave the country.
Jews were subject to arbitrary arrest for being ‘Zionists’.
Dozens were executed on trumped-up charges.
Jews had their bank accounts frozen and property sequestrated.
Jews were forced into business partnerships with Muslims.

Result: massive ethnic cleansing such that only 4,000 Jews remain out of nearly a million Jews living in Arab lands 60 years ago.

Yes, there were wrongs committed on both sides, but in its determination to depict the Palestinians as sole victims, this charade will ignore or deny the massive injustice perpetrated against Jews indigenous to the region. In so doing this tribunal denies the whole truth. True reconciliation can never be built on lies or omission of essential facts.
Many anti-Jewish ‘apartheid’ laws predated 1948


  • Decades to "apartheid" slur by pro-Nazi, A. Shukeiri (Shukairy)
    {6 years before 1967 war and 41 years before security anti terror defense barrier}
    Ahmad al-Shuqairy, ash-Shuqayri, Shukeiri, Shukeiry , Shukairi, Shukairy:

    * At WW2, he and his friends used to pray for Hitler's victories and for the defeat of Britain. (His own admission).
    * Escaped in the 1940's with his associate Al-husseini, mufti of Jerusalem, Hitler's ally.
    * He "had suggested that Palestinian and Libya's ulama' invite Mussolini to adopt a policy of non-cooperation with zionists and to treat them as the nazis were doing." (Arab source)
    * Was a Nazis apologist.
    * A (1965) report, tells of him leaving the Russians, switching over to Hitler's side, to support Hitler's anti Jewish war.
    * 1946: Before the partition and almost 2 years before the modern State of Israel was established, he spoke about "race." About a decade later he said Jews are not a race nor a nation.
    * End of 1940s, "compared Israel's economic planning for Jerusalem with Hitler's planning for a Nazi ruled Europe".
    * In 1952 compared plight of living Arab refugees to millions perished in WW2.
    * October, 1960 compared Israel to nazis, adopting holocaust denier' Issa Nakhleh's epithets (who initiated vilifying lingo in June 17, 1949).
    * Invented the "apartheid" slur in Oct. 1961 at his UN diatribe (UN's 16th session). He also -at the same speech- objected to Eichmann being tried in Israel. It was on October 17, 1961.
    Almost 6 years before the six-day war which some call it an "occupation". Some 41 years before the security barrier anti terror defense erected in Israel. He used the then momentum in U.N. against South Africa. So he just compared it to S.A. So he just compared it to S.A. That meme he uttered after already branding Israel with Nazi label, then he "dropped" "levels down." At the same speech of "apartheid" comparison, he objected to Eichmann being tried in Israel. Then again later on he jumped up levels and said: "nastier than Fascism, uglier than Nazism." (Which its roots are in Holocaust-denier Issa Nakhleh's wording in June-17-1949, who by Nov-14-1972 said Hitler did "not" kill Jews).
    That and much like this, is of his legacy of wild labels-slapping, since enshrined in PLO charter.
    * In Dec. 6, 1961, he denied there was any anti Semitism in the world claiming zionists "created" it. At the time he also questioned a Catholic member's loyalty stating he's Jewish. He also argued he's not Anti Semite because he's Semitic himself…
    * In Nov. 30, 1962 praised, saluted infamous nazi gang Tacuara, some 5 months after (on 21 June 1962) they brutally attacked, carved swastikas on a 19 year old student as a "revenge" for eliminating Eichmann. He was fired by Saudi Arabia from UN post shortly after, over this. Apparently this was too much even for them to handle.
    * Dec.1962: Just before being fired from UN over saluting Nazi gang, he led an attack to pin Nazism label on Zionism.
    * Called to annihilate Jews in Israel, 1967: 'a war of extermination in which not a man, woman, or child should be spared,' observing: "none of them will survive." (After Arabs' defeated war, he complained why he is singled out since this was Arab outlook as a whole).

  • Bataween, I think that we Jews often get so present and future oriented, so we forget that importance of history in the Israeli-Arab dispute. That leaves a void that the Arabs and their allies fill with lies about history.

    Now specifically about the dhimma, in countries taken over by European powers [not including Yemen or what is now Saudi Arabia] Jews enjoyed much equality with Muslims under colonial rule. Christians likewise. However, the Muslims continued to believe that dhimma was the right status for non-Muslims. You can see that terrible persecutions and massacres of non-Muslims took place in the Ottoman Empire after the legal abolition of dhimma. The Armenian massacres mainly took place AFTER the Empire had abolished the jizya and other features of dhimma. The Muslims never changed their view of the rightness of dhimma, of the subjection of non-Muslims, the latter's humiliation, persecution and exploitation. The present day events in Jewish-Arab relations can only be understood against the background of dhimma, that is, of the Muslim attitude toward Jews.

  • Eliyahu, in my listing examples of 'apartheid' laws I did not mention the dhimma ( non-Muslim status under sharia law) because the dhimmi laws had been abolished by the colonial powers and the law was meant to protect all citizens of the state equally. Institutionalised dhimmi cultural and social prejudice still existed, however.
    Yemen in the 20th century was of course an exception, there sharia law was in force.

  • I see that Arrabalero gets his facts from the very reliable wikipedia.

    Actually, Bataween, Sylvia and Suzy, I think that you have to go back more than a thousand years and say frankly and correctly that Arab/Muslim oppression-persecution-exploitation-humiliation of Jews went on for more than one thousand years, since Muhammad's stay in Medina, according to Muslim tradition.

    I do like Sylvia's reference to the Spanish Inquisition.

  • The Jewish Tribune is simply not correct to say that violence against the Jews occurred after 1948.
    The Holocaust pogrom know as the Farhud occurred in Iraq in 1941, and the atrocities in Syria in 1945 and 1947.

  • Suzy
    Think of it as a 21st Century Tribunal of the Inquisition, who set their own definitions just like the Spanish one did.
    Where the old Inquisition defined a Jew as anyone who bathed on a Friday and didn't cook on a Saturday, this one defines israel as an apartheid State.
    And who says Tribunal says verdict says punishment.

  • You're right, Suzy (al abuhom labu jabem) but these exercises have a drip-drip effect, reinforcing lies against Israel, such as the 'apartheid' lie.
    the Tribunal has now pulbished its findings and has managed to find Israel guilty of applying aparthied to Israeli Arabs as well as Palestinians.
    And the earth is flat, the Pope's my father and the moon's a balloon.

  • if you ask the man in the street "what or who is the Russels tribual, he will shake his head not knowing what we are talking about.
    so why should I care about that tribunal? It will just fade and disappear as all those who have worked on making us disappear!!!
    yen aal abouhom
    suzy vidal

  • Their site seems to be down, Bataween, and I need to go through their final conclusions in order to continue. What a shame 🙂
    But there is another angle to this that should concern Jews of Arab and Muslim countries.

  • Why are people in general so pro Palestinian refugees.i think it's because the latter have not stopped moaning and appearing miserable. But as for us Jewish refugees, we pushed back our sleves and got to work.
    No one seeing my family or even those from Egypt could guess what we have gone through. So maybe we too should start moaning and crying as do the Palestinians.B ut all things considered, we do not want to demean ourselves. We want to keep our dignity
    Sultana Latifa, once a refugee but now a fully fleged citizen

  • Bataween we are of the same mind!
    I am half-way writing a long post on how the Russell Tribunal has inadvertently made a stronger case for Muslim apartheid than it did for Israel.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


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.