2 Friday, March 7, 1975 THE DETROIT JEWISH NEWS Purely Commentary Many Distortions About Arab Refugees Turn the Tragic Problem Into a Shocking Canard; The Record Set Straight by a Member of the Knesset who is a Former Iraqi By Philip Slomovitz The Refugee Exaggerations: Exposing the Canards Floating in the Media Admiration for the American press has grown in recent years. The country's newspapers often earn criticism, but in time of crisis they protect the best interests of the nation. Watergate proved the fearlessness of newsmen. On many other occasions, revelations of legislators' and others' mishan- dling of public affairs have led to corrective methods to assure honesty and honor by elected officials. This applies also to the handling of foreign affairs, to international occurrences, to relationships among citizens. It is to be expected, therefore, that newsmen will seek facts and adhere to truth. Why, then, the frequent distortions in handling the Middle East issues? Why is there so much misunderstanding regarding the refugee problem? Why the exaggerations? Why the panic regarding the many aspects of the American-Israel friendships that have been so vital for Jews and Israelis as well as for the American foreign policy? `To Bigotry No Sanction': American Rejection of Arab-Inspired Bestialities The traditional American principle of fair play, of not giving comfort to bigots, was reaffirmed by the President of the United States and in the U. S. Senate. The unqualified denunciation of the Arab boycott, the reassertion that this country and our government will not countenance the boycotting of Jews and of firms doing business with Jews is heartening to all lovers of liberty and justice. For nearly a quarter of a century the Arab states propagated the revival of medievalism in dealing with Jews. The attempt to veil the dastardly tactic with a claim that it was a war against Zionists could not blind anyone to the reality of an inhuman plan to brand all Jews, and all non-Jews who had friendly relations with Jews to the fullest meaning of one of the most destructive schemes perpe- trated by evil-minded, oil-enriched governments. The American verdict is not to countenance international banditry. But action by our government is not sufficient. Leading American industri- alists and financiers, important banking firms and others apparently had yielded to the boycott. Whatever the pressures, whether they are from the oil magnates in search for financial gains, the bankers in quest for business, indus- tries bargaining for profit, the yielding to the Arab boycott disgraces the basic American ideals of common decency and fairness to all regardless of race or creed. It is not enough that President Ford, members of both houses of Congress and civil libertarians are condemning and rejecting the boycott. There must emerge indignation so strong that no person or business firm of means should feel free to give comfort to the bigots from the Middle East. A Bicentennial legacy admonishes Arriericans never to submit to tyranny and injustice. In 1790 George Washington wrote to the Hebrew Congregation of Newport Rhode Island: It is now no more that toleration is spoken of as if it were by the indulgence of one class of people that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights, for, happily, the Government of the United States which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they live under its protection should demean themselves as good cit- izens in giving it on all occasions their effectual support." (The text of the Washington letter appeared in the Sept. 18, 17.90, issue of the Providence Gazette and Country Journal.) This is the credo that is indissolubly engraved in American history, in the traditions that began with President Washington and assured the inalienable rights of all men under the Stars and Stripes. It is a credo cherished by men and decent people everywhere. Under such an ideal the boycott that threatens hu- man rights has no place among civilized men. That is why an outraged American public opinion relegates it to the jungle. Even .there and in the desert it is no longer tolerable. Boycott Outrage Editorial Opinions From the New York Times: The pressures being ex- erted by Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and other Arab states on American firms to try to make them exclude so- called "Jewish houses" from financial syndicates and the threats to blacklist those who do not cut off their commercial relations with Israel are - in sharp conflict with United States tradition and United States law . . . It is regrettable that the Arabs have seen fit to try to bring political and economic pressure on the United States in a way so repugnant to American values. They have only served to undermine their credibility as friends and allies of this country, or as nations that respect the rights and traditions of others, while in- sisting so vociferously upon their own. From the Detroit News: But the United States must make it clear to Arab nations that there is seri- ous disadvantage (political and economic) in main- taining the blacklist against American companies and citizens. A proper "serious disadvantage," of course, would be a refusal to do business at all on those terms. When a correspondent for a Detroit newspaper, writing from Washington about the erosion of American support for Israel, found it necessary to discuss the influence of Jewish voters in-Illinois, why write about a million Jews in Chicago when that city's Jewish population is under 300,000? Nick Thimmesch writes a good column. Why couldn't he check on facts when writing about the Arab refugees? Why did he flaunt a 6,000,000 figure? The refugee question has been especially exaggerated. Commentators began to speak in terms of a million; their figure grew to 2,000,000, it continued to escalate, and now we have the fantastic 6,000,000! Therefore the compulsion to resort to facts and to set the record straight again. The basic figures relating to the refugee situation were presented to the Israel Knesset by a member of the Alignment parties, Mordechai Ben Porat. An Iraqi Jew who has made a thorough study of the figures gathered for presentation to the Israel parliament, Ben Porat spoke at length about the issues involving Jewish expatriates from their Arab homelands as related to the Arabs wh- -) had left Israel. The following portion of his address emphasizes the rudimentary facts about hot aspects of the Middle East refugee problems: This House has dealt many times with the subject of reparations to Jews who have come to Israel from the Arab countries. My proposal to- day differs from previous motions, in that it re- fers to legal and political aspects of the rights of those Jews, and does not necessarily concern property or reparations. Many exchanges of population have oc- curred throughout the world during the past thirty years. The migration of Arabs out of Pa- lestine and of Jews out of the Arab States ranks twelfth in magnitude on the list of these ex- changes; Germany and India certainly rank higher. According to the New York Times, in Octo- ber 1947 2,388,000 Muslims migrated from India to Pakistan, and 2,644,000 HindUs left Pakistan for India. In addition, over 4,000,000 Muslims, and a similar number of Hindus, abandoned their homes. Estimates of similar situations in Europe may be regarded as more precise. Up to September 1950, nearly 3,000,000 Sudeten Ger- mans had been expelled from Czechoslovakia. Of these, 2,068,000 were resettled in West Ger- many, and 916,000 in East Germany. Between 1949 and the erection of the Berlin Wall in 1961, over 2,739,000 refugees from East Germany had been registered at the reception centers in West Germany. The number of refugees from East Germany totalled over 3,500,000. Numbers for Africa are less precise. At any rate, the number of Ibo refugees is estimated at 2,000,000. Over a broader geographic range, if the refugees of Algeria, North and South Viet- nam, North and South Korea, Biafra, Bangla- desh and those who left China for Hong Kong are taken into account, the scope of the exchange is truly immense. All this has taken place since World War Two. The population exchange in the Middle East embraces the 850,000 Jews who were living in the Arab States in 1948, Over a broader geo- graphic range, if the refugees of Algeria, North and South Vietnam, North and South Korea, Biafra, Bangladesh and those who left China for Hong Kong are taken into account, the scope of the exchange is truly immense. All this has taken place since World War Two: The population exchange in the Middle East embraces the 850,000 Jews who were living in the Arab States in 1948, from Iraq to Morocco. In 1974 they numbered only 40,000. On the other hand, according to British Mandatory statistics, in 1947 there were 1,200,000 Arabs in Palestine, of whom 450,000 were not living in areas held by Israel at the time of the 1949 armistice. There- fore, the number of Arabs living in areas held by Israel did not exceed 750,000. Of these, 160,000 remained in their homes, or were allowed to- re- turn to their homes in Israel. Those who left numbered 590,000, at the most. Additional and similar evidence was pro- vided at the end of 1949, by the UN Economic Survey Commission, which estimated their num- bers at a maximum of 726,000. The Commission recommended that food be supplied to 562,000 only. It may, therefore, be clearly stated that the Jewish refugees who fled from the Arab States were far more numerous than the Arab refugees who suffered damages in the course of the war. The Jews in the Arab States and the Chris- tians who were placed under the authority of Moslem political rule, enjoyed the protection of Allah and his prophet, Muhammad, and could not be harmed as long as they were recognized as protected second-class citizens. Over the years, however, the instances of discrimination, incite- ment, murder, robbery and rape increased in se- verity, as did the burning of synagogues and churches. There are sufficient examples of har- assment of Jews and Christians throughout the period of Arab rule, bearing no connection with the establishment of the State of Israel, or the spread of the socialist-Zionist concept, but I shall not cite them due to limitation of time. I admit, the Arabs did not go as far as to build crematoria; possibly because they had not reached the degree of sophistication attained by the Nazi beast. But when King Hussein envis- aged conquering sections of Israel on the eve of the Six-Day War, he deemed it necessary to in- clude, in the operational instructions for the cap- ture of Kibutz Shaalabim, the directive to kill the entire kibutz population, with emphasis on women and children. Jews lived in most of the Arab countries be- fore the advent of the Arabs themselves. There were Jews in Iraq 1000 years earlier; in Afrikia (present-day Libya) there was a prosperous and flourishing community 600 years before the Arab conquest. We. the Jews who came from the Arab States, were those who brought progress and wealth, affluence and culture to the coun- tries we inhabited in the Middle Ages and in modern times, as opposed to the poverty and ig- norance introduced by the Arab invaders. As a result of the oppressive atmosphere in the Arab States, and the great longing for the new- ly-established Israel, the Jews abandoned the Arab States, and an overwhelming majority of them arrived in Israel, having left behind consid- erable property and their share of the legal rights of those countries. They abandoned their portion of the national wealth of the Arab States — of the oil, water and land resources — and they relinquished their share of sovereignty. There is no Arab State (with the possible ex- ception of Lebanon) which has not heaped perse- cution, pogroms, humiliation and discrimination on the Jews. Therefore, all the Arab countries together are responsible for the condition of Jews in the Arab countries, as well as for their refugee status. Together, they invaded Is'Pael's territory in 1948, maintaining then at the Secu- rity Council that "Palestine was a member of the Arab League, that the Arab League was a regional organization and that they were, there- . fore, authorized to implement Section 52 of the UN Charter — a section whose implementation requires UN permission — without UN permis- sion. Naturally, they acted without permission. Thus, two groups of refugees came into being in the Middle East: those belonging to the Arab na- tion, and those belonging to the Jewish natio' Any definition or status accorded to 6 body must be accorded to the other, as well. the Palestinians are refugees, the Jews who came to Israel from the Arab States are refugees no less. If the Arabs possess legitimate rights, the Jews also possess legitimate rights. If only the members of the Knesset hear these truths; if only Jewish readers of Jewish newspa- pers pay any attention to them, then the animosities mount rather than decline and there will be little hope of respite from a conflict that needs speedy resolution. But the truth needs to be told and must be on the record. Jewish spokesmen and their public relations forces are constantly put to the test. Truth has been distorted and needs recapitulation. Perhaps there is greater realism in the in camera sessions of diplomats who treat the issues in secrecy. Since there is no chance of enforcing the Wilsonian princi- ple of "open covenants openly arrived at," the one hope that remains is that statesmen will be moti- vated only by peace and will treat demands for concessions by parties in the Middle East conflict with great caution. If they deviate from such approaches, they are not immune from pressures. That's where vigilance becomes a vital instrument for a people's defenders.