Among them, and their descendants, the view of Rachel Shabi, Avi Shlaim and, for that matter, David Caesarani (not to mention Irie) is the minority, even as where the likes of Rachel Shabi and Avi Shlaim ended up is also in the minority.

In the final analysis, most Arab or ‘Islamic’ Jews left the Islamic world, mostly for Israel, because ‘enough’ Arab or other Islamic state Muslim citizens came to view Arab Jews as more nationally Jewish (or, metaphorically speaking, ‘Israeli’ or ‘Palestinian’) than Arab.

Regardless of the contributing factor of the birth of the Jewish state of Israel, that could not have been possible had there not been a pre-existing tradition in the Arab or Islamic world that Jews had been, not only a national or ethnic group, but a national or ethnic group that had been dispossessed of temple, Jerusalem and the land of Israel as a punishment for their rejection of Jesus and the prophets, with the consequent exultation of Christians and Muslims, who, relatedly, had come to form the major groups in the land of Israel, or Palestine as it was known, possibly principally to European and Palestinian Christians, chiefly because it had come into existence as a consequence of Jewish dispossession.

The discussion as to whether their departure was ‘voluntary’ or not is essentially irrelevant. Anyone who leaves a place because it has become dangerous, difficult or impossible to live to some extent ‘volunteers’ to do so: it is a conscious act of will to choose a life free of dangers or obstacles to life or livelihood.

The UN definition of ‘refugee’ recognises such diversity of circumstances: as observed earlier, any Palestinian (Arab, Christian, Muslim and, in theory, Jew) who lost means of livelihood as a consequence of the 1947-9 conflict was also categorised as ‘refugee’.

As also observed earlier, the Arab League drafted law, in November 1947, which defined Arab Jews, pro-, non- or anti-Zionist, as de facto citizens of any Jewish state, should it come into existence, with attendant stripping of citizenship and possessions.

The ‘departure’ of most Arab Jews, mostly for Israel, is by no means unrelated to the same conflict that saw most Palestinian refugees so defined. And therein lies their equivalence.

As for Caesarani’s saying there is no equivalence between Palestinian refugees and Arab Jewish refugees, that is a matter of opinion, not shared by Lyn Julius or the Justice for Jews from Arab lands. The UN, for instance, defined as ‘refugee’ any Palestinian Christian and Muslim whose livelihood had been lost as a consequence of the conflict. Most Palestinian refugees still live within the borders of Mandate Palestine. The same can hardly be said for the situation of most Arab Jews and their homelands.

The point that Lyn also made is that there is evidence that the Arab League drafted law, in 1947, before the UN vote for partition, that, in the event that any Jewish state came into existence, all Arab Jews would be legally defined as citizens of that state. What actually ensued consequent to the birth of Israel was not altogether different.

So if we were talking about Palestinian refugees, it seemed that first he was arguing that the IDF forcefully expelled them.
Later it was enough that they left with fear when war was approaching (forgetting that it was a war initiated by them, not by the Jews)
Even later it was enough for the Arabs to have left for any reason and in any time before the war (for example, the common expedient within the Arab elite of sending their children to study abroad and live with their rich relatives in Beirut) and not being able to return after the war for TheIrie to consider them “expelled” Palestinian refugees.
It is always a new definition that he argues with literalistic precision until he loses, and then he changes to another one.

It is obvious, however, that he hasn’t read a single book by Benny Morris, let alone Efraim Karsh, or he wouldn’t be spouting so many baseless claims.

And then you compare the catch-all definition of expulsion he reserves for the Arabs with the catch-nothing definition of expulsion he reserves for the Jews of Arab lands to understand completely that he is a denier, similar to a neonazi. In TheIrie’s case, what he denies is the destruction of the Jewish community in the “Arab” countries, while the neonazis usually deny the Holocaust in Europe. But it is the same.

It is almost impossible to think that he does this just because he is pig ignorant about the subject. He has an agenda, and it is an anti-Jewish agenda.

He is a worm.

TheIrie genuinely believes the rubbish that he writes

better people than I have tried to talk sense into him and given up

search the HP archive and you’ll find some of the weirdest views from TheIrie, basic faulty logic and a singular aversion to evidence based reasoning

you ALWAYS know more than anyone else, that’s the problem with your immature attitude – you think you know it all

that is until someone can be troubled to explain your most egregious errors, which doesn’t happen much nowadays as we’ve seen that it doesn’t make any difference.

If someone takes the time and trouble to explain to you slowly a point, the next week your back again making your same silly assertion

It is your methodology which is at fault, in your immaturity you can’t distinguish between, a stupid comment made on Lenin’s Tomb or that of an expert in a particular field

They are all the same to you, your literalalist outlook on life cannot tell the difference, there’s no depth to your judgement.

But we should remind readers of your recent wild assertions:

1) that Irish Anglophobia was the same as antisemitism, which came to you after watching a Ken Loach film, not after you studied Irish history or even learnt what the word “pogrom” is, but after seeing a film

that’s your mentality a notion comes into your head and then you proceed to assert that it is absolutely categorically the truth, no matter the evidence, no matter that the pieces don’t fit, you bang on and bang on

2) ditto your view that antisemitism was fairly easy to understand, even though you’ve never read anything of consequence on the subject

3) spouting off about the creation of Israel, despite knowing next to nothing about the subject

4) commenting on the Holocaust and believing in all of the wild anti-Zionist accusations whilst never having studied anything of substance

etc

of course, you could get out of this by
1) be more considered
2) try some humility
3) learn from others
4) read experts in these fields
5) research these topic and come to a considered point of view

but I’ll bet none of that will happen, and at the age of 50 you will be as you are now, a know all know nothing, immature and incapable of learning

still that’s a very strange way for a scientist to be ?

And now I’m off for the W/E so don’t expect any replies. So long playa haters.