The Blind Spot: How the Exodus of Jews from the Arab World came about

Is there a blind spot in the perception of the war between Israel and Hamas and the history that gave rise to this conflict? Yes, there is, claims Georges Bensoussan in his study Die Juden in der arabischen Welt. Die verbotene Frage (The Jews in the Arab world. The forbidden question), published in German translation in 2019. Anyone who has studied the history of the conflict is aware that as a result of the Nakba, the defeat of Arab states that took military action against the state of Israel in response to its founding in 1948, hundreds of thousands of Palestinians left the territory of the newly founded and militarily assertive state of Israel and settled in neighbouring countries. But is it also known that at least as many Jews, indeed significantly more, and mostly from Arab countries - travelled to Israel and, above all, why?

This exodus is generally attributed to the aforementioned conflict, as is Islamic anti- Semitism. In the period before this war, the coexistence of the Islamic and Jewish populations (as well as the Christian population) was harmonious, due to the tolerance towards the “owners of the scriptures”, i.e. the two other monotheistic religions, which was anchored in Islam. To underpin this view, reference is then made to the example of Spain, where culture flourished during the period of Islamic rule. This view has been radically questioned for some time, not only by Georges Bensoussan, but also by Nathan Weinstock, among others. How is this criticism justified?

For centuries, coexistence between Jews and Muslims was regulated by the dhimmi system. As Nathan Weinstock has explained in his comprehensive study entitled Der zerrissene Faden. Wie die arabische Welt ihre Juden verlor. 1947-1967 (The torn thread. How the Arab world lost its Jews. 1947-1967), The foundations of this system were already laid in the early days of Islam, firstly in the Koran and secondly in the provisions known as the “Pact of Umar”. This regulates the status of the “owners of the scriptures” as dhimmis under Islamic rule. The basic principle is that they enjoy protection as “subjects of the head of the Islamic state” (17). They were then expected to provide something in return for this protection. Weinberg explains in detail what this quid pro quo had to look like “in the Islamic tradition”: “In return for the protection granted, the dhimmis must pay the djizya (a special tax) ->which is an expression of submission< - as well as other specific very high taxes, may only practise their cult discreetly, must show deference to the >righteous< (i.e. the Muslims) and wear special clothing that enables the ruling group to identify them at first glance. In addition, they are forbidden to use a noble mount (a horse or a dromedary), to carry or own weapons, to own slaves or Muslim books and to build houses higher than those of the Muslim believers. In Muslim neighbourhoods, or at least in some of them, they must take off their shoes and walk barefoot. In the event of natural disasters, they can be called upon to perform any kind of labour. They are not allowed to marry a Muslim woman, and their testimony is not admitted in court.” (17)

These regulations, which were laid down in the “Pact of Umar”, were hardly changed over the centuries. However, it is important to note that they by no means completely determined the actions of Muslims and Jews alike; on the contrary, there was always a difference between these norms and reality, meaning that the relationships between them could be very different [1- 3]. Bensoussan summarises the situation as “[a] human history of domination, of esteem, sometimes even of admiration, But always the history of a subjugated minority constantly despised.” (30)

For the Jews, the dhimmi system fundamentally meant that they were - as Weinstock put it - in a “state of structural inferiority” (16). And within this system, Jews were repeatedly subjected to violence and humiliation, which had the purpose of reminding them “>that they were subject to masters who could do with them as they pleased<”. (43)

These structures had a habit-forming effect on both the Jews and the Muslims; the respective status became “second nature”, to which a certain caution, even fear, was added on the part of the Jews. So even if, on the one hand, there is no reason to idealise the conditions in which Jews lived under Islamic rule, on the other hand, it is important not to lose sight of the relationships. As Mark R. Cohen made abundantly clear some time ago in his study Unter Kreuz und Halbmond. Die Juden im Mittelalter (Under the Cross and Crescent), The conditions in which Jews lived under Islamic rule compared relatively favourably with those in Christian Europe during the Middle Ages, as Jews were considered an integral part of a hierarchically structured society and were not - with a few exceptions - marginalised and persecuted. Summarising, Cohen writes: “In the West, Jews were marginalised from the organic hierarchy of society: attacked as foreigners, subjected to collective persecution for alleged crimes against Christians and Christianity, increasingly isolated in their Jewish neighbourhoods, soon confined to legally prescribed ghettos, and all too often expelled from lands where they and their ancestors had lived for hundreds of years.

In the Orient, despite their marginality, the Jews remained marginal, at least during the classical period of Islam, but they were not >excluded<.” (195). In the 20th century, Christian anti-Semitism ultimately led to the genocide of European Jews by the National Socialists in Germany. So what were the reasons for the exodus of almost 900,000 Jews from Arab or Islamic countries in the middle of the 20th century, which ended the coexistence of Muslims and Jews, and, indeed, a 2,000 year-old common culture? According to Bensoussan, neither Zionism nor the founding of the state of Israel was decisive. His thesis is that - among other reasons - one in particular should be emphasised that has received little attention to date: the emancipation of the Jews, which began long before the founding of the state of Israel and was stimulated by the encounter “with the Occident of the Enlightenment” (30). As a result of this encounter, education became the “first and most important factor in the emancipation of the Jews of the Orient” (47).

“Perhaps against their will, the schooling that came from Europe was the place of struggle against subjugation.” (49)

This development, the emancipation of the Jews - just like the emancipation of women - was “experienced as mortifying” (82) by the Arab population. Weinstock states: “The statute of the dhimma is so deeply embedded in the psyche of the Muslim masses that the abolition of this institutional discrimination seems inconceivable to them, as if it were an overthrow of the >natural order of things<.” (387)

The fact that Jews also founded their own state further exacerbated this feeling. Weinstock comments on this, stating that “the existence of Israel in itself represents [...] an unbearable narcissistic offence.” (385)

When the Arab states finally freed themselves from colonialism, when independent nation states were formed, the Jews were not treated equally, did not receive the same rights as everyone else and their human dignity was not recognised, so that emigration - as Weinstock writes - “to Israel or elsewhere - remained the only way out: at any rate the only way that could be reconciled with maintaining one’s own self-respect” (390).

The dhimmi system continued to have an effect even after its abolition - and the question arises as to whether it still has a underlying effect to the present day. How can this “blind spot” be explained? One major reason is that our perception is characterised by the current situation, in which, although the circumstances are by no means clear-cut - on the contrary, over a thousand Jews were victims of a brutal massacre - the Palestinians are seen by many solely in the role of victims. Benoussan writes about this, stating that “for the post-colonial consciousness, which wants to see the figure of the oppressed in the Arab-Muslim world of today, it is difficult to imagine that around the Mediterranean this once colonised world was also synonymous with bondage and slavery long before the arrival of the Europeans. “(184)

What will be important for the future, as Bensoussan writes, is the “question of the emancipation of the subject” (31), which not only arises in connection with “the confrontation of the Arab- Islamic world with the modernity of the Enlightenment”, but also requires both sides to come to terms with grievances and traumas, which would require them to be recognised and acknowledged by all.

1. Bensoussan Georges (2019) Die Juden in der arabischen Welt. Die verbotene Frage, Berlin Leipzig, Germany.
2. Weinstock Nathan (2019) Der zerrissene Faden. Wie die arabische Welt ihre Juden verlor. 1947-1967, Freiburg Wien, Germany.
3. Cohen Mark R (2005) Unter Kreuz und Halbmond. Die Juden im Mittelalter, München, Germany.