‘We saw Jews with hearts like Germans’: Moroccan immigrants in Israel warned families not to follow

Moroccan immigrants arriving in Haifa, 1954

Moroccan immigrants arriving in Haifa, 1954

More on Palestine

View of the world

Ukraine – what you’re not told

‘We saw Jews with hearts Like Germans’: Moroccan immigrants in Israel warned families not to follow

[This article, written by Ofer Aderet, first appeared on the Harretz website, and this version reprinted from the Portside website.]

Thousands of letters written in the early years of the state by immigrant soldiers to their families in Morocco reveal a gloomy picture. Most wanted to go home. ‘If you want my advice, stay in North Africa; it’s better than the Land of Israel.’

In 1949, in the midst of the War of Independence, an Israel Defence Forces soldier wrote a letter to his family who remained in Morocco. ‘We came to Israel and thought we’d find a paradise here, but regrettably it was the opposite: We saw Jews with hearts like Germans.’ He also had a word of caution for his relatives: ‘If you want my advice, stay in North Africa; it’s better than the Land of Israel.’

The soldier’s identity remains unknown, but thousands of similar letters that were deposited in the IDF and Defence Establishment Archive show that he was not the only Moroccan immigrant who harboured such feelings. Excerpts from the letters, which had remained below the radar of historians and researchers, are now being published for the first time.

Another soldier from North Africa was more direct and blunt, accusing the Ashkenazi Jews of racism. ‘The European Jews, who suffered tremendously from Nazism, see themselves as a superior race and the Sephardi [Mizrahi] Jews as belonging to an inferior one,’ he wrote to his parents. He complained that the North African new immigrant ‘who came here from afar and was not required to leave his home because of racial discrimination – is now humiliated at every turn.’

A feeling of injustice also arises from the lines that follow: ‘Instead of [showing] gratitude, they treat us like savages or something that is unwelcome. When I see [North] African friends wandering the streets, one without an arm, the other without a leg, people who spilled their blood in war, I ask myself, ‘Is it worth it?”

Historian Shay Hazkani – whose research focuses generally on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and on how Jewish immigrants from North Africa and the Middle East were absorbed and treated during the early years of the state – discovered these letters in classified reports written by the postal censorship bureau that operated in the army from its inception. The unit’s members read the letters sent by soldiers and deleted classified information. Moreover, they also copied – without the soldiers’ knowledge or consent – passages that would interest the army and the civilian authorities. By this means it was possible to monitor the mood among the soldiers and to track other developments.

Dr. Hazkani was especially interested in what these historical sources could reveal – despite the problematic nature of reading personal correspondence – about the feelings of immigrants who had come from Morocco to fight in the war in 1947-48, who were opening their hearts to their families who remained behind.

‘The Poles control everything,’ one soldier wrote his family in Morocco at the time, noting that ’95 percent of the guys here are dissatisfied, and would like only to go back to where they came from.’ In the view of another soldier, ‘Palestine might be good for people who suffered in the camps in Germany, but not for us, the French, who are lovers of freedom.’ (He was referring to France’s protectorate regime, which ruled in Morocco until the country became independent, in 1956.)

Allegations of discrimination at the hands of Ashkenazi immigrants are rife in many of the letters Hazkani studied. One soldier, originally from Casablanca, wrote his family back home that the Polish Jews ‘think Moroccans are savages and thieves. When we pass by, they look at us like [we are] brutes.’ His dream was to return to Casablanca, he told his family, and he would go on crying until he was able to buy a plane ticket.

Morrocan immigrant at Dead Seas Industries potash plant, 1956

Morrocan immigrant at Dead Seas Industries potash plant, 1956

‘I can’t stand this country, which is worse than jail. The Ashkenazim exploit us in everything and give the best and easiest jobs to the Poles,’ a soldier wrote to relatives in Morocco. ‘The wages are worth nothing. For his easy labor, the Pole gets 2.5 liras, but the maximum we Moroccans can earn for our arduous and strenuous work is only 1.5 liras.’

The perusal of thousands of letters by new-immigrant soldiers from Morocco suggests that the majority of them wanted to return home and that they recommended that their families not immigrate to the Jewish state, or at least put off any such move. The percentages shift between periods and between the groups of letters sampled, but a summary drawn by the IDF turns up high numbers: About 70 percent who wanted to go back to Morocco and 76 percent who recommended to their families to stay put.

The army’s top brass itself generally displayed a patronizing, hostile and distant attitude toward soldiers of North African origin, according to the IDF’s own files, from which the letters quoted by Hazkani were taken. ‘Even though the soldiers are of inferior education and culture, they manifest potent criticism,’ one army report states. ‘North African immigrants suffer from an inferiority complex that might be caused by the way their Ashkenazi colleagues treat them,’ a censorship official wrote after analysing the soldiers’ letters.

‘This phenomenon is serious and raises concern,’ he continues, not just because of the damage to morale among the soldiers, ‘but also because of the information sent by the ‘offended’’ to their families and friends in their countries of origin.

Data from the Central Bureau of Statistics shows that 6 percent of those who immigrated from Morocco in the years 1949 to 1953 actually returned to their native land: 2,466 out of approximately 40,000. Proportionally, Hazkani found, this was almost twice the number of those who returned among the immigrants from Europe and America (Ashkenazim).

‘Human sheep’

Complaints about Israel did not only make people decide to leave the country. There was an Israeli government policy that was intended to hinder or delay immigration. In 1951, the government adopted a policy of ‘selective aliyah.’ In a 1999 article, ‘The Origin of Selective Aliyah,’ Dr. Avi Picard, from Bar-Ilan University’s Land of Israel Studies department, notes that the restrictions referred to the “quality” of the immigrants – who by and large came from North Africa at the time – and not their numbers, and were imposed via classification on the basis of one’s physical fitness, age and profession.

‘Don’t believe the Zionist Office in Morocco. It is spreading propaganda, lies and distortions,’ an immigrant soldier from North Africa wrote his family in an effort to dissuade them from making the move to the Holy Land. ‘Here you’ll be called ‘dirty Moroccans,’ and the papers will write that the Moroccans don’t know how to dress or how to eat with a fork. Only with their hands. They think that the only human beings here are the Poles.’

Military post office in Tel Aviv

Military post office in Tel Aviv

The unnamed soldier was referring to a series of articles published in Haaretz in 1949, which continue to resonate to this day. A reporter on the paper, Aryeh Gelblum, assumed a fictitious identity in order to document life in the immigrants’ transit camps. He published his grim conclusions under the headline, ‘I was a new immigrant for a month.’

‘This is an immigration of race such as we have never before known in Israel,’ he wrote, in reference to the North African immigrants. ‘We have here a people at a peak of primitiveness. The level of their education borders on absolute ignorance, and even graver is [their] incompetence at absorbing anything intellectual.’

Gelblum added, ‘Only slightly do they surpass the general level of the Arab, Negro and Berber inhabitants from their places [of origin]… They are completely subject to primitive and savage instincts. In any event, this is an even lower level than what we knew among the Arabs of the Land of Israel of the past.’ He continued: ‘What can we do with them? How can we absorb them? Have we considered what will happen to this country if they became its citizens? One day the rest of the Jews from the Arab world will immigrate! What will the State of Israel look like and what sort of level will it have if it has citizens like these?’

In the summer of 1950, Davar, the organ of the Histadrut labor federation, ran an article about a transit camp in Marseille where new immigrants, most of them Jews from North Africa, were waiting on their way to Israel. Terms such as ‘bad material’ and ‘human sheep’ were used to describe the prospective immigrants, who would have to be ‘kneaded’ in order ‘to shape them.’ The article went on: ‘Will it be possible to form new traits among these abject human beings? In Israel, will they not again descend into the atmosphere from which they were removed – among their brethren in the community?’

An article in Davar that September warned about the ‘oriental’ character of the people who would flood Israel. ‘Our fate depends on quality. In other words, the degree to which the non-oriental elements, which are the only ones that can sustain this country, will triumph. How to elevate them to the Western level of the existing community and how to protect ourselves with all our might against the possibility that the quality of the populations of Israel will fall to the oriental level.’

Similarly harsh comments were made by the country’s leaders, as has already been revealed. Levi Eshkol, the finance minister and later prime minister, was quoted in 1953 as saying, ‘We are shackled with human refuse, because in those countries they are sweeping the streets and sending us in the first row these backward people.’ Other leaders expressed themselves in similar terms.

Some of the immigrants from Morocco heard these voices and read the articles and were enraged. Their feelings were given expression in an article titled, ‘Moroccan Jewry Gazing toward Israel,’ published in 1949 in a Jerusalem-based periodical, Hed Hamizrah (Echo from the East). It opens by noting that at first ‘the enthusiasm of the masses of Jews [in Morocco] for making aliyah to the Holy Land was unbounded.’ Subsequently, however, when the newcomers encountered Israeli reality, ‘that enthusiasm began to be mixed with bitter disappointment.’

It is clear from this that the letters from the disappointed soldiers reached their destination in Morocco and resonated there. ‘The reports reaching here from Israel are ominous. We are told that the immigrants are being received in Israel with gross discrimination and scathing insults,’ the Hed Hamizrah writer noted. ‘The sorrow is heightened when you hear that these insults are not coming from gentiles but from their brothers who are in Zion, on whom they pinned all their hopes and from whom they thought to find succour and aid until they adjusted to life in Israel.’

Morocaan immigrant doing road work, 1949

Morocaan immigrant doing road work, 1949

The author wonders ‘what did we do to deserve having this trouble fall upon us, and this shameful attitude?’ He goes on to review the contribution of Moroccan immigrants to Israel’s rebirth: ‘Is this the reward that the official institutions pay us for having fulfilled our national duty in all senses? After all, you all know what we have wrought in the past and in the present. We were among the first illegal immigrants [ma’apilim] to Israel. Young sailors among us left their families and suffered together with their brethren in the concentration camps of Cyprus. Young lads from Morocco were also not lacking on [the ship] Exodus Europe 1947. Our boys fought like lions on all the fronts, in the north and the south, the Galilee and the Negev, in the Old City of Jerusalem and in the land’s other cities, and blood was shed everywhere.’

The article concludes: ‘Morocco’s Jews fought for the deliverance of their land, and why should they be discriminated against? Why is their blood different from the blood of their Western brothers? The bitterness caused by this insulting attitude is growing apace here. Everyone is demanding that the government of Israel right this wrong.’ Addressing members of Knesset, the writer calls for ‘the abolition of this racial discrimination, for we are the children of one father.’

Yaron Tsur, an expert in the history of Jews from the Arab and Islamic countries, addresses this issue in his 2001 book ‘A Torn Community: The Jews of Morocco and Nationalism 1943-1954’ (Hebrew).

‘The first testimonies about the cooling of the enthusiasm for the idea of aliyah to Israel are connected to the reports about the shock experienced by the immigrants from Morocco at what they viewed as discrimination against Sephardim overall and against Moroccans in particular in Israel,’ Prof. Tsur writes. ‘That was one aspect of their encounter with the ethnic problem. The potency of the negative impact these reports created may be gleaned from numerous testimonies. This discrimination was apparently the phenomenon that was most damaging to Israel’s image in the eyes of the [Moroccan] diaspora.’

According to Tsur, heightened efforts to portray the positive aspects of immigration to Israel were of no avail. ‘No propaganda could offset the impressions of the immigrants in letters from Israel and the testimony of those who returned,’ he notes. Complaints about discrimination were heard from every quarter in Morocco, he writes, and they also had an impact on the efforts to raise funds from Moroccan Jewry for the Zionist cause.

Thus, the professor describes a meeting in a private home in Rabat, at the end of which one of the participants said to the guest speaker, ‘You spoke well, but I will not donate anything and I will try to see to it that others follow my example, because you are treating Morocco’s Jews like savages.’ In another meeting, held by an MK from the Sephardi List, Avraham Elmalich, with Moroccan rabbis in the city of Port Lyautey (today, Kenitra), a religious court judge requested of him ‘that every son of Israel who will go up to Israel, whoever he may be, it will not be said of him, ‘This is an African, a Sephardi or an Ashkenazi,’ but just a plain Israeli.’

The soldiers’ letters also reflected this sentiment. One soldier wrote his family that the antisemitism in Israel was worse than in Poland. Indeed, he added, the discrimination was so widespread that it could be compared to the extreme nature of relations between whites and Blacks in America. Striking a similar note, another wrote, ‘Orientals are treated here like Negroes in the South of the U.S. There is great hatred between the Orientals and the Westerners, who make up the Government.’

One soldier wrote, dishearteningly, that despite everything, he preferred to remain in Israel and not return to Morocco. It is better to be a ‘filthy Moroccan’ than a ‘filthy Jew,’ he explained to his family.

Waxing poetic, another expressed the hope ‘to finish my service in the IDF and return to you, to my homeland Morocco, which I loved. This makes me very happy.’ One of his comrades-in-arms, who was from France, was frustrated at being identified, mistakenly, as a Moroccan. ‘I only know French but my skin is tan and I resemble a North African. What should I do? No one believes I am not North African. I don’t have a job, and even ‘white’ girls don’t want to dance with me,’ he complains. Another soldier cautioned his family that this was not the right time to immigrate to Israel. He explained, ‘You must know that the Arabs are our brothers, unlike the Ashkenazi Jews, who make our lives miserable. For all the money in the world I will not stay here.’

Moroccan immigrants in southern Israel

Moroccan immigrants in southern Israel

‘Big Brother apparatus’

An analysis of the letters reveals that the writers effectively refuted the central tenets of Zionist propaganda: The ‘homeland’ is not Israel but Morocco, and it is only to there that can one ‘return.’ As for the Jewish state, the only recourse is to flee it. Moreover, the brethren of Morocco’s Jews are not the Jews of Poland or Germany, as those who espoused the ‘ingathering of the exiles’ had hoped, but rather the Arabs. Thus, instead of a new – Israeli – identity, the hard landing experienced by some of Morocco’s Jews contributed to the shaping of a Moroccan identity.

The soldiers’ letters are quoted in Hazkani’s new book, ‘Dear Palestine: A Social History of the 1948 War’ (in English, from Stanford University Press). The historian has drawn in the past on the same collection of letters from the army’s postal censorship unit. One such study, which gave rise to an article in Haaretz in 2013, dealt with letters sent by soldiers from the front in the 1973 Yom Kippur War. The letters themselves, in the army archive, are not accessible to scholars or others. Selected passages from them were quoted in internal military reports under the heading, ‘The Soldier’s Opinion,’ earmarked for senior ranks – and it is these reports that Hazkani was able to locate.

How did he get to this archival collection in the first place? At the beginning of the 2000s, Hazkani was the military correspondent for Channel 10 News. One day, while preparing an item about Israel’s arms deal with Germany in 1958, he came across an odd document. ‘It summarized the views of ‘ordinary’ soldiers about the deal… Their views were extracted from their personal letters, secretly copied by a massive Big Brother apparatus,’ Hazkani explains in his book.

Although the historian’s current focus is on soldiers of Moroccan origin, other archival documents show that they were not the only foreign-born soldiers during the state’s first decade who had scathing criticism about the Israeli society in which they found themselves. Soldiers from the United States, Great Britain and elsewhere who arrived as part of the Mahal project – involving army volunteers from overseas who were not immigrants – also weren’t wild about the so-called sabras. A survey conducted among the volunteers in 1949 by the Israel Institute of Applied Social Research (later renamed the Guttman Institute, and today called the Viterbi Family Center for Public Opinion and Policy Research) found that most of the newcomers expressed negative opinions about the Jewish state and its inhabitants (55 percent), with the bulk of the complaints referring to the phenomenon of proteksya (cronyism or favouritism). ‘Other reasons for resentment,’ Hazkani notes, ‘were chutzpah, egoism, hypocrisy and lack of respect.’

In this country, ‘it’s not what you know but who you know’ that’s important, one of the volunteers noted in his answers to the questionnaire. ‘Proteksya… proteksya… what chance does a guy like me have without that vitamin?’ added another. Some complained that the locals made no effort to be friendly, and were impolite, impudent and loud. A common theme was that Israelis think they’re always right and can’t abide the idea that sometimes the other side is right. The volunteers also felt that the locals attached too much importance to their country of origin, which affected their attitude. And, of course, that Israelis love aliyah but not olim.

The army’s postal censors diligently copied passages in which the volunteers expressed highly negative views about their experience in Israel. ‘It is enough if I say that when the Anglo-Saxons [first] came here, 95 percent were interested in settling. Today, you can’t even find 5 percent,’ a soldier wrote to his family in England. ‘In this country, soldiers try not to die for their country, but try, and with success, to have others (foreigners) die for their country,’ another observed. A volunteer soldier from the United States castigated the sabras’ ‘reprehensible behavior’ and termed them ‘irresponsible’ and ‘cheaters.’ ‘When I come back home,’ he added, ‘I’ll tell you how the people here falsify all the ideals that you work so hard for and that for the sake of their realization I came here.’

A South African soldier expressed anti-war sentiments, writing to his family that he didn’t want to fight for imperialism and the Zionists’ ‘territorial ambitions.’

Another maintained that ‘a golem is being created here, and no one knows how it [will] turn out when it grows up.’ The golem in question was the State of Israel itself, which arose, he wrote, thanks to lofty ideals but was losing control over its character and its future.

All pictures credit: Fritz Cohen/GPO/Haaretz

More on Palestine

View of the world

Ukraine – what you’re not told

Palestine – the background to the US-backed Zionist settler state

A Palestinian child in 1970

A Palestinian child in 1970

More on Palestine

View of the world

Ukraine – what you’re not told

Palestine – the background to the US-backed Zionist settler state

On this page we present an eclectic group of pamphlets, journals and reports that were published from the mid-1960s to the early 1980s. These are reproduced in the hope of providing an historical background to the situation that we are witnessing in Palestine (in 2021) more than a couple of generations later.

What is striking in many of the images presented here is that the situation in Palestine has been dire, with the fascist Israeli forces implementing ‘ethnic cleaning’ in all their dealings with the Palestinian population from the very beginning and consistently ever since. (Note the date of the image at the head of this post.)

The situation before 1967

Israel – according to Theodore Herzl (1904) and Rabbi Fischmann (1947), nd.

Do you know – Twenty basic facts about the Palestine Problem, Facts and Figures Series, No 1, Research Centre, Palestine Liberation Organisation, Beirut, April 1966, 5 pages.

The UN and the Palestine Question, April 1947 – April 1965, Fayez A Sayegh, Facts and Figures Series, No 2, Research Centre, Palestine Liberation Organisation, Beirut, September 1966, 24 pages.

United States and West German Aid to Israel, Facts and Figures Series No 6, Asa’d Abdul-Rahman, Research Centre, Palestine Liberation Organisation, Beirut, October 1966, 53 pages.

The Partition of Palestine, Institute for Palestine Studies, Monograph Series No 9, Beirut, 1967, 55 pages.

Edwin Montagu and The Balfour Declaration, Arab League, London, 1969, 23 pages.

Deir Yassin, 1948 Zeita, Beit Nuba and Yalu, 1967, Palestine National Liberation Movement, Fateh, 1970, 18 pages. A twenty year span and the rise of terrorist gangs to statehood cannot change the Israeli-Zionist mentality, bent on destruction and terror.

Soviet motives in the Partition of Palestine – 1947-1948, Arnold Krammer, Journal of Palestine Studies, Winter, 1973, Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 102-119, University of California Press, 1973, 19 pages.

The Soviet Union and the creation of the state of Israel, Prof. Gabriel Gorodetsky, Social Science Open Access Repository, December 2001, 28 pages.

Who saved Israel in 1947? Martin Kramer, Mosaic – advancing Jewish Thought, 2017, 21 pages. Criticism of the role of the Stalin and the Soviet Union in the foundation of the Zionist Settler State.

What we did – the American Jewish Communist Left and the Establishment of the State of Israel, Dorothy M. Zellner, 2019, 40 pages.

The situation after 1967

Imperialism and the Middle East Conflict – Some Left Wing Viewpoints, No 1, Ad Hoc Committee for Peace in the Middle East, London, 1967, 34 pages.

Raphael’s ‘Virgin and Child’, Jerusalem Committee, London, 1969, 4 pages.

River without Bridges – A study of The Exodus of the 1967 Palestinian Refugees, Peter Dodd and Halim Barakat, Institute for Palestinian Studies, Monograph Series No 10, Beirut, 1969, 107 pages.

The June War – In the Light of its Aftermath, June 1967-Summer 1969, Vada Hart Nabky – Morssett Press, London, 1969, 32 pages.

To whom does Palestine belong? Henry Cattan, Institute for Palestine Studies, Monograph Series No 8, Beirut, 1969, 18 pages.

What if it happened to you? Jerusalem Committee, London, 1969, 15 pages.

World Public Opinion and the current aggression in the Middle East, No 4, United Arab Republic Ministry of National Guidance State Information Service, 1969, 34 pages.

World Public Opinion and Israel, No 5, United Arab Republic Ministry of National Guidance State Information Service, 1969, 75 pages.

World Public Opinion and the current aggression in the Middle East, No 7, United Arab Republic Ministry of National Guidance State Information Service, 1969, 18 pages.

World Public Opinion and the current aggression in the Middle East, No 15, United Arab Republic Ministry of National Guidance State Information Service, 1969, 25 pages.

Background Notes on Palestine, Report No 3, An Eyewitness in Jerusalem Spring 1969, John Carter, Jerusalem Committee, London, 1969, 21 pages.

Background Notes on Palestine, Report No 4, Visit to Palestine Summer 1969, Tom Fielding, Jerusalem Committee, London, 1969, 16 pages.

The Tragedy of Palestine from the Balfour Declaration to today, Anthony Nutting, The Arab League, London, 1969, 15 pages.

Tragedy of the Palestine Arab Refugees, 1969, 32 pages.

Israeli air attack on the National Metal Products Factory at Abu Zaabal, Cairo, February 12 1970, United Arab Republic Ministry of National Guidance State Information Service, 20 pages.

Israeli air raid on the Bahr El-Backar Primary School, Sharkia Governorate, UAR, April 8 1970, United Arab Republic Ministry of National Guidance State Information Service, 16 pages.

The Jarring Mission, The Arab League, London, 1970, 24 pages.

Four stages in the Zionist usurpation of the land of Palestine – map showing the evolution of Zionist intentions about the land of the US-backed settler state – following the war in 1967.

Life in a Palestinian refugee camp, Grace Halsell, If Americans knew, 1981, 12 pages.

Gaza in crisis – reflections on the US-Israeli war on the Palestinians, Noam Chomsky and Ilan Pappé, Haymarket Books, Chicago, 2010, 212 pages.

Gaza – an inquest into its martyrdom, Norman Finkelstein, University of California Press, 2018, 663 pages.

The Hundred Years War on Palestine – a history of Settler Colonial Conquest and Resistance, 1917-2017, Rashid Khalidi, Metropolitan Books, New York, 2020, 352 pages.

The right to resist, Yasser Arafat, two speeches at the United Nations General Assembly (1974 and 1988), November 8th Publishing House, Ottawa 2023, 70 pages.

Zionism

Zionism – the obstacle to peace, Council for the Advancement of Arab-British Understanding, London?, ND., late 1960’s?, 6 pages.

Zionism and Racism – a case to answer, European Co-ordinating Committee of Friendship Societies with the Arab World, Paris, 1976, 26 pages.

Zionist Relations with Nazi Germany, Faris Yahya, Palestine Research Center, Beirut, 1978, 85 pages.

Zionist relations with Nazi Germany, Faris Yahya, Palestine Research Centre, Beirut 1978, November 8th Publishing House, Ottawa 2023, 101 pages.

Zionism from the standpoint of its victims, Edward Said, 1979, from The Edward Said Reader, published by Vintage, 11 pages.

Jews, Zionism and South Africa, David Herman, Union of Jewish Students, London, 1989, 16 pages.

Zionist Colonialism in Palestine, Fayez A. Sayegh, Research Centre of the Palestine Liberation Organization, Beirut 1965, November 8th Publishing House, Ottawa 2023, 74 pages.

The Arab League, London

The Arab, Volume 2, Nos 31/32, The Arab League, London, August/September1969, 16 pages.

The Arab, Volume 2, No 33, The Arab League, London, October 1969, 12 pages.

The Arab, Volume 4, No 30, The Arab League, London, April 1970, 12 pages.

Jerusalem – El kuds al Sharif – The Rock of Faith, The Arab League, London, 1969, 8 pages.

A letter to the Holy Sees, The Arab League, Morssett Press, London, 1970, 24 pages.

Israelis versus Israel, The Arab League, London, 1970, 32 pages. The treatment of Arab Israelis – fifty years ago.

Solidarity with Palestine in Britain

Palestine Solidarity Campaign

Fedayeen, Volume 1, No 2, October 1969, Palestine Solidarity Campaign, London, 1969, 8 pages.

Fedayeen, Volume 2, No 1, January 1970, Palestine Solidarity Campaign, London, 1970, 8 pages.

Fedayeen, Volume 2, No 2, March 1970, Palestine Solidarity Campaign, London, 1970, 10 pages.

Fedayeen, Volume 2, No 3, May 1970, Palestine Solidarity Campaign, London, 1970, 8 pages.

Fedayeen, Volume 3, No 1, February 1971, Palestine Solidarity Campaign, London, 1971, 6 pages.

American Imperialism – Palestine to Vietnam, Palestine Solidarity No 1, Liverpool University Palestine Solidarity Campaign, early 1970s, 12 pages.

Revolution – journal of the London Revolutionary Socialist Students Federation

Palestine, Special ‘Revolution’ Supplement, 1969, 4 pages.

Committees for Solidarity with the Palestinian Revolution

Palestinian Revolution, Committees for Solidarity with the Palestinian Revolution, Manchester University Students Union, March 1970, 16 pages.

Israel Palestine Socialist Action Group (UK)

I don’t know how long this publication (or the organisation) lasted after issue No 5/6. It’s possible it lived and died when a small group were in university at the beginning of the 1970s.

Flashpoint, No 3, Autumn 1970, Israel Palestine Socialist Action Group (UK), Reading, 13 pages.

Flashpoint, No 4, Spring 1971, Israel Palestine Socialist Action Group (UK), Reading, 20 pages.

Flashpoint, double issue Nos 5 and 6, Summer 1971/Winter 1971/2, Israel Palestine Socialist Action Group (UK), Reading, 23 pages.

American Solidarity with Palestine

The Middle East Newsletter was the journal of the Americans for Justice in the Middle East.

Middle East Newsletter, Volume 2, No 9, November 1968, Beirut, 1968, 12 pages.

Middle East Newsletter, Volume 3, No 4, May-June 1969, Beirut, 1969, 12 pages.

Middle East Newsletter, Volume 3, Nos 5-6, September 1969, Beirut, 1969, 16 pages.

Middle East Newsletter, Volume 4, Nos 1-2, March 1970, Beirut, 1970, 16 pages.

Middle East Newsletter, Volume 4, No 3, April 1970, Beirut, 1970, 16 pages.

Middle East Newsletter, Volume 4, Nos 4-5 July 1970, Beirut, 1970, 16 pages.

Middle East Newsletter, Volume 4, Nos 4-5 July 1970 – Supplement, Beirut, 1970, 4 pages.

Butting in, butting out, The National Observer, Monday June 22, 1970, Supplement to Middle East Newsletter Volume 4, Nos 4-5, 1970, 1 page.

Middle East Newsletter, Volume 4, Nos 6-7 August-September 1970, Beirut, 1970, 12 pages.

Middle East Newsletter, Volume 5, No 1, January 1971, Beirut, 1971, 16 pages.

General

Information Bulletin, No 10, 1968, Communist Party of Israel Central Committee – Tel Aviv, October 1968, 44 pages. Theses for the Sixteenth Congress of the Communist Party of Israel: Communism – Democracy – The Jewish People by Moshe Sneh.

Grim reports of repression in Israel-occupied lands, EC Hodgkin, 1969, 4 pages. This article was first published in ‘The Times’ on October 1968. It was then reproduced as an official document of the United Nations Security Council (number 5/9501, dated November 10 1969).

Hands off our people in Jordan, Committee for the Defence of the Rights of the Palestinian People, London, 1970, 1 page.

Israel’s Threat to Judaism – In Palestine, Zionism v Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Rabbi Elmer Berger, A speech delivered to the Irish Arab Society, Dublin, 5th February 1970, Irish Arab Society, Dublin, 1970, 22 pages.

Nayef Hawatmeh, General Secretary of the Democratic Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, Interview with the Lebanese newspaper Al-Beiraq on 17th April 1974, Committee for the Defence of the Rights of the Palestinian People, London, 1974, 28 pages.

Palestine, Yusef Sayegh, Free Palestine, London, nd, 22 pages.

Programme for National Palestinian Unity, Naim Ashhab, Political Bureau Member of the Central Committee of the Jordanian Communist Party, early 1970s, 8 pages.

The question of Palestine, Edward W. Said, Vintage Books, New York, 1980, 292 pages.

One Jerusalem, Yael Guiladi, Keter Publishing House, Jerusalem, 1983, 75 pages.

Israel – The Political System, Israel Information Centre, Jerusalem, 1988, 31 pages. How Israel saw itself at the end of the 1980s.

Peace and its discontents: essays on Palestine and the Middle East peace process’, Edward W. Said, Vintage Books, New York, 1996, 226 pages.

The origin of the Palestine-Israel conflict, Third Edition (including Intifada 2000), published by Jews for Justice in the Middle East, distributed by If Americans Knew, 2000?,40 pages.

The ethnic cleansing of Palestine, Ilan Pappe, Oneworld Publications, Oxford, 2006), 384 pages.

The Palestinians: From Peasants to Revolutionaries, Rosemary Sayigh, Zed Books, London, 2008, 257 pages.

Our vision for Liberation: engaged Palestinian leaders and intellectuals speak out, edited by Ramzy Baroud and Ilan Pappe, Clarity Press, 2022, 426 pages.

Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP)

Strategy for the Liberation of Palestine, PFLP, originally published in 1969. This edition, (Utrecht: Foreign Languages Press, 2017), 160 pages, includes a new introduction by the PFLP, and also the brief Founding Document of the PFLP (December 11, 1967).

The decline of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine: A Historical Analysis, by Terry James Buck, n.d. but from about 2012, 121 pages. This interesting volume appears to be a thesis for an advanced degree, but the school and other information is not included here.

Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (DFLP)

Three Essays by the Democratic Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine [Original name for the organization]: On Terrorism; Role of the Party; and, Leninism vs. Zionism. In a single pamphlet, c. 1970, 17 pages.

May 12, 2021 Statement: DFLP condemns the heinous Israeli crime that targeted unarmed citizens, including children, and mourns the martyrs of the aggression on Gaza, 1 page.

Statement by Fouad Baker on October 3, 2023: Full [U.N.] Membership of the State of Palestine: Problems and Solutions, 4 pages.

September 12, 2023 Statement: What is happening in Ain al-Hilweh Camp? [in Lebanon], by Fouad Baker, 2 pages.

Statement from Mid-2023 (not dated): Forced and Mass Displacement of the Palestinian People; an Essential Pillar of the Zionist Project, 2 pages.

On Israeli Fascism

Einstein Letter on Israel, a public letter from Albert Einstein and others to the New York Times, published December 4, 1948, 3 pages.

Palestinian Refugees

Palestinian refugees right to return and repatriation, Mazin Qumsiyeh, n.d. (but 2002 or a bit later), 40 pages.

More on Palestine

View of the world

Ukraine – what you’re not told

We 66 British academics and Israeli citizens reject the government’s imposition of the IHRA

More on Palestine

View of the world

Ukraine – what you’re not told

We 66 British academics and Israeli citizens reject the government’s imposition of the IHRA

The flawed definition threatens not only the fight against antisemitism, but Palestinian self-determination, academic freedom and our right to criticise the Israeli government.

Introduction

The open letter presented below was first published at the beginning of February 2021. The version here was published on the the Vashti Media website on 4th February 2021. It is reproduced here exactly as it was there.

We, British academics and Israeli citizens, strongly oppose the government’s imposition of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) Working Definition of Antisemitism on universities in England, and call on all academic senates to reject it.

We represent a diverse cross-disciplinary, cross-ethnic, and cross-generational group. We all share an extended history of struggles against racism. Accordingly, we have been critical of Israel’s prolonged policies of occupation, dispossession, segregation, and discrimination directed at the Palestinian population. Our perspective is deeply informed by the multiple genocides of modern times, in particular the Holocaust, in which many of us lost family members. The lesson we are determined to draw from history is of a committed struggle against all forms of racism.

It is precisely because of these personal, scholarly and political perspectives that we are perturbed by the letter sent to our vice-chancellors by Gavin Williamson, secretary of state for education, on 9 October 2020. Explicitly threatening to withhold funds, the letter pressures universities to adopt the controversial IHRA definition. Fighting antisemitism in all its forms is an absolute must. Yet the IHRA document is inherently flawed, and in ways that undermine this fight. In addition, it threatens free speech and academic freedom and constitutes an attack on both the Palestinian right to self-determination, and the struggle to democratise Israel.

The IHRA has been criticised on numerous occasions. Here, we touch on some of its aspects that are particularly distressing in the context of higher education. The document is in two parts. The first, quoted in Williamson’s letter, is a definition of antisemitism:

Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.

This formulation is both vague in language and lacking in content, to the point of being unusable. On the one hand, it relies on unclear terms such as “certain perception” and “may be expressed as hatred”. On the other hand, it fails to mention key issues such as “prejudice” or “discrimination”. Crucially, this “definition” is considerably weaker and less effective than antiracist regulations and laws already in force, or in development, in the university sector.

Moreover, the government’s pressure on higher education institutions to adopt a definition for only one sort of racism singles out people of Jewish descent as deserving greater protection than others who regularly endure nowadays equal or more grievous manifestations of racism and discrimination.

The second part of the IHRA presents what it describes as eleven examples of contemporary antisemitism, seven of which refer to the state of Israel. Some of these mischaracterise antisemitism. They likewise have a chilling effect on university staff and students legitimately wishing to criticise Israel’s oppression of Palestinians or to study the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Finally, they interfere with our right as Israeli citizens to participate freely in the Israeli political process.

To illustrate, one example of antisemitism is “[to claim] that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour”. Another antisemitic act, according to the document, is “requiring of [Israel] … a behaviour not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation”. Surely it should be legitimate, not least in a university setting, to debate whether Israel, as a self-proclaimed Jewish state, is “a racist endeavour”, or a “democratic nation”?

Currently, the population under Israel’s control comprises 14 million people. Nearly 5 million of those lack basic rights. Of the remaining 9 million, 21% (around 1.8 million) have been systematically discriminated against since the state’s establishment.

This discrimination manifests itself in dozens of laws and policies concerning property rights, education, and access to land and resources. All 6.8 million people thus prevented from full democratic participation are non-Jews. Emblematic of this discrimination is the Law of Return, which entitles all Jews – and only Jews – living anywhere in the world to migrate to Israel and acquire Israeli citizenship, a right extendable to descendants and spouses. At the same time, millions of Palestinians and their descendants, who have been displaced or exiled, are denied the right to return to their homeland.

Such discriminatory legislation and state practices in other contemporary or historical political systems – ranging from China to the USA or Australia – are legitimately and regularly scrutinised by scholars and the general public. They are variously criticised as forms of institutional racism, and compared to certain fascist regimes, including that of pre-1939 Germany; historical analogies are a standard tool in academic research. However, according to the education secretary, only those concerning the State of Israel are now forbidden to scholars and students in England. No state should be shielded from such legitimate scholarly discussion.

Furthermore, while the IHRA document considers any “comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis” a form of antisemitism, many in the Israeli political centre and left have often drawn such comparisons. One recent example is a statement [link broken in the original] by Yair Golan, member of Knesset and former deputy chief of the general staff of the Israeli military, in 2016. Another is the comparison between Israel and “Nazism in its early stages” made in 2018 by the Israel Prize laureate Professor Zeev Sternhell, a renowned Israeli historian and political scientist who was, until his recent death, a world-leading theorist of fascism. Such comparisons are also made regularly by the editorials of the leading Israeli newspaper, Haaretz.

The use of such analogies is hardly new. In late 1948, a prominent group of Jewish intellectuals and Rabbis, including Albert Einstein and Hannah Arendt, published a long analysis in the New York Times accusing Menachem Begin, Israel’s future prime minister, of leading ”a political party closely akin in its organization, methods, political philosophy and social appeal to the Nazi and Fascist parties.”

With its eleven “illustrative examples”, the IHRA definition has already been used to repress freedom of speech and academic freedom (see here, here and here). Alarmingly, it has served to frame the struggle against Israel’s occupation and dispossession as antisemitic. As recently stated in a letter to the Guardian by 122 Palestinian and Arab intellectuals:

We believe that no right to self-determination should include the right to uproot another people and prevent them from returning to their land, or any other means of securing a demographic majority within the state. The demand by Palestinians for their right of return to the land from which they themselves, their parents and their grandparents were expelled cannot be construed as antisemitic… It is a right recognized by international law as represented in UN general assembly resolution 194 of 1948… To level a charge of antisemitism against anyone who regards the existing state of Israel as racist, notwithstanding the actual institutional and constitutional discrimination upon which it is based, amounts to granting Israel absolute impunity.

In her recent letter endorsing the imposition of the IHRA on universities in England, Kate Green, MP and shadow secretary of state for education, states that “[w]e can only [fight antisemitism] by listening to and engaging with the Jewish community.” However, as Israeli citizens settled in the UK, many of us of Jewish descent, and alongside many in the UK’s Jewish community, we demand that our voice, too, be heard: the IHRA document is a step in the wrong direction. It singles out the persecution of Jews; it inhibits free speech and academic freedom; it deprives Palestinians of a legitimate voice within the UK public space; and, finally, it inhibits us, as Israeli nationals, from exercising our democratic right to challenge our government.

For these and other reasons, even the lead drafter of the IHRA, Kenneth Stern, has publicly warned:

Right-wing Jewish groups took the “working definition”, which had some examples about Israel …, and decided to weaponize it. … [This document] was never intended to be a campus hate speech code … but [at the hands of the Right it has been used as] an attack on academic freedom and free speech, and will harm not only pro-Palestinian advocates, but also Jewish students and faculty, and the academy itself. … I’m a Zionist. But on … campus, where the purpose is to explore ideas, anti-Zionists have a right to free expression. … Further, there’s a debate inside the Jewish community whether being Jewish requires one to be a Zionist. I don’t know if this question can be resolved, but it should frighten all Jews that the government is essentially defining the answer for us.

These concerns are shared by many others, including hundreds of UK students, scholars of antisemitism and racism, and numerous Palestinian, Jewish and social justice groups and campaigners in the UK and around the world, such as the Institute of Race Relations, Liberty, former Court of Appeal judge Sir Stephen Sedley and Rabbi Laura Janner-Klausner.

UK universities must remain firm in their commitment to academic freedom and freedom of speech, and to the fight against all forms of racism, including antisemitism. The flawed IHRA definition does a disservice to both of these goals. We therefore call on academic senates in England to reject the governmental decree to adopt it or, where adopted already, to revoke it.

Signed,

Professor Hagit Borer FBA, Queen Mary University of London
Dr Moshe Behar, University of Manchester
Dr Yonatan Shemmer, University of Sheffield
Dr Hedi Viterbo, Queen Mary University of London
Dr Yael Friedman, University of Portsmouth
Dr Ophira Gamliel, University of Glasgow
Dr Moriel Ram, Newcastle University
Professor Neve Gordon, Queen Mary University of London
Professor Emeritus Moshé Machover, King’s College London
Dr Catherine Rottenberg, University of Nottingham
PhD Candidate Daphna Baram, Lancaster University
Dr Yuval Evri, King’s College London
Dr Yohai Hakak, Brunel University London
Dr Judit Druks, University College London
PhD Candidate Edith Pick, Queen Mary University of London
Professor Emeritus Avi Shlaim FBA, Oxford University
Dr Merav Amir, Queen’s University Belfast
Dr Hagar Kotef, SOAS, University of London
Professor Emerita, Nira Yuval-Davis, University of East London, recipient of the 2018 International Sociological Association Distinguished Award for Excellence in Research and Practice
Dr Assaf Givati, King’s College London
Professor Yossef Rapoport, Queen Mary University of London
Professor Haim Yacobi, University College London
Professor Gilat Levy, London School of Economics
Dr Noam Leshem, Durham University
Dr Chana Morgenstern, University of Cambridge
Professor Amir Paz-Fuchs, University of Sussex
PhD Candidate Maayan Niezna, University of Kent
Professor Emeritus, Ephraim Nimni, Queen’s University Belfast
Dr Eytan Zweig, University of York
Dr Anat Pick, Queen Mary, University of London
Professor Joseph Raz FBA, KCL, winner of the 2018 Tang Prize for the Rule of Law
Dr Itamar Kastner, University of Edinburgh
Professor Dori Kimel, University of Oxford
Professor Eyal Weizman MBE FBA, Goldsmiths, University of London
Dr Daniel Mann, King’s College London
Dr Shaul Bar-Haim, University of Essex
Dr Idit Nathan, University of the Arts London
Dr Ariel Caine, Goldsmiths University of London
Professor Ilan Pappé, University of Exeter
Professor Oreet Ashery, University of Oxford, recipient of a 2020 Turner Bursary
Dr Jon Simons, Retired
Dr Noam Maggor, Queen Mary University of London
Dr Pil Kollectiv, University of Reading, Fellow of the HEA
Dr Galia Kollectiv, University of Reading, Fellow of the HEA
Dr Maayan Geva, University of Roehampton
Dr Adi Kuntsman, Manchester Metropolitan University
Dr Shaul Mitelpunkt, University of York
Dr Daniel Rubinstein, Central Saint Martins, University of the Arts, London
Dr Tamar Keren-Portnoy, University of York
Dr Yael Padan, University College London
Dr Roman Vater, University of Cambridge
Dr Shai Kassirer, University Of Brighton
PhD Candidate Shira Wachsmann, Royal College of Art
Professor Oren Yiftachel, University College London
Professor Erez Levon, Queen Mary University of London
Professor Amos Paran, University College London
Dr Raz Weiner, Queen Mary University of London
Dr Deborah Talmi, University of Cambridge
Dr Emerita Susie Malka Kaneti Barry, Brunel University
PhD Candidate Ronit Matar, University of Essex
PhD Candidate Michal Rotem, Queen Mary University of London
Dr Mollie Gerver, University of Essex
Professor Haim Bresheeth-Zabner, SOAS
PhD candidate Lior Suchoy, Imperial College London
Dr Michal Sapir, Independent
Dr Uri Davis, University of Exeter & Al-Quds University

More on Palestine

View of the world

Ukraine – what you’re not told