Jean Bricmont and The De-Zionization of the American Mind - The anti-US ravings of an arrogant man

Prof. Jean Bricmont of the Catholic University of Louvain, Belgium, has an ugly paper in Counterpunch (see Counterpunch: A Neo Nazi Magazine) in which he advocates the de-Zionisation of the American mind. He deems this would have a “greatly humanizing effect on American culture” and has the gall to lecture the American people, the American Government, the “unsavory people” of the American Right and even … the American Left! All have superbly ignored the ravings of an unsufferably arrogant man for whom Americans are Zionized brainwashed fools who have relinquished self-determination to the benefit of the Lobby.

Bricmont wants Israeli’s feeling of superiority shattered and believes that “Americans have a great responsibility is doing half of the job, the one concerning kneejerk U.S. support.” One can only guess who should be doing the other half of the job. Another ominous remark: “And that is also why it is easy to dismiss its strength by saying, for instance, that, obviously, Jews don't control America. Sure, but direct control is not the way it works”. There we go!

The Israel Lobby by Walt and Mearsheimer pales in comparison with the violent and contemptuous anti-American (not to mention Jews and Israelis) tone of Bricmont’s paper. His great achievement is that every single sentence smacks of smugness, self-importance and contempt - the give-away words “hate” and “hatred” crop up ten times ...

The Professor also pairs up with Martial Demunter to give sparsely attended “cycles of conferences” in Brussels on “The USA, Zionism and Israel” while Demunter holds forth on “Guilt and Holocaust Manipulation”! A nice pair.

Here are some excerpts from How to Deal with The Lobby, The De-Zionization of the American Mind

“… the level of hatred that leads a large number of people to applaud an event like September 11 is peculiar to the Middle East. Indeed, the main political significance of September 11 did not derive from the number of people killed or even the spectacular achievement of the attackers, but from the fact that the attack was popular in large parts of the Middle East. That much was understood by Americans leaders and infuriated them. Such a level of hatred calls for explanation.

And there can be only one explanation: United States support for Israel. It is indeed Israel that is the main object of hatred, for reasons we shall describe, but since the United States uncritically supports Israel on almost every issue, constantly praises it as “the only democracy in the Middle East” and provides its main financial backing, the result is a “transfer” of hatred.

Why is Israel so hated? (…) the basic cause lies in the very principles on which that state is build. There are basically two arguments that have justified establishing the State of Israel in Palestine: one is that God gave that land to the Jews, and the other is the Holocaust. The first one is deeply insulting to people who are profoundly religious, like most Arabs, but of another creed. And, for the second, it amounts to making people pay for a crime that they did not commit.

Both arguments are deeply racist, with their claim that it is right for Jews, and only Jews, to set up a state in a land that would obviously be Arab, like Jordan or Lebanon, if not for the slow Zionist invasion. This is illustrated by the “law of return”: any Jew, anywhere, having no connection with Palestine whatsoever, and not suffering from the slightest persecution, can, if he so wishes, emigrate to Israel and easily become a citizen, while the inhabitants who fled in 1948, or their children, cannot. Add to that the fact that a city claimed to be Holy by three religions has become the “eternal capital of the Jewish people" (and only them) and one should start to understand the rage that all this provokes throughout the Arab and Muslim world.

It is precisely this racist aspect that infuriates most Arabs, even if they do not have any personal connection to Palestine (if they live, say, in the French banlieues). This situation delegitimizes the Arab regimes that are impotent in the face of the Zionist enemy and, after the defeat of the region's two main secular leaders, Nasser and Saddam Hussein (the latter thanks to the US), leads to the rise of religious fundamentalism. (…)

What protects the Israel lobby is the fact that anyone who would denounce an opponent funded by the Lobby as a quasi-agent of a foreign power would immediately be accused of anti-Semitism. In fact, imagine that Big Business is unhappy with the current U.S. policies (as it well may be) and wants to change them--how could they do it? Any criticism of Lobby influence on U.S. policy would immediately trigger the anti-Zionism-is-anti-Semitism accusation. (…)

Associated with this identification comes a systematically hostile view of the Arab and Muslim world, which both increases the lobby's effectiveness and is in part the result of its propaganda. Despite all the talk about anti-racism and “political correctness”, there is an almost total lack of understanding of the Arab viewpoint on Palestine, and, in particular, of the racist nature of the problem. It is this triple layer of control (selective funding, the anti-Semitism card, or rather canard, and the interiorization) that gives the lobby its peculiar strength. (And that is also why it is easy to dismiss its strength by saying, for instance, that, obviously, Jews don't control America. Sure, but direct control is not the way it works.) (…)

What should the Left do? Well, simple: treat Israel as it did South Africa and attack the Lobby. The reason Israel acts as it does is that it feels strong and that, in turn, is for two reasons: one is its “all-powerful army” (currently being tested in Lebanon, not conclusively yet); the other is the almost complete control over Washington policy-making, specially the Congress. Peace in the Middle East can only come when this feeling of Israeli superiority is shattered, and Americans have a great responsibility is doing half of the job, the one concerning kneejerk U.S. support.

Now, there are, in principle, two ways to do that: one is to appeal to American generosity, the other is to appeal to their self-interest. Both ways should be pursued, but the latter is not enough emphasized by the Left. (…) Also, if the United States were to distance itself from Israel, it would pursue policies opposed to the traditional ones, and far more humane. The other problem is that a large part of the Right (from Buchanan to Brzezinski) correctly sees American interests as being opposed of those of Israel, and the Left (understandably) does not like to make common cause with such people. But if a cause is just (and, in this case, urgent) it does not become less just because unsavory people endorse it (the same argument applies to genuine anti-Semitic hostility to Israel). The worst thing that the Left can do is to leave the monopoly of a just cause to the Right.

The Left cannot expect the American people to change radically overnight, abandon religious fundamentalism, give up oil addiction or embrace socialism. But a change of perspective in the Middle East is possible: the strength of the lobby is also its weakness, namely the naked king effect-everybody fears it, but the only reason to fear it is that everybody around us fears it. Left alone, it is powerless. To change that, one should systematically defend every politician, every columnist, every teacher, who is targeted by the lobby for his or her views or statements, irrespective of their general political outlook (to take an analogy, act as civil libertarians do with respect to free speech). (…)

Rolling back the lobby would necessitate a change of the American mentality with respect to the people of the Middle East, and to Islam, like ending the Vietnam war required a change in the way Asians were looked at. But that alone would have a greatly humanizing effect on American culture. (…)

It is true that a change in the U.S. policy with respect to the Israel-Palestine conflict would change nothing about traditional imperialism-- the United States would still support traditional elites everywhere, and press countries to provide a “favorable investment climate”. But the conflict in the Middle East, involving Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, Syria, Palestine, has all the aspects of a religious war-with Islam on one side and Zionism as a secular Western religion on the other. And wars of religion tend to be the most brutal and uncontrollable of all wars. What is at stake in the de-Zionization of the American mind is not only the fate of the unfortunate inhabitants of Palestine but also unspeakable miseries for the people of that region and maybe of the rest of the world. The ultimate irony in all this is that the fate of much of the world depends of the American people exercizing their right to self-determination, which, of course, they should.”

See:
Israel on trial in Brussels: Iranian and Syrian Ambassadors give standing ovation to judges

Israel: Reality and Perception, by Francisco Gomes

"Ruling another nation is neither an ambition nor is it a policy of Israel. Peace is at the core of Jewish tradition and is also at the centre of Israel’s goals as a state."

Francisco Gomes wrote a remarkable and exceptionally well-researched article on Israel - it is well worth reading in full. It appeared in the May edition of The Brit, a monthly newspaper published in Madeira.

"There is little doubt that the perception that people have of the world they live in and of the actors that shape it is influenced by media coverage as well as by the opinion-makers that are chosen by the major news channels to comment the various events that define life on the planet. In other words, the world, as we know it, is not, for the most part, the result of our direct contact with this or that reality, but the outcome of what we hear and see reported in regional, national and international media. This fact must encourage us to think critically about the news reported to us on an almost-constant basis and to question what is reported by journalist and commentators around the world.

At the present time, very few issues have been more debated, analysed, studied, discussed, revised, described, considered, reported on or commented on than the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Ever since the 1948 Israeli Declaration of Independence – which we celebrate this month – and the ensuing conflicts between the state of Israel and Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, the Palestinians and Hezbollah, the unstable relation between Arabs and Jews has dominated international news. However, with the exception of some media channels in the United States and Europe, which have consistently thrived to provide their audience with an objective depiction of Israel, the image that is projected to the international arena of that state is a far cry from reality.

It is a well-known fact that the accuracy of any conclusion – regardless of whether it is taken at the international political level or at the local level – is intrinsically associated to the quality of the information on which it is based. So, it is only fair that we take our time to divulge some interesting facts about the history of Israel, the relation between Jews and Arabs and the impacts of the often-miscalled “Israeli occupation” of the Palestinian territories and its people. We feel such information is necessary in order for the general public to gain a more honest understanding of the human, social and political dynamics that shape that region of the world.

Concerning Israeli history, a theme that is often discussed in that of nationhood. In this regard, it is important to note that the notion of a Jewish nationhood was formed at about 1312 BCE, two thousand years before the rise of Islam. In contrast, Arab refugees in Israel only began identifying themselves as part of a Palestinian people in 1967, two decades after the establishment of the modern state of Israel.

Likewise, since the Jewish conquest in 1272 BCE, Jews have had dominion over the land they presently occupy for one thousand years, with a continuous presence in the territory for the past three thousand years. Arabs only have had control of Israel twice, namely from 634 until the Crusader Invasion in June 1099 and from 1292 until 1517, when they were displaced by the Turkish Empire. Moreover, for over three thousand years, Jerusalem has been the Jewish capital. It has never been the capital of any Arab entity. Even when the Jordanians occupied the city, they never sought to make it their capital.

Concerning the relation between Jews and Arabs, one of the critical issues that has opposed both identities is that of refugees. On this topic, it is worth remembering that, in 1948, Arab leaders encouraged Arab refugees to leave Israel with the promise of purging the land of Jews. About six hundred thousand left the territory, sixty percent of which never saw an Israeli soldier. In contrast, Jewish refugees were forced to flee Arab lands due to Arab brutality, persecution and pogroms.

Also, Arab refugees were intentionally not absorbed or integrated into the Arab lands to which they fled, despite the vast Arab territory. In fact, out of the one hundred million refugees that have been created by events that occurred since World War II, Arab refugees are the only group in the world that has never been absorbed or integrated into their own people’s lands. This fact demonstrates a lack of understanding and thoughtfulness that is uncommon among people who basically share the same historical, cultural, racial, religious and ethnic bonds. In contrast, Jewish refugees were completely absorbed into Israel, a country no larger than the American state of New Jersey.

Moreover, in the Arab-Israeli conflict, the Arabs have been represented by eight separate nations, not including the Palestinians or Arab extremist organisations. These initiated all five wars that have been fought with the state and lost. Israel defended itself each time and won. Despite this situation, the diplomatic position of Israel has evolved and, in recent times, the Israeli government has embraced a diplomatic strategy that implies the establishment of two separate states, one Arab and one Jewish, living side-by-side. This position has not been reciprocated and, to this day, Article 15 of the Charter of the Palestine Liberation Organization still calls for the destruction of Israel, or, as it is phrased in the document, “the elimination of Zionism in Palestine.”

Furthermore, despite the much-talked international support for the Israeli cause, global response to the goals and needs of the Jewish people has been, in most cases, dismal. For example, of the one hundred and seventy five resolutions passed by the Security Council of the United Nations before 1990, ninety seven were directed against Israel. In addition, of the six hundred and ninety General Assembly resolutions voted on before 1990, four hundred and twenty nine were directed against Israel. What’s more, the United Nations was silent while fifty eight Jerusalem synagogues were destroyed by the Jordanians during their occupation of the territory, while the Jordanians systematically desecrated the ancient Jewish cemetery on the Mount of Olives and while they enforced an apartheid-like policy that prevented Jews from visiting the Temple Mount and the Western Wall.

Concerning the impacts of the “Israeli occupation” of the Palestinian territories, the deep contrast of the Palestinian living conditions before and after Israeli administration clearly suggests that it has been beneficial to the Palestinians living in the territory. For example, during twenty years of Arab rule, Palestinian male life expectancy grew from 42 to 44; during the next twenty years of Israeli administration, Palestinian male life expectancy grew from 44 to 63. Also, during twenty years of Arab rule, Palestinian female life expectancy grew from 45 to 46; during the next 20 years of Israeli administration, Palestinian female life expectancy grew from 46 to 67. Moreover, during twenty years of Arab rule, Palestinian infant mortality rate decreased from 200 per thousand to 170 per thousand; during the next twenty years of Israeli administration, Palestinian infant mortality rate decreased from 170 per thousand to 60 per thousand. In addition, during twenty years of Arab rule, Palestinian crude death rate decreased from 21 per thousand to 19 per thousand; during the next twenty years of Israeli administration, Palestinian crude death rate decreased from 19 per thousand to 6 per thousand. Finally, malaria, which existed in the Palestinian territories before 1967, was eliminated during Israeli administration.

At the infrastructural level, Israeli administration has also benefited the lives of many Palestinians. For example, before 1967, when Israel’s rule began, only 113 hospitals had been built in the territories. But, at the present time, that number has more than tripled, to about 400 hospitals. Also, before 1967, only 23 motherhood centres had been established. Today, more than six times as many can be found.

Israeli also more than tripled the number of Palestinian teachers and boosted the Palestinian educational system by establishing a number of universities. Among those universities were the College of Scientists, established in Abu Dis in 1982, the College of Social Welfare, established in El Bira in 1979, the College of Religion, established in Beit Hanina in 1978, and the Islamic College, established in Hebron in 1971. Nonetheless, this was not the only effect Israeli administration has on the Palestinian educational system and the Palestinian people. Before 1967, the percentage of illiterates on average had been 27.8% among men and 65.1% among women. At the present time, Israel has helped reduce illiteracy to less than 13% among men and to less than 35% among women.

In March 2008, in a speech before the Massachusetts state legislature, Tzipi Livni [photo], the Israeli Foreign Minister, stated, “Sometimes, there is a very big difference between Israel’s international image and its realities.” An objective consideration of the historical relation between Jews and Arabs and of the effects of Israeli administration on the Palestinian territories and its people amply confirms this assertion. Ruling another nation is neither an ambition nor is it a policy of Israel. Peace is at the core of Jewish tradition and is also at the centre of Israel’s goals as a state."

Posted with the permission of the author

BBC distorts Jewish refugee issue on website

From Point of No Return blog:

"The good news is that the Jewish refugees issue has made the BBC website at last. The bad? The BBC has managed to distort and belittle their plight. Here are one reader's angry comments, interposed with the BBC article.

Jewish groups from around the world are meeting in London to highlight the plight of Jews who left their homes in Arab nations after Israel was founded.

[They did not 'leave their homes' - they were actively oppressed by the states in which they were citizens. Many were imprisoned, and their belongings confiscated. It would be more honest to say "driven from their homes"]

The conference organisers, Justice for Jews, say they want to ensure the story of Jewish refugees is told, alongside that of Palestinians.The American-based group says around 850,000 Jews lived in Arab nations before Israel was founded in 1948.

[It is not just "the American-based group" who gives these figures - these figures are widely and reliably documented. This phrasing gives an intimation that it could be an exaggeration - I can provide you with links to sites that document precisely how many Jews were driven from each country.]

It says most were forced to flee due to hostility when Israel was created.

[There are plenty of personal accounts online. If you wish I can put you in touch with some of those who were driven out in this way and have ended up living here in the UK]

Justice for Jews, which campaigns for compensation for Jewish refugees from the Middle East, says the international community has always focused on Palestinian refugees and never given due attention to Jewish refugees.The BBC's Arab affairs analyst Magdi Abdelhadi says the subject is highly controversial as the numbers of Jews who left, and the conditions under which they left, are disputed.

[This is the first I have heard that that this is "highly controversial". Of course it does spoil the narrative of Palestinian refugees now it transpires that there were so many Jewish refugees, and they were actually absorbed into communities rather than kept as a political pawns. Could it be that the only refugees Magdi Abdelhadi wishes the world to know about are Palestinian?]

He says one undisputed fact is that Jews were part of Arab societies for centuries, where they were fully integrated in their societies, until Israel was established.

[They were part Arab societies, although many had dhimmi status. Dhimmi status, that of being a strictly second-class citizen, is not the same way as we understand 'fully integrated' in the UK. Magdi Abdelhadi is being disingenuous by somehow 'forgetting' this salient and crucial fact]

Some left because they were Zionists, others because of growing hostility towards them after the Arab-Israeli wars in 1948 and 1967, and there were also those who were encouraged to leave by the new Israeli state, our analyst adds.

[Jews, who had resided in the surrounding Arab states for centuries were 'reclassified' by the Arab states as Zionists, particularly at the time of the Six Day War. Having been thus labelled gave the Arab states a reason to oppress their loyal Jewish citizens. I feel you should maybe talk to some refugees who now reside here in UK because I know this flip assessment on the BBC site is both offensive and untrue.]

He says not all of them went to Israel - many went to France and America, where some of them still feel very passionately about the Arab cultures they grew up in."

An interesting anecdote from Ben Cohen on Z-Blog
See also:
How the Arab world lost its Jews, a book by Nathan Weinstock

French anger over anti-Semitic attack, by Devorah Lauter

Full article from JTA here

Latest brutal attack on a French Jewish teenager has reignited fear and anger in the local community.

"Angry and frightened Jewish youth gathered in the 19th district of northern Paris on Monday evening to show support for a 17-year-old Jewish boy who was brutally beaten with metal bars while on his way to synagogue Saturday evening.

Hospital officials said Monday that Rudy Haddad was temporarily out of a medically induced coma and was “doing better.”

But his improved conditon did little to quell anger among French Jews over the latest shock to their community. (...)

While Jewish leaders in the 19th district were discussing the possibility of an organized response to the incident, 150 Jewish youth and some adults spontaneously met near the scene of the crime on Monday for a second consecutive evening to protest the attack.

“It was senseless, and it could just as well have been me because I’m Jewish,” said David Sebban, 17, who spoke with his hands clasped before him, visibly angered and saddened.

As he spoke, a crowd of young Jews rushed to testify of their growing fears for their security in the neighborhood. Some said they would like to take revenge on the next group of “Arabs” they crossed, referring to Muslim immigrants of North African origin.

“When I go out, I go out with a big group, and if someone calls us a 'dirty Jew’, we fight them,” said David, 15, who declined to give his last name.

Most of the kipah-wearing boys and observant girls spoke soberly of increasing tensions in the neighborhood, which includes the largest Jewish community in Paris.

Though no official statistics exist, community leaders estimate that 25,000 to 30,000 Jews live in the 19th district, while roughly 200,000 live in Paris and its suburbs. (...)

Haddad's violent beating is a reminder of the 2006 anti-Semitic killing of Ilan Halimi, who was kidnapped and tortured before his body was left on a Paris street.

The latest incident has prompted some to question the French government’s response to the ever-present threat of anti-Semitism in French society. Some Jews in the 19th district expressed their frustration Monday with officials and the French media for declining to identify Saturday’s incident as clearly anti-Semitic.

“The government makes an effort,” said Joseph Cattan, 60. “But if everything they’ve done until now still hasn’t worked, it means they need to do more.” (...)

Other Jews said that police authorities and newspapers such as the daily Le Monde tended toward a purely gang-related explanation for the attack because they were ashamed of their failure to ensure the safety of the country’s Jewish population.

“They’ll try to do everything to turn this into a common offense,” said Rabbi Michel Bouskila, the 19th district Jewish Community Council president. “If we say it is anti-Semitic, it means they have failed, it says the government hasn’t done anything.” (...)

Some of the adults gathered around a tree-shaded intersection in the rue Petit, beside a kosher cafe, said they were aware that many of the country’s non-Jews accused them of “overreacting” to the threat of anti-Semitism.

“In the press they don’t talk about so many of the daily anti-Semitic incidents that happen because they’re not important enough, and because we’re so used to it, we don’t report most of them," said Patricia Tahar, 56, a mother of two. "It’s only the big, violent attacks that make it into the press, so of course the French don’t understand why we are scared.

“But if they knew what we lived through every day, the French would understand," she said. "I can’t take any risk with my children.”"

Read also by Devorah Lauter in JTA:
Jewish residents not surprised by jihadis in their neighborhood
Jews fleeing Paris suburbs for 'ghettos' where life is safer

Despite Sarkozy's good intentions, not much has changed

President Sarkozy's stance on Israel is indeed an improvement on his predecessors, but French media obsession with Israel remains unabated and their negative reporting feeds anti-semitism.

From TJP:

"Anti-Semitism contributed to Mimi Marks's decision to leave France 10 years ago, so it was with mixed feelings that she observed the pomp and ceremony surrounding the Israeli visit of French President Nicholas Sarkozy and his wife this week.

"I left France nearly 10 years ago, and every time I go back [anti-Semitism] gets worse and worse... it did affect my decision to come [to Israel]... We feel the situation [there] is out of control."

Still, Sarkozy's visit struck a chord with many French immigrants like Marks. She is one of 21,000 Jews who have made aliya from France in the last 10 years, according to The Jewish Agency.

In light of France's sometimes fragile relationship with its own Jewry, Sarkozy's support is especially significant.

"Jewish people like Sarkozy in France and also here," said Raphael Aouate, who made aliya from France three years ago. "He said good things about Jews and Israel. It's quite new, because [Jacques] Chirac was not at all like that. He was aggressive with Israel."

Sarkozy's agenda for his three-day trip contrasts significantly from that of his predecessor, whose presidential visit in 1996 was criticized in some quarters for directing its focus on the Arab population.

Many French Jews celebrate Sarkozy as a notable improvement for Israel and for the Jewish people, and are encouraged by his presence in the country.

"We all voted for [Sarkozy] because we thought he was able to bring a change to anti-Semitism and crime," Marks said. "He has a strong opinion against it."

But despite the public support of Sarkozy, many French olim believe it naive to claim that the situation for French Jews has improved since his election. In fact, just hours before Sarkozy's plane touched down at Ben-Gurion International Airport, a Jewish Parisian teenager was left comatose after what was deemed an anti-Semitic assault [Barbarism in Paris, Z-Word blog].

"I'm almost sure it would be an error to think things have changed," said Aouate, "You can't say that one man, even if he is the president of a nation, can change mentalities."

The visit to Israel by Sarkozy, a self-proclaimed friend of Israel, reflects the increasingly positive relationship between Israel and France, something many French Jews are happy about.

"Obviously it's good for France to have a good relationship with Israel," said Marks."

Coexistence: 77% of Arabs say won't replace Israel, by Reuven Weiss

Ynet News reports on findings pointing to peaceful coexistence and mutual respect between Israeli Jews and Arabs:

"Seventy-seven percent of the State of Israel's Arab citizens would rather live in the Jewish state than in any other country in the world, according to a new study titled "Coexistence in Israel".

The survey was conducted by the John Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University with the assistance of researchers from Haifa University.

The study was aimed at examining the relations between Israel's Jewish and Arab citizens on the State's 60th anniversary, and included 1,721 respondents.

The findings also revealed that a great majority of Israel's citizens (73% of the Jews and 94% of the Arabs) want to live in a society in which Arab and Jewish citizens have mutual respect and equal opportunities.

The study went on to show that 68% of Jewish citizens support teaching conversational Arabic in Jewish schools to help bring Arab and Jewish citizens together, and 69% believe contributing to coexistence is a personal responsibility.

Sixty-six percent of Jewish citizens and 84% of Arab citizens believe the Israeli government investments should begin now, and not wait until the end of the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians.

The project's lead researcher, Professor Todd L. Pittinsky, research director of the Harvard Kennedy School's Center for Public Leadership (CPL), said in a press release, "These data support what we’ve found in our allophilia research around the world—evidence of interest, comfort, and affection among some, even in communities in conflict."

Pittinsky notes that much media coverage focuses on the divisions between Jewish and Arab citizens in Israel, and not enough on the sincere and concerted efforts to coexist peacefully."

London parley to highlight plight of Jews from Arab lands, by Jonny Paul

Full article in TJP:

"A conference highlighting the plight of the Jews who left, or fled, Arab countries will take place in London this week, along with the first ever hearing in Parliament on Jewish refugees from Arab lands. (...)

"When the issue of refugees is raised within the context of the Middle East, people invariably refer to Palestinian refugees," Justice for Jews said in a statement. "There is almost no awareness of the fact that 850,000 Jews living in Arab countries were forced out of their homes during the period surrounding Israel's creation."

The congress aims to highlight the human rights violations and the individual and communal losses suffered by members of Jewish communities that had lived for centuries in the Middle East, North Africa and Gulf and who "were stripped of their jobs, businesses, homes, passports and ancient heritage by most Arab governments," according to the organizers of the two-day conference.

The conference's aims include conducting public education programs on the heritage and rights of former Jewish refugees from Arab countries, registering family history narratives, and cataloging communal and individual losses.

"Jews are one of the indigenous peoples of the Middle East and there have been ancient Jewish communities in countries such as Iraq for over 2,500 years, more than a millennium before the rise of Islam," organizers said.

"Today these historic Jewish communities have been effectively destroyed, with almost no recognition from the international community or the Arab countries themselves. From a Jewish population in the Arab Middle East of 886,000 in the year 1948 in places like Algeria, Morocco and Yemen, now there are less than 8,000 Jews living in Arab countries."

Organized by Congress of Justice for Jews from Arab Countries in association with the Board of Deputies of British Jews, the joint parliament hearing will be convened by Labor Party MP John Mann and Labor peer Lord Anderson of Swansea.

This joint briefing will highlight that two refugee populations emerged as a result of the Arab-Israeli conflict and will look at the most viable and appropriate role the UK should play in seeking to resolve issues affecting all Middle East refugees, the congress said."

Related:
How the Arab world lost its Jews, a book by Nathan Weinstock