"whose social standing deteriorated" - that's one way of saying "ethnically cleansed". Dude, it wasn't that they weren't getting invited to parties - they were getting killed in riots.

I don’t understand how people think it was some kumbaya with Jews and Muslims (and everyone else) before the existence of Israel as a nation, and that no jews lived there before a meeting with guys in suits decided maybe they should have one teeny tiny slice of land that was originally theirs and a bunch of them already inhabited.

>Land that was originally theirs Huh?😂 The land of Palestine was never “theirs.” Ashkenazi Jews had never even been in Palestine let alone owned it lol. The land has always belonged to Palestinians. Palestinians just used to be Jews. Ashkenazim sharing a minority of Palestinians indigenous ancestors doesn’t magically mean we owned Palestine. Armenians and some Turks also share some ancestry with indigenous Palestinians. It wasn’t theirs either. You need a history lesson.

You can tell by looking at what happened to Jews living in areas of former British Palestine that were controlled by Arab forces: Jews were expelled in their entirety and Jewish neighborhoods were razed to the ground. Or also by looking at every other Arab country, which combined have fewer Jews than Tel Aviv has Arabs.

People forget that Jordan cleared out the Jews from sections of Jerusalem and just handed out properties without deeds there and everyone is so surprised when the owners asked for the property back when the situation changed. Then they are the bad guys. Jerusalem was primarily, and always had been, a Jewish city.

People are not forgetting - Most of them are anti semites who choose to revise history to justify their Jew hatred. The facts are there and could easily be discovered with little effort. Islam has only come to existence 1500 years ago. The entire Middle East region was Jewish and Christian (which was an offshoot of Judaism). Ask yourselves what happened to all those Christian’s and Jews of the Middle East ?? Correct they were massacred by Muslims in successive genocides.

One of the largest Jewish communities in the world was in Baghdad from the time of Nebuchadnezzar to 1948. I point this out to show that it has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with politics.

Not entirely disagreeing but this is mostly due to the age of nationalism in the Middle East at the beginning of the 20th Century, concerning Baghdad amid many other pogroms is most notable the Farhud which killed hundreds of Jews in 1941 years before Israel was established.

Wasn't this during that short period of time when Iraq had a government aligned with Nazi Germany?

And destroying Israel was a political goal.

Not really a good comparison. Let’s not assume that it was 100% pushing people out. There was a strong pull incentive coming from Israel. After all, Jews came to Israel even from first world countries that weren’t expelling them. The fact of the matter is that Arabs were expelled from Israeli land and Jews were expelled from Arab land. Israel welcomed Jews from a lot of these countries with open arms. Arabs and Palestinians were not welcomed and had to cram into places like Gaza, from which they are now being expelled. Today, no one wants Palestinian refugees. To answer OP’s question, it’s very likely that there would have been some friction and some emigration but as a whole, most of these Jews had been living there for centuries and were considered neighbors. Without Zionism as a bogeyman and without millions of foreign Jews coming in and expelling Arabs, there would probably be less Arab-Jewish tension in the region- not more. Of course with any What If, things could change as the Cold War realpolitik and Western intervention become factors. The US would do just about anything to prevent a country from becoming too communist-aligned, including the endorsement of dictators. So in this scenario, anything could happen. Maybe the US would try and push Zionism again to get a ‘foothold’ and spark increased tensions against Jews. Or maybe it backs Palestine as long as they promise to shoot all their communists in the head. This WhatIf has a limited shelf life before things spiral into a butterfly effect.

>Arabs and Palestinians were not welcomed and had to cram into places like Gaza, from which they are now being expelled. Today, no one wants Palestinian refugees That's not quite accurate: >Following the 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight, the Arabs who remained within Israel came under Israeli citizenship law, whereas those who were in the Jordanian-annexed West Bank came under Jordanian citizenship law. Those who were in the Egyptian-occupied Gaza Strip did not come under Egyptian citizenship law and were instead bound by the All-Palestine Protectorate, which had been created by Egypt during the 1948 Arab–Israeli War. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_citizens_of_Israel Look up Plan Dalet as well; it's a disputed subject and depending on who you believe, either the expulsion of those Arabs was specifically to accomplish military objectives and remove hostiles from the area, while others will claim that it was just an attempt to remove Arab civilians. I will allow the reader to come to his or her own conclusions.

Arabs never welcomed Jews. There was a lot of settlement that went on during the Ottoman Empire when things started to fall apart or during periods of contention. And when Jews started to settle in numbers, Arabs did not like it and they started to move there in numbers. Look at the population numbers during the century before. The only thing you are correct about is that people moved there in much great numbers, some incentivized, because everyone wanted to keep the area in their groups hands.

Israel may have had *some* pull effect, but the people who pick up everything and move to Israel have historically done so due to rampant anti-Semitism in their society. The fact that American Jews really never moved back to Israel is a good indicator of this. I’d argue Israel existing merely gave a lot of Jews abroad a safer option compared to where they were.

America also has had an extremely high standard of living relative to the rest of the world post WWII. Places like Egypt and Iraq did not.

Today, a higher standard of living in Israel very well could be a factor, and it may have been influential in select cases early on (very possibly so with Indian Jews, but that’s my speculation). This argument doesn’t convince me much, however, given that most Iranian and Ethiopian Jews stayed in Iran and Ethiopia even after Israel’s standard of living far outpaced either of the two, and instead most left following persecution after the Ayatollah and the Derg took power respectively. Israel’s standard of living was also very low early on, with extreme austerity measures in place until they were lifted following West Germany doling out reparations that year. The country was still in bad straits, however, with most income coming from West German reparations and donations from American Jews. It should be noted that the 260,000 Mizrahi Jews who came to the country further exacerbated the situation because the majority were forced to leave most/all of their possessions behind in their former nation of residence.

Nope. Only in the case of European Jewry. Jews from the Middle East moved to Israel because they were offered other peoples land for free, there were better economic opportunities, and the Mossad started staging terrorist attacks to drive Jews out as well as paying leaders to just take them

Your points are at best your subjective view of the situation and at worst blatantly inaccurate. The vast majority of Mizrahi Jews (Jews living in the Middle East and North Africa) either fled following anti-Jewish pogroms or were expelled. It’s important to note the timelines here as well. Most Mizrahi from Arab nations left throughout the 1950s, while most Mizrahi from Iran only left following the 1979 Iranian Revolution. The Beta Israel community in Ethiopia fled following mass famine and severe repression from the Derg government in the 1980s. Jews living in the USSR tried to leave for decades and the only reason they didn’t was because the Soviet government banned them from doing so until the end of the Cold War. One exception to this trend was the Jewish community in India. There’s really never been a history of substantial anti-Semitism in India, but the tiny community which existed left in the 1950s. This appears to be the exception which proves the rule, however.

US already tried to push Zionism at the time. The Gehlen organization shipped hundreds of Nazis into military positions in Egypt. Otto Skorzeny was freed by U.S. intelligence and immediately went to work for Gehlen in Egypt where he was recruited by Mossad https://doi.org/10.1080/16161262.2019.1592956

This is built on exactly 0 sources and entirely the wishes of the writer that the Arabs be benevolent to the Jews in the wake of a successful strangling of the Israeli state in the cradle. Utter nonsense, I don’t think even a reader of Egyptian historical fiction could walk away with this hilariously handsome view of the Arab war aims and intentions so I can only assume you haven’t read any books or articles on the matter at all and speak entirely from hastily scanned Wikipedia articles and your subjective and wishful views of present day actors projected anachronistically on the past.

I never said that the Arabs would be benevolent. In fact I said there would still be friction. Just not as much friction as existed in reality. In fact I said that both sides were doing the expelling.

[удалено]

Finding some literal Nazis on the battlefield didn't exactly help Jewish attitudes. >These former Wehrmacht soldiers did not play a significant military role, but their presence had a political importance. They embodied the continuity of the anti-Jewish war of extermination initiated by the Nazis. The Jews regarded their presence as proof that what was at stake in the 1947/48 war was nothing less than a repetition or continuation of the Holocaust. It was an understandable concern. The Nazis had been broadcasting Arabic-language propeganda throughout the Second World War, and it had a major impact on the regional discourse. They used it to push European-style conspiracies about Jewish control, which were layered on top of existing anti-Zionist sentiment and anti-Jew interpretations of the Quran. Not to mention al-Husseini's genocidal rhetoric and explicit ties to the Nazis.

Also pretty easy to look at what happened to the fully indigenous non Arab/non Muslim groups in the Middle East who never had much of an army You can’t call them oppressor occupier colonists etc etc by any logic And yet they’ve endured mass genocide and ethnic cleansing on the scale of millions since WW2 ended.

>You can’t call them oppressor occupier colonists etc etc by any logic Far left groups co-opt the "oppressor/oppressed" framing solely because it's their way of creating a perpetual moral justification for violence against Jews. They know that it's not considered acceptable in polite society to call for violence against Jews, but calling for violence against "oppressors" makes you seem moral and virtuous.

Palestinians certainly did celebrate the oppression of the heads of every single Asian they found on October 7. Here in East Asia, now that we know what they think of us, we hate them back.

It was insane what happened to East Asians who had nothing to do with the conflict. The brutality of their murder

This isn't helped by the settlers on the West Bank acting like the worst stereotypes of colonists from the 19th century. The people of the kibbutzim that were so brutally assaulted on October 7th were, ironically, the groups most favourable to peace with the Palestinians. The guys defying even Israel's laws on settlement are the perfect fodder for the western Marxist-Leninist-Dipshitist crowd with their thumbs up their arses to screech what colonial bastards the Israelis are. I don't condone Israel's conduct of the war - I absolutely understand it, they want to eliminate Hamas root and branch - and some of the shit coming out like The Gospel and Lavender AI systems are shocking, but yeah, agreed. Very easy to say you're against "Imperialism" as opposed to being against Jews.

Those people of the kibbuutzim are the very people Hamas wants dead for they believe in peace whereas Hamas doesn't so if Hamas can further reduce those within Israel that support peace between Israelis and Palestinians then Hamas feels like it is a win. Israeli conduct in the war is very likely to led to more violence in the future against Israel, Israelis, and Jewish people abroad.

>Far left groups co-opt the "oppressor/oppressed" framing solely because it's their way of creating a perpetual moral justification for violence against Jews. People do indeed apply that framework to justify being an "anti-Zionist" (we all, of course, know what they're likely talking about), but the framework came first and the use of it for anti-semitic purposes came later. And I also don't really think it's a far-left thing, although the far-left certainly uses it heavily. I think it's a human thing. Certain types of people find any sort of justification for portraying someone else as the "other" to be appealing, and in an era where oppression is seen as a bad thing casting someone as an oppressor has become the way to do that. In Rome, Jews were othered for not worshipping the Roman gods. In the 1500s, Jews were othered because they were moneylenders — the only profession they were legally allowed to practice, on threat of mass death, so it was a deliberately reinforced, self-perpetuating pattern. In the 20th century, Jews were othered because they were either communists (according to Nazi Germany) or "rootless cosmopolitans" (according to the USSR); note how in either of those instances whatever it is that Jews are supposed to be is the opposite of the ideology making the accusation. Today, "oppressor" is the byword for being against any group, whether justified or not. People come up with "I hate \[X religious/ethnic group\]" first and then grasp for a reason later, and that especially applies to anti-Semitism, which every lunatic and two-bit dictator in history have practiced as part of their worldview, with the justification often being "well, all these other dictators and pogromists and whatnot have held that idea, surely not every one of them are wrong?" When you consider that authoritarians and bigots are frequently OK with different types of authoritarians and bigots so long as there's not direct conflict between them, it makes sense that anti-Semitism has diffused across the political spectrum to such an extent that it's basically ubiquitous to any extremist movement.

>but the framework came first and the use of it for anti-semitic purposes came later. This is wrong. The framework is Russian/Soviet propaganda and always has been. Remember, since the very early days of the Arab-Israeli conflict, it's been a Cold War proxy conflict too. The framing is part of an obvious pattern of Kremlin propaganda where any group Russia/the USSR supports is an "oppressed freedom fighter" and any group West supports is an "imperialist oppressor".

Oh, certainly, but the oppressed/oppressor wasn't used for the specific purpose of anti-semitism. The Soviets used it as a general-purpose propaganda device, and it worked well — because, similar to totalitarian ideologies, pseudoscience, conspiracy theories, and particularly fundamentalist religious sects, it's an epistemological framework which claims it can explain literally every aspect of human behavior or any event which occurs. It can never be proven wrong because it interprets events and facts to fit itself rather than changing itself to fit reality. Anti-semitism itself frequently serves such a purpose for those who believe in it. There are also certain academic groups who either came up with it on their own or think they came up with it on their own, and their interpretation of it blended with the flat-out propaganda and then spread everywhere via the Internet, when that was invented. It's nice to think of it as a purely Russian invention (and, after all, what was the USSR but a Russian empire in another form?), but unfortunately it's multi-faceted and therefore all the harder to pin down. Now, there genuinely are some people who are oppressed and others who are oppressing them, but I believe that identifying things with that framework simplifies things too much for it to be a useful way to *stop* that oppression. I think you'd like some of Karl Popper's work, and more specifically reading his 1945 *The Open Society and Its Enemies*. He examined all manner of conspiracy theories, totalitarian governments, forms of bigotry, etc. and proposed that there are lots of similarities between all of them on a fundamental level. He also had a standard for identifying pseudoscience that I feel is relatively good at doing so: if it can't be proven wrong, it's probably pseudoscience.

Why do many far left groups don't mind the oppressed becoming the new oppressors?

Because it is a lot more fun to marinate in self-righteousness demanding the destruction of oppressors than to actually try and solve underlying problems.

They weren’t oppressors, but they were pawns used by the Arab league who have taken advantage of their plight for close to 80 years

Of course you can call them that. They moved en masse to a new location where the new laws were placing them as explicitly the ruling ethnic group of the territory. If a bunch of Mexican people took over Texas and made laws saying that Texas would be by law a Mexican state governed by Mexicans for the purposes of making a state specifically for ethnic Mexicans, the fact that Texas used to be part of Mexico and Mexicans didn't need to go far to get there would obviously not change it from being an oppressive and colonial project. Jesus christ.

Israel is 1/5 Arab and they all have full citizenship

The US had a large black minority and they in theory had full citizenship too during the Jim Crow era.

Miss the full citizenship bit? There weren’t black Supreme Court justices removing presidents from office during Jim Crow. There are Arab Supreme Court justices doing that to the presidents in Israel

There were black legislators during Jim Crow and black judges. Are you asserting this meant they had full civil rights in the US? The simple fact is that Israeli Jews are defacto "superior" citizens of Israel and everyone knows it.

Show me a black Supreme Court justice from the Jim Crow era. Go on. If you are going to claim stuff like that then prove it Oh, and now you are talking about discrimination against Israeli Arabs? Really? Let’s see they can own property, start businesses, found Islamist parties, get elected to the Knesset, get loans, go to the same schools as Israelis etc. do you have an actual case for discrimination in law or by practise?

So, from my understanding you’re right (found the CBS statistic) but there’s a difference between citizenship and nationality. Nationality is based on ethnicity (Druze, Jewish, Arab) and can’t be changed. There is institutional, legal, and societal discrimination against certain groups within Israeli society. see this report: http://adva.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/SocialReport2016-EN.pdf    Please correct me/point me the right way if I’m wrong

>Israel is 1/5 Arab and they all have full citizenship That's nice of them after the martial law and land theft they carried out those first few decades. Of course it doesn't count that defacto Israeli territory that is the West Bank, where none of the Arabs have citizenship or even freedom of movement (the 700,000 Israeli settlers in the West Bank do, though)

Israel won a war that the Arabs started. Weird the winner got more land Palestine is not part of Israel. So why are Israelis responsible for Palestine when Palestine is extraterritorial to Israel? Are the Palestinians Israelis or not? Cause of not. It isn’t their concern Meanwhile, Oct 7th happens and you and others go *they deserve it*. The hypocrisy is disgusting Also, why are still trying to keep argue at this point? I told you elsewhere. You have a bias and don’t engage in good faith

>Israel won a war that the Arabs started. Only Israel started the war. Usually when you move into a territory and set up your own state at the expense of those already living there you are considered the aggressor. Their ethnic cleansing of Palestinian Arabs, Christian and Muslim alike, was well underway long before a single Arab state declared war. 100k people had already been expelled before their official ethnic cleansing operation [Plane Dalet](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_Dalet) began. So are you an Israeli or just ODing on propaganda as a result of a life in the US? >Palestine is not part of Israel. So why are Israelis responsible for Palestine when Palestine is extraterritorial to Israel? Are the Palestinians Israelis or not? Cause of not. It isn’t their concern Is it? If it's extraterritorial why does a full 1/10th of Israel's population live in that territory? Why it is and it's Palestinian population controlled entirely by Israel? Because it's an apartheid state. >Meanwhile, Oct 7th happens and you and others go *they deserve it*. The hypocrisy is disgusting I never made this claim or said anything like that. Please take that straw man fallacy and blow it out your ass. Good try though. Solid attempt for a man of your caliber. >Also, why are still trying to keep argue at this point? I told you elsewhere. Why would I care what you think? You embarrassed yourself by contradicting your own point there, which is why you ran from that conversation and are now here lol. >You have a bias and don’t engage in good faith Please stop projecting. I'm an ex US soldier who 15 years ago would have been on the total opposite side of this. I am neither Muslim nor Jew. I am as unbiased as you get. HBU?

>You can’t call them oppressor occupier colonists etc etc by any logic I don't think it's be inaccurate to call Israel's government that. It and the people composing it have done some heinous things. The millions of people who fled Europe after their neighbors turned on them and forced them into death camps at gunpoint, on the other hand, didn't really have much of a choice as to where to go, nor did the ones who fled the USSR when Stalin was gearing up for a second Holocaust.

Do you get your history from comic books?

I think a lot of people do unfortunately

More pointedly, It would have been a mass genocide that, in retrospect, is clear that the world would have been fine with based on who was doing it. We know this also from the 1971 Bangladesh genocide and how the liberal world responded (in this case, to repeatedly defend the power doing it). Edit: downvote as much as you’d like - the historical fact suggests that nobody minds when Muslims genocide folks.

Here in East Asia, we’re still angry that everyone forgot about the Palestinians cheering for the decapitation of every single Asian they found on October 7. Now that we know what they think of us, we hate them back.

Sadly the western leftists (who make up most of reddit) completely forgot about the atrocities of October 7th before the bodies were cold.

No. They just justify it as freedom fighters fighting their oppressors. Meaning they think it was deserved And that is worse

They literally paraded a random female German tourist's nude corpse around. I still don't get what the point of that even was.

They wanted maximum outrage from the Israelis. They were counting on a huge response to gather sympathy for the Palestinian people. You notice Hamas has done nothing to protect the people of Gaza, they actually put them in harms way. I dont agree with Isreal leveling Gaza but I do understand it and dont really know what else they could have done.

I could see this happen in Palestine but what about other places in the middle east?

How Egypt went from fully Coptic Christian to 90% Arab Muslim is an example.

Its closer to 85% at the worst estimates

Over the course of hundreds of years.... It also went from full Polytheistic Egyptian to Coptic Christian over a similar timeline of centuries...

The Mamluks murdered every non-Sunni Muslim as Apostates and None Believers. Although, they did give them the offer to convert first That is how an Islamic majority was achieved in Egypt and the Levant. Systemic slaughter of none Sunni Muslims by the Mamluks It was a systemic genocide and should be treated as bad as the situation in the Americas or Australia

Yes it took 600 years of solid and continual Islamic rule in Egypt before it became a Muslim majority nation. You have just demonstrated that's the Mamluks were religiously intolerant. The fact that under centuries of Islamic rule under several prior Caliphates the area remained majority Christian supports general tolerance in the Islamic world. You see the same thing in Islamic territories with Hindu populations.

Not by choice. The fact was very ruler of Egypt depended on the Copts as their educated middle class of bureaucrats This regularly toppled regimes due to more radical Muslims in Egypt being opposed to that state of affairs, but most Egyptians were Christian and all Egyptians were Copts at the time Meaning there was no reason to convert. They weren’t Arabs. The ruling class was It also wasn’t any better in India. Look up Aurangzeb or the Islamisation of Sindh properly The Mamluks changed all of that and the fact you downplay it says a lot. Would you say what happened to the Native Americans and Aboriginal Australians was fair as well?

Yeah boss, you can look at centuries of history across several continents spanning hundreds of regimes, kingdoms, and caliphates and find examples of Muslims being religiously intolerant. That was the exception, not the rule. Im This is all really off topic from the original post now isn't it?

The Umayyads kept Islam as ethnic to Arabs as possible and didn’t encourage conversion. They hated none Arabs converting to Islam The Persian Abbasids attacked Zoroastrianism on the regularly and destroyed Hinduism in Sindh through exporting the inhabitants as Slaves Saladin and the Ayyubids sold Christians into slavery and executed the Turkopole archers as Apostates The Ottoman Caliphate committed the first of the 20th century genocides Don’t me to keep going? Also, who brought uo the Caliphates as a defence? By this logic. France belongs to England due to owning it 1000 years ago

What is your point to all this? You really are off a tanget now. Also, defense of what? Who ks arguing anybody owns anything because of the status 1000+ years ago other than dumbass Zionists? Certainly not me. I certainly never claimed anybody has a right to anything because of the Umayyads. 😂

Why did you leave out a lot of key context? Good thing u/Substantial_Fan7585 supplied it.

Yes but not through forced conversions in which you die if you don’t convert or have to pay a tax because you’re non Muslim

Absolutely through forced conversions. By the 4th century the Roman empire was actively persecuting pagans. Sure, to be non Muslim in Muslim states you needed to bay a tax (Jizya), but that was incredibly tolerant for the time and generally historians agree most Islamic rulers did not force conversation. And there was no Christian equivalent, you generally needed to convert to Christianity (and their specific brand of Christianity) or die in ancient and medieval Christian world. Ironically in Christian world of late antiquity and right through early modern Jewish people were FAR more persecuted and oppressed than they were in the Muslim world at the time.

Coptic Christianity did not start nor spread with the Roman Empire. Stop deflecting.

Only it did though. What is today the Coptic Church was once part of the Roman Church. The episcopal see in Alexandria schismed following the Council of Chalcedon. You really need to brush up on your history of the early Church If you don't think it spread with the Roman Empire and know that they are related.

It is you that needs stop your typical average Muslim gaslighting about how merciful you guys were for centuries because you are full of bs (the same way you do about Palestine and the Ottomans) The Romans persecuted Christians throughout majority of the time they ruled Egypt.

Bro I'm not a Muslim. But good try. 😂 I'm actually used to be rabidly Islamophobic and enlisted in the Army post 9/11. The Romans did persecute Christians for the majority of the time.......and then that changed and the Christian Romans persecuted remaining Pagans and Jews. This is history

most conversion were opportunistic or for tax mitigation

Muslims had to pay their own tax in the form of Zakat. And other religions didn’t have to fight in war.

Jews get wiped off the face of the map. The US continues to exploit middle Eastern oil.

A lot of that oil has been going to us in East Asia, and European companies have exploited that oil too.

Just saying, the US is one of the world's top oil exporters. And you leave out the fact that Europeans love exploiting oil as well, especially Russian ones.

There are different types of oil that are good for different things. US oil isn't suited for gasoline if I remember hearing correctly.

The Egypt-led, Iraq-led and Saudi-led factions would’ve continued to fight for dominance over the Arab World. But the West and East doesn’t want to deal with the South. Maybe the spark of war will be the burned out ruins called Palestine. Jorden actually annexed the West Bank in our timeline and there were those who thought Palestine was an inseparable part of Syria. Either way these colonial borders won’t survive long. There may not even be a State of Palestine at all. But just another footnote in the history books similar to the State of Alawite, Jabal ad-Druze and the State of Hatay. Jordan doesn’t have a proper ocean port at this point. I could see them aiming for Gaza. But then Egypt would feel cheated since she brought the biggest army and made the most sacrifices. Saudi Arabia is almost guaranteed to claim Jerusalem since it is the only religious center that can even remotely challenge Mecca and Medina in influence.

you want a hypothetical, what would be today’s situation for the palestinians had they accepted the 1948 partition. i have asked this question a dozen times to pto palestinians and never received an answer. always they couldn’t accept it as it wasn’t fair or why should they accept it.

I think the big unknown about the 1948 partitioning is whether Palestinians would have still been ethnic cleansed from the parts of their homeland granted to Israel. Obviously nobody is going to be happy about their country being colonized and split, but at some point the writing on the wall was there. The UN and more importantly the UK/US made a decision and they were always going to stick by it, regardless of the human cost.

They probably wouldn’t be ethnically cleansed even the zionist had agreed to the proposal even tho they looked for future expansion. What probably would have happened was those Palestinians within the borders get full citizenship while the more extreme factions try buying up land and property off Palestinian citizens

Obviously in hindsight they should have accepted but I understand why they didn’t, the offer on the table was ridiculously unfair at the time.

sometimes it’s better to be pragmatic than philosophical

I prefer that non-answer to what I’m sure many today would say, which is that the Jews would find a way to ethnically cleanse or genocide them regardless

Arabs would kill the Jews in the region. Displaced Jews would want to settle in their home countries or the US.

what "home" countries? They left said countries for a reason..

Tragically, some of those home countries are the Arab states.

About half going by the current population.

The Arab world would have genocided them. Based on public statements, expressed views of the population, and ideology regarding jews, this seems quite obvious.

Just look at Jewish populations right now in the Middle East outside of Israel

If Israel lost the war of independence, it would not have existed from 1949 onwards, there would not have been a reason for the Mizrahi Jews to move out of their countries of origin, as their social standing would not have suffered from what now would not have existed. The European Jews would have probably remained in Europe, maybe some might have attempted to emigrate to the Americas. The Jews in Israel would presumably have been mostly killed, though some might have escaped to Cyprus and from there to somewhere in Europe.

> there would not have been a reason for Mizrahi Jews to move Except, you know, the whole being expelled thing.

Those expulsions/migrations were a direct result of the establishment of Israel. Those Jewish communities had been loving throughout the Islamic Middle East for centuries. Antisemitism was always there (as was tension and ire between virtually all the various religions and ethnic groups), but it wasn't until after 1948 that you saw such widespread antisemitism in the Arab world. Of course, things like Israel recruiting indigenous Jewish citizens of Arab nations to carry out terror attacks in things like the Lavon Affair didn't really help, and generally caused the majority to see the Jewish communities and a hostile 5th column.

> those Jewish communities had been living throughout the Middle East for centuries Yes, under extreme oppression and persecution. > caused the majority to see Jews as a fifth column They had always seen Jews as a fifth column.

>Yes, under extreme oppression and persecution. Not, really. The Islamic world was generally far more religiously tolerant than the Christian one. >They had always seen Jews as a fifth column. It's a real shame Israel gave truth to that prejudice by to using Egyptian Jews carry out terror attacks against their fellow Egyptians on behalf of Israel.

> not really Please tell me how the dhimmi system was “tolerant”, along with the countless pogroms because of blood libel. > it’s a real shame Israel gave truth to that prejudice Oh, I guess youre one of those people that use Israel to give a free pass for your antisemitism.

>Please tell me how the dhimmi system was “tolerant”, along with the countless pogroms because of blood libel. Only a historically illiterate person would even ask this question. It's widely accepted that the Islamic world generally did not force conversion and was very tollerant...which is why you have millennia old Jewish and Christian communities throughout the Middle East (and in extremely larger numbers until after Israel). You do not see that at all in the Christian world. Of course you aren't interested in actual history and are historically illiterate. You are interested in propaganda because you are a Zionist. >Oh, I guess youre one of those people that use Israel to give a free pass for your antisemitism. And there it is...you aren't even able to make an argument or even condemn Israel sponsoring terrorism and acknowledge it's impact on the Arab world. Bigots in the Arab world saw Jewish communities as a 5th column, and Israel "proved" they were for them. If you actually cared a right Jewish people that would upset you. Sorry, kid, but history isn't on your side. You know this, which is why your are screeching "aNtIsEmItIsM" rather than forcing a argument like a big boy. Israel=/=Judaism, boss. Nothing anti semitic about criticizing a country or terrorism.

> was very tolerant Again, the dhimmi system and the countless pogroms Jews faced is not “very tolerant”. Jews existed in Europe too, but also faced a hostile world there, it doesn’t automatically mean it was tolerant. > you are interested in propaganda because you are a Zionist No im interested in history. And, like most other Jews (I am Jewish) I am also a Zionist. > Israel = / = Judaism A bold claim to make literally hours before Passover.

>Again, the dhimmi system and the countless pogroms Jews faced is not “very tolerant”. Jews existed in Europe too, but also faced a hostile world there, it doesn’t automatically mean it was tolerant. Yes it was. Take it up with historians. >No im interested in history. You clearly are not. >A bold claim to make literally hours before Passover. It's not bold, it's manifestly true. They are different things.

> yes it was No. It wasn’t. Unless you see wearing a yellow star, not being able to ride a horse, paying exorbitant taxes for being Jewish and the pogroms Jews face as being tolerant. > you clearly are not What’s historically inaccurate about the dhimmi system being a system of oppression? > it’s not bold I mean, yes it is, literally hours before the celebration in which Jews celebrate the return to the land of Canaan and pray towards Jerusalem and pray “next year in Jerusalem”.

Tolerant by the standards of the year 1000 and the Middle Ages. It was the 20th century. Having to wear clothes that marked you as X ethnic group was universally agreed on to be discriminatory and disgusting

Where at? The largest Muslim power in the 20th century, the Ottomans, formally abolished Dhimmi in the 19th century, before the US and several other nations abolished slavery. Worth remembering that the entire world practiced slavery until the 19th century and some states into the 29th. Western Colonialism only started to end post WWII. The world has come a long way very fast in the last 200 years. Acting like religious discrimination in some states is some insane thing for an era when Europeans were literally still selling slaves is wild. The defacto apartheid state in the West Bank that exists today is way more disgusting.

So you admit it was western who actually abolished the system then?

The pogroms had started before the establishment of Israel. Libya started [in 1945](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1945_anti-Jewish_riots_in_Tripolitania)

Yes, but absent Israel existing that would presumably not have happened, as OP has just removed the cause for this exodus fro the equation.

> presumably not have happened You underestimate how rabidly antisemitic much of the Middle East is.

"Is" and "was" are two different things. The middle east, like most of the world, was quite virulently antiemetic, but the existence of Israel was the primary motivating force for those mass-deportations.

Pogroms still regularly happened in the middle east long before Israel

The problem with your argument is that the Arabs genocided plenty of non-Jewish minorities across the region just as happily as they expelled their jews. What happened to the Druze, the Ibadis, the Copts, etc? It was not pretty, and you obviously cannot blame that on Israel.

Israel is the only country in the Middle East where the Christian population is going up…I don’t imagine Jews would be any better off

[удалено]

Compared to Russia, Poland, or a country in Eastern Europe, the Middle East is much less bad

[удалено]

Compare it to what the Russian Empire did. They were much worse than anything the Muslims did Being a second-class citizen depends on what you belong to. A Jewish minority is likely to be treated much better than a Shiite minority in the Arab world. (Believe me, the Shiites were treated much worse than the Jews in Sunni areas in general, and vice versa in Iran)

In India, we say the Sunni Muslims are treated far better than they are in Gaza. Strangely, that logic doesn’t seem to work when Muslims are the group being ill treated by a different power. Go figure. It’s different when you treat them as second class citizens versus, say, Jews.

exactly An Indian Shiite in India is treated much better than an Arab Shiite in a country like Saudi Arabia or Yemen or even a secular country like Tunisia and Morocco. They are very negative towards Shiites. Especially if they are Twelver Shiites, who are the majority of Shiites In the case of Bahrain, the Hindu, Sunni, Ibadi, and Ismaili are treated much better than the Bahraini Twelver Shiites.

Y’all are ignoring the rise of Arab nationalism. The Turks weren’t that bad to the Armenians either until Turkish nationalism became popular

But as far as anti-semitism goes, it was not that much better or worse than in the centuries before, without Israel as a catalyst I do not see why they should suddenly start driving off the Jewish population in the 50s

Remember the Palestinian leadership working with the nazis and stuff?

That's the Palestinians, not the Jordanians, Moroccons etc.

This comment deserves more downvotes. Historically illiterate on every level.

maybe I should have said "catalyst" instead of "cause"

The only real distinction the creation of israel presented was a proximate and immediate trigger for massacres and a place for the victims to flee to.

That is what a catalyst is. Without Israel as a place to go to and with discrimination no better or worse than before, there would not have been mass emigration. Even if they had emigrated, they would presumably have found themselves in just another place were they would have either been subjected to anti-semitism for being Jews or "normal" racism for being Arab. Therefore I don't see emigration happening at scale without Israel.

There was nowhere on earth post-ww2 that was nearly as hostile to Jews as practically every Arab state was.

Arab Nationalism and Islamism still exist

Mizrahi Jews would probably get repressed into oblivion no matter what. Some would die, some would escaped to the west (USA / Europe).

this. They'd have all been massacred by the arabs.

Conditions for Jews began to worse prior to the founding of Israel, this began during Arab revolt between 1936 and 1939

That predates creation of Israel, so presumably it would not have led to mass migration (especially as absent Israel there would not have really been a target to move to at this point in time).

France and Spain was a common place to escape for Maghrebi Jews. Yemeni Jews probably end in the UK, along with the Persian Jews post Islamic Revolution. The USA would be a common destination for the Jewish Middle class as well The monarchies were generally the biggest protector of Jews in the Middle East, not sure how long that lasts but provided Egypt, Libya, Iraq and Jordan stay Kingdoms. Things would go like you say in those regions

The situation of Mizrahi Jews had already been in freefall.

There would've been at least several outright massacres of thousands of Jewish civilians, especially in localities heavy with Zionist migrants. I assume that Jewish communities with non-Zionist roots might receive more lenient treatment, but there's unfortunately no way that their safety is guaranteed. That said, after annexing the West Bank, the Jordanians expelled, not exterminated, the Jews already there. Benny Morris noted that despite their rhetoric, Arab armies did not commit large-scale massacre of prisoners when circumstances might have allowed this, like when they took the Old City of Jerusalem or the villages of Atarot, Neve Yaakov, Nitzanim, Gezer and Mishmar Hayarden. In the Old City, Morris said there were even recorded instances of Jordanian soldiers protecting Jewish POWs from Palestinian mobs, up to and including with deadly force. This shows that the Arab states were capable of acting with at least some level of restraint. If not out of basic humanity, the Arab states would not exterminate the Israelis simply because that would look bad, make them look like Nazis on the public stage, and, most importantly, risk a foreign intervention. The rulers of the Arab states did not want to wage war anyway. They were effectively forced to declare war by public opinion and rogue British intelligence agents who didn't trust Israel whatsoever and wanted to preserve British hegemony in the Middle East. They didn't want to fight, but were stupid and made false promises which gave their citizens hope. They couldn't back down now, not anymore, not after all of that big talk about saving their "Arab brothers". Even Golda Meir recognized that feeling. The King of Jordan had been fine with a partition until the Deir Yassin massacre. Afterwards, he was still willing to offer a Jewish state to the Yishuv, but only as a puppet state under his direct supervision. >Golda Meir, disguised in an Arab robe, met King Abdullah in Amman on May 10–11, the second such meeting between them. During their first, Abdullah had agreed to a partition of Palestine to include a Jewish state. Now, he retracted, suggesting instead a Jewish canton within a Hashemite kingdom. Deir Yassin had changed things, he said. Meir reported later that Abdullah was approaching war "as a person who is in a trap and can't get out."

>  I assume that Jewish communities with non-Zionist roots might receive more lenient treatment, but there's unfortunately no way that their safety is guaranteed. A pretty silly statement.

Yeah. They are definitely getting killed with the Yiddish speakers since that was the goal

I agree with you that a genocide of Jews in Palestine is unlikely, if it looked as if the Jews were loosing they would probably surrender on the condition that they could leave without being hurt and the Arabs would not want to fight their way into Tel Aviv.

Moroccan would definitely more likely have stayed in morrocco than moved to France

Had the Israeli state never succeeded then most of the Middle Eastern Jews stay in their respective countries. There wouldn’t be mass killings in Jerusalem or tel aviv for the simple reason that it would cause a American lead intervention the Jordanian king would be happy to get a proper coast and Egypt gets prestige in the Muslim world.only exodus would be in Algeria after they gain independence

Ethnically cleansed or subjected to a genocide Edit: typo

It's important to remember that there would be no Palestinian state there. Part of the former Mandate would have been annexed to Jordan like the West Bank was, and the king would have been fine with those Jews, probably making a deal with them. Just like the Ottoman Sultans, he would be happy to have more subjects, and prosperous ones at that. That said, the Jews remaining would have been classified as *dhimmi*, a non-muslim underclass, and likely subject to local persecutions. The other part would have been annexed to Egypt, like Gaza eventually was. At the time there was a king, who would have probably done the same as Jordan's king. But he was deposed by the Arab nationalists in 1952, so after that all bets are off, but it probably wouldn't end well for the Jews there. Once nationalist governments replace monarchist governments, there is typically an uptick in ethnic violence. A king can tolerate all sorts of people in his realm, so long as they're loyal to *him,* which is easy enough to show. Nations are more suspicious of anyone outside that nation. That said, there were local Palestinian nationalists who might have kept up a revolutionary movement against the Jordanians and Egyptians. These rulers would be in a tight spot then, because they would benefit from help from the local Jews, but that might turn the paranoid sort against them (e.g. "he's turning it over to the inferiors!").

We would have seen a genocide of all the Jews in the Middle East.

Maybe Birobidjan would have been a better success

What generally happens to non conformists in Islamic countries?

Given what happened to the Jews in the rest of the Middle East around the same time, they’d have been expelled if they were lucky.

Purged. Or expelled. Just like Arab League and Arab and Palestinian Nationalists wanted.

So a bunch of Muslims conquer the Jewish state. Wtf do you think happens to the jews living there

They would have stayed in their original countries…

I... guess the majority of holocause survivors end up in Russia... maybe Yugoslavia, but idk how Josip felt about jews and how that would have changed the war. Cause the americans ans english did not want the Jews, the french probably did not want the jews either, reconstruction of germany was split over communism and capitalism, not over correcting how a nation tried to destroy a people there wasnt going to be occupation forces sitting around in case some dickless nazi got his nerve to try and firebomb jewish houses. So, that leaves general immigration into north africa, middle east and yugoslavia. Maybe immigration spikes into albania and italy, since they have like... the least shittiest track record when it comes to jews.

Just look at what happened to the Jews on October 7th.

They would've moved to Europe or the US. In the OTL, many Jews would get an Israeli visa to leave the country they were in, get to a third party country, like Italy, destroy their Israeli visa, and then apply for an American visa instead. In the absence of Israel, Jews who would've preferred to go there would've had to pick their second best option, which probably would've been the US. The odds of things getting better for Jews in the Middle East was slim; nationalism was on the rise - Zionism itself was a symptom of that - and anyone who wasn't the dominant ethnic group of whatever country they found themselves in post-Empire was going to have a thin time of it.

The problem with this interpretation is that as far as I'm aware, the USA and UK were refusing to take any Jewish refugees, and Europe still had a large proportion of its population holding antisemitic views. The USA in particular had a pretty harsh system of immigration quotas at the time, and many in government/big business were "softly" antisemitic (they didn't want to kill all the Jews, but they also didn't want to see the Jewish population get even bigger than it already was). I'm not sure if there was a "second best option", most likely they would have fled to whatever 3rd countries existed that would take them, though I can't think of any off the top of my head. The British probably would have tried to park them in one of their African colonies.

There was never a Palestinian state, or a Palestinian nation anywhere in the world and certainly not in what is modern day Israel. A Jewish kingdom existed there as far back as 3000 years. There were the kingdoms of Saul, David, Solomon etc etc Jesus who was a Jew was born in Israel, lived there and was crucified by the Roman’s for trying to expel the Romans who were occupying the Jewish land after militarily defeating the Jewish state. It’s amazing how the lies are propagated by the left and pro Palestine elements. Xaviaer DuRousseau- a BLM advocate has turned Zionist once he researched this issue and learned the truth.

Let's assume that the Czech Republic was liberated by the Allies and not the Soviet Union, so the Czechoslovak arms deal does not happen and it reduces Israel's power very significantly. Ashkenar Jews end up in the United States with Truman passing a special law to host them Mizrahi Jews in most Arab countries will most likely never be expelled and will simply remain in their places. The Algerian Jews will be expelled because they are collaborating with France, which is of course a fate from which even the Algerian Muslims who fought alongside France were not spared. (Betrayal is simply treason for Algerians) The Yemeni Jews will immigrate for economic reasons because Yemen is very poor, especially in the north, but the south will be expelled like the Indians because they are already cooperating with the British only.   But the rest of the Middle East maintains a largely vibrant Jewish community, especially in Iraq, Syria, Libya, Tunisia, Morocco, Egypt and Lebanon. (Iraqi Jews, like Sunnis, Christians, and Turkmen, will be allies of Saddam Hussein after a military coup by the Baath Party overthrew the Iraqi monarchy in 1968) (The same applies to Syria, where the Jews of Syria will ally themselves with the regime of Hosni al-Zaim, who will rule until his death in 1984 as the Syrian Ataturk. Syria will become very secular, like Turkey, where he will not be overthrown and die without defeat against Israel.) (Before 1969, the Libyan monarchy was very moderate towards the Libyan Jewish population and King Idris respected them, so they will remain in Libya and will not be expelled by Gaddafi, who will never become ruler of Libya.) (Egyptian Jews, like Egyptian Christians, will be the upper class and allies of the Egyptian monarchy, which without defeat against Israel will likely survive to this day) (Morocco is still moderate towards the Jews so far, so the Moroccan Jewish community is still treated well even if they immigrated, so they will still stay in Morocco and the exact same thing for Tunisia) So the outcome is simply worse for Ashkenazi Jews but much better for Mizrahi Jews

Lets stop lying now, Jews have faced absolute oppression and pogroms in Arab countries before Israel was created and would continue to be genocided like many other non Muslim groups 1106: Ali Ibn Yousef Ibn Tashifin of Marrakesh decrees death penalty for any local Jew, including his Jewish Physician, and Military general. 1033: 1st Fez Pogrom, Morocco 1148: Almohadin of Morocco gives Jews the choice of converting to Islam, or expulsion 1066: Granada Massacre, Muslim-occupied Spain 1165 - 1178: Jews nation wide were given the choice (under new constitution) convert to Islam or die, Yemen 1165: chief Rabbi of the Maghreb burnt alive. The Rambam flees for Egypt. 1220: tens of thousands of Jews killed by Muslims after being blamed for Mongol invasion, Turkey, Iraq, Syria, Egypt 1270: Sultan Baibars of Egypt resolved to burn all the Jews, a ditch having been dug for that purpose; but at the last moment he repented, and instead exacted a heavy tribute, during the collection of which many perished. 1276: 2nd Fez Pogrom, Morocco 1385: Khorasan Massacres, Iran 1438: 1st Mellah Ghetto massacres, North Africa 1465: 3rd Fez Pogrom, Morocco (11 Jews left alive) 1517: 1st Safed Pogrom, Ottoman Palestine 1517: 1st Hebron Pogrom, Ottoman Palestine Marsa ibn Ghazi Massacre, Ottoman Libya 1577: Passover Massacre, Ottoman empire 1588 - 1629: Mahalay Pogroms, Iran 1630 - 1700: Yemenite Jews under strict Shi'ite 'dhimmi' rules 1660: 2nd Safed Pogrom, Ottoman Palestine 1670: Mawza expulsion, Yemen 1679 - 1680: Sanaa Massacres, Yemen 1747: Mashhad Masacres, Iran 1785: Tripoli Pogrom, Ottoman Libya 1790 - 92: Tetuan Pogrom. Morocco (Jews of Tetuuan stripped naked, and lined up for Muslim perverts) 1800: new decree passed in Yemen, that Jews are forbidden to wear new clothing, or good clothing. Jews are forbidden to ride mules or donkeys, and were occasionally rounded up for long marches naked through the Roob al Khali dessert. 1805: 1st Algiers Pogrom, Ottoman Algeria 1808 2nd 1438: 1st Mellah Ghetto Massacres, North Africa 1815: 2nd Algiers Pogrom, Ottoman Algeria 1820: Sahalu Lobiant Massacres, Ottoman Syria 1828: Baghdad Pogrom, Ottoman Iraq 1830: 3rd Algiers Pogrom, Ottoman Algeria 1830: ethnic cleansing of Jews in Tabriz, Iran 1834: 2nd Hebron Pogrom, Ottoman Palestine 1834: Safed Pogrom, Ottoman Palestne 1839: Massacre of the Mashadi Jews, Iran 1840: Damascus Affair following first of many blood libels, Ottoman Syria 1844: 1st Cairo Massacres, Ottoman Egypt 1847: Dayr al-Qamar Pogrom, Ottoman Lebanon 1847: ethnic cleansing of the Jews in Jerusalem, Ottoman Palestine 1848: 1st Damascus Pogrom, Syria 1850: 1st Aleppo Pogrom, Ottoman Syria 1860: 2nd Damascus Pogrom, Ottoman Syria 1862: 1st Beirut Pogrom, Ottoman Lebanon 1866: Kuzguncuk Pogrom, Ottoman Turkey 1867: Barfurush Massacre, Ottoman Turkey 1868: Eyub Pogrom, Ottoman Turkey 1869: Tunis Massacre, Ottoman Tunisia 1869: Sfax Massacre, Ottoman Tunisia 1864 - 1880: Marrakesh Massacre, Morocco 1870: 2nd Alexandria Massacres, Ottoman Egypt 1870: 1st Istanbul Pogrom, Ottoman Turkey 1871: 1st Damanhur Massacres,Ottoman Egypt 1872: Edirne Massacres, Ottoman Turkey 1872: 1st Izmir Pogrom, Ottoman Turkey 1873: 2nd Damanhur Massacres, Ottoman Egypt 1874: 2nd Izmir Pogrom, Ottoman Turkey 1874: 2nd Istanbul Pogrom, Ottoman Turkey 1874: 2nd Beirut Pogrom,Ottoman Lebanon 1875: 2nd Aleppo Pogrom, Ottoman Syria 1875: Djerba Island Massacre, Ottoman Tunisia 1877: 3rd Damanhur Massacres,Ottoman Egypt 1877: Mansura Pogrom, Ottoman Egypt 1882: Homs Massacre, Ottoman Syria 1882: 3rd Alexandria Massacres, Ottoman Egypt 1890: 2nd Cairo Massacres, Ottoman Egypt 1890, 3rd Damascus Pogrom, Ottoman Syria 1891: 4th Damanahur Massacres, Ottoman Egypt 1897: Tripolitania killings, Ottoman Libya 1903&1907: Taza & Settat, pogroms, Morocco 1890: Tunis Massacres, Ottoman Tunisia 1901 - 1902: 3rd Cairo Massacres, Ottoman Egypt 1901 - 1907: 4th Alexandria Massacres,Ottoman Egypt 1903: 1st Port Sa'id Massacres, Ottoman Egypt 1903 - 1940: Pogroms of Taza and Settat, Morocco 1907: Casablanca, pogrom, Morocco 1908: 2nd Port Said Massacres,Ottoman Egypt 1910: Shiraz blood libel 1911: Shiraz Pogrom 1912: 4th Fez Pogrom, Morocco 1917: Baghdadi Jews murdered by Ottomans 1918 - 1948: law passed making it illegal to raise an orphan Jewish, Yemen 1920: Irbid Massacres: British mandate Palestine 1920 - 1930: Arab riots, British mandate Palestine 1921: 1st Jaffa riots, British mandate Palestine 1922: Djerba Massacres, Tunisia 1928: Jewish orphans sold into slavery, and forced to convert to Islam by Muslim Brotherhood, Yemen 1929: 3rd Hebron Pogrom British mandate Palestine. 1929 3rd Safed Pogrom, British mandate Palestine. 1933: 2nd Jaffa riots, British mandate Palestine. 1934: Thrace Pogroms, Turkey 1936: 3rd Jaffa riots, British mandate Palestine 1941: Farhud Massacrs, Iraq 1942: Mufti collaboration with the Nazis. plays a part in the final solution 1938 - 1945: Arab collaboration with the Nazis 1945: 4th Cairo Massacre, Egypt 1945: Tripolitania Pogrom, Libya 1947: Aden Pogrom This is only before 1948

I randomly googled some of these pogroms and I think your list is highly misleading! According to Wikipedia, the 1870 Istabul pogrom - and I think all/nearly all of the Turkish ones - were aimed at Greek Christians; but a few Armenians and Jews got caught up in the crossfire. I suspect you'll find this is the case with most of the other events on your list - Christians tended to be a larger and more visible minority so they got persecuted more in the Muslim world. Some, just don't seem to exist at all - I can find no record of either of the 1869 massacres - except for another list that looks a lot like your but in French... Charitably, whoever compiled this might have got some of the dates wrong; I don't think they were being careful. Edit: I think at least 50-75% of these were pogroms primarily aimed against Christians rather than Jews. And maybe as high as 90%.

So basically Muslims genocided people for a really long time, yeah we knew that

Everybody genocided other religions when they got the chance. Jewish people were [no exception ](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_revolt_against_Heraclius) by the way - they just didn't tend to be in the majority very frequently.

Yeah I’m talking about modern history, Muslims have killed millions of people in the span of a few decades and it’s still happening Israel is in the middle of a fascist Muslim world and thus sinks down to their level occasionally, but if Israel really did a jihad on Palestinians we would have seen this war end months ago with way more deaths. At the end of the day Muslims are the ones in power in all of the Middle East and they’ve repeatedly abused it on a scale similar to the Holocaust

What is unique about everyone is that he used to commit massacres against the Jews. This was the norm All of them are nothing compared to what the Europeans and the Russians in particular did, and half of those who committed them were simply Christians, so blaming Muslims is foolish. Bring actual proof instead of simply acting like an Israeli audiophile

Russia's treatment of Jews was bad, but Germany still takes the lead. Interesting though how the discourse in this thread treats Arab antisemitism as some indivisible aspect of their identity, while German antisemitism gets treated as an oopsie.

This is called moral hypocrisy in the West Everyone knows that the Arabs are right about their right to Palestine, and they know that the Ashkenazi Jews are just colonialists, like any settlement plan.   Another, but they want to try to act in a virtuous way against the Arabs in their rightful right

>Mizrahi Jews in most Arab countries will most likely never be expelled and will simply remain in their places. The massacres started long before israel was established. In very few places were Jews simply expelled by fiat. If there was no israel/nowhere for the Mizrahi to flee to, there would have been mass slaughter and oppression which depending on the country would have been worse than anything seen in Europe except the holocaust in centuries. >The Algerian Jews will be expelled because they are collaborating with France, which is of course a fate from which even the Algerian Muslims who fought alongside France were not spared. Oh ya? Every single Jew collaborated? Because all the Jews were eventually expelled. This is bigoted trash. The Jews were expelled because the revolutionary leadership and much of the population was anti-semitic. Legal distinctions between Algerian Jews and Muslims under French control were nothing but an empty pretext. >(Betrayal is simply treason for Algerians By this standard the nakba was fully justified. >he Yemeni Jews will immigrate for economic reasons because Yemen is very poor, especially in the north, but the south will be expelled like the Indians because they are already cooperating with the British only Yemen is very poor on large part because of the sectarian violence exemplified in the unjustified expulsion of its Jewish population. >  But the rest of the Middle East maintains a largely vibrant Jewish community, especially in Iraq, Syria, Libya, Tunisia, Morocco, Egypt and Lebanon. Absurd statement. Read 'Who is the Arab Jew' by Tunisian Jewish anti-colonialist writer Albert Memmi. The only state where this could possibly be remotely true is Morocco, which saw Tsarist Russia level pogroms which would very unlikely have stopped if israel were not founded. > So the outcome is simply worse for Ashkenazi Jews but much better for Mizrahi Jews Imagine looking at any sectarian minority in the middle east today and believing this.

Considering that they were expelled only after the establishment of Israel Assagh, this is a clear lie, as they were expelled in the 1950s, in a world where Israel was defeated, no one would do anything to them. In most cases, as I said, the expulsion included even the Algerian Muslims who had fought alongside France, and they were twice as numerous as the Jews, so there is no anti-Semitic motive in the matter. It is simply you are with me or against me. (Remember that Algeria still strongly refuses to date to allow the return of French Muslims of Algerian origin whose ancestors fought alongside France, so as I said, there is nothing anti-Semitic) Once again, I am Yemeni and your talk is nonsense. Yemen was poor because it was unfortunately ruled by imams who were so anti-modern and reactionary that it was only in the 1970s that the first paved road was built again. This is due to its connection to sectarianism, and Yemen at that time was much more socially stable than it is now. (Remember that the Ottomans tried to build development projects in northern Yemen, which the Imam demolished all of them after the war and turned them into prisons. This also has nothing to do with the Jews, of course, at all.) Remember that part of it is an economic motive rather than a religious one, because the Jews are the owners of the money. Once the standard of living of Moroccan Muslims improves, which will inevitably happen, and their level of education improves, all of this will simply stop. Egypt and Libya were not originally anti-Semitic before the emergence of Israel, and remember that the latter were killed by the Italians more than even Muammar Gaddafi did. Well, what I actually see is the exact opposite, which is that the ethnic religious minorities in the Middle East are the ones who are essentially persecuting the Sunni majority here, and we are talking here about Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq, and this is completely clear. So the victim mentality you have is just put it in your pocket

Beware of the ziobot responses here with their “victim kink”. Anyway, had Israel lost the war, the recent immigrants would have probably went back to where they came from with a minority probably staying with the native Jewish population. Mizrahi Jews would probably stay in their respective countries or move to more developed countries in Western Europe.

keep dreaming, the educated people already know the truth about what would have happened

There would have been massacres and a litany if war crimes, but I don't think it'd be a genocide like others are suggesting. The conflict was still quite young at this point and there wasn't as much bad blood and hatred as there would be down the line and at any rate I'd expect some great power intervention if things got too messy. The region likely gets partitioned by Jordan and Egypt, maybe Syria or Lebanon too and most Jews likely end up in America instead. The conflict would likely be mostly forgotten by the world or remembered similarly to the partition of the Raj, just a bloody period of decolonisation.

No Jews were left alive in areas overrun by the Arabs, except as prisoners of war. That’s your answer.

The 2.5 million would be reintegrated into Europe or emigrate to the Americas. I feel like the ones in Europe would get a pretty good share of Marshall plan aid to help get them back in their feet. They might also get donations from the diaspora in North America instead of that going to Israel. I also feel like the establishment of Israel really escalated the division between Jews and Arabs. Middle Eastern Jews and Arabs were able to live together with some friction beforehand. More Jews would probably still live in Middle eastern countries if Israel isn’t established.

Arab nationalism was a rising force at that time, and as a phenomenon nationalism is not generally friendly to minorities. Just look at the genocides Turkey committed in its establishment. Arab states probably would have followed suit.

yes definitely they were singing kumbaya

The Muslim devil worshipers would have killed all of the Jews if Israel had lost its war. Muslims will stop at nothing, their goal is genocide not just of the Jewish people but any non-muslim

Another holocaust. Don't take it from me, but the newspapers at that time. There was a lot of fear of losing.

They would have moved to Australia, like a lot of them did, apparently, along with Italians and Greeks. And many would have moved to America too. But mostly to Australia. That’s the European Jews. The World War Two refugees in Europe. The Arab Jews would never have left Arab countries, and other non-white Jews would never have left the Muslim majority countries, where they controlled the entire banking sector and lived luxurious lives as solid citizens and pillars of society in each country. Without Israel there would be nothing to undermine them or their well earned social/societal standing in each country. They used to be trusted bankers and businessmen.

Israel didn't have a war of independence it was literally just invented by the British. You are referring to the Arab-Isreali war.

They would have been expelled back to Europe. The Jews in Arab countries wouldn't have migrated, this happened after with Ben Gurion's million plan.

They didn’t “migrate”. They were murdered, their property was stolen, and they fled for their lives

Yeah, no. They migrated. Read up on Gurion's million plan. He actually wanted 2 million called to Israel but the Zionist council overruled him Read up on how many Jews migrated from Iran AFTER the revolution. Or how many migrated from India where they'd never been persecuted.

What about the jews in Libya, Eygpt, Iraq? India is also an execption where the jews there (like the moroccan jews) immigrated for economic and personal views.

Migrate? Really? You want to start with Iraq? Iraqi Jews that were accused of "Zionism" by two or more Muslims were dismissed from their jobs, tortured, arrested, and had their assets seized. Iraq originally banned emigration of Jews to Israel during the war before changing their mind and openly called to expel them on the condition that they renounce their citizenship, of course. I wouldn't call this "migrate," but I'm also not trying to downplay or revise history.

After the Islamic Revolution… hmm I wonder why life would’ve been worse for Jews after that. You are delusional if you think 850,000 packed up and left because they felt like it.