Talk:History of the Jews in Iraq

Cultural Influences

This article should include additional information regarding the cultural impacts of Jewish migration away from Iraq. In particular, it can examine items such as laffa, an Israeli flatbread nicknamed Iraqi pita due to its roots in Iraq. Laffa was brought to Israel by Jewish Iraqi migrants in the 1950s. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oliverzhang29 (talk • contribs) 14:16, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

References

This article needs citations and referencing from the Early biblical period section to the Modern Iraq section. And the writing style needs to be reviewed and rewritten in an encyclopedic style. Xevorim (talk) 19:18, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

False information

The intro says that , "the Persians persecuted the Iraqi Jews". This is arab nationalist propoganda. The Persians always gave their Jewish populations equal rights and freedom. I want to see evidence and the proper link that supports this false claim. It just doesn't make any sense. Why would PERSIANS be persecuting Iraqi (Arab) Jews. We have always had a large Iranian Jewish population, if we were going to "persecute" anyone it would be in our own country. Therefore I am removing the false claims. Dariush4444 14:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Al-Andalus's edits

First, I object to being accused of censorship, I asked for sources, and when you provided them, I kept the information that was supported and changed the ones that weren't.

Affirm that you weren't previously aware of the legitimacy of content that I had contributed. You really didn't know that most Iraqi Jews, and most Mizrahi Jews for that matter, were anti-Zionist before the intrusion of European Jews into the region. Al-Andalus 09:03, 21 December 2005 (UTC).

First, you did not simply say that they were anti-Zionist, but rather that they rejected and condemned the establishment of Israel. Also, Zionism was a crime in Iraq after 1948, long before the bombings, and perhaps this should be mentioned. --Goodoldpolonius2 14:52, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Secondly, I am worried that these sources are being used far too liberally. Certainly the majority of Iraqi Jews were not Zionists, but the statement "they rejected and condemned the establishment of the Jewish state" seems to be totally unsupported -- the Iraqi Communist Party, which had Jewish members, protested the establishment of Israel according to the book review, but that hardly supports your claim. This is a big statement, please prove that this was true of the mass of Iraqi Jews, and see below.

The elders of Iraqi Jewery submited to the United Nations a statement of condemnation and rejection to the establishment of a "Jewish State". Tell me you didn't know this? Al-Andalus 09:03, 21 December 2005 (UTC).

No I did not. Could you please provide a source? I have found references to attempts by the Iraqi Jewish leadership to assure the Iraqi government that they did not have dual loyalties to Israel in 1948, but A History of Iraq by Charles Trip (Cambridge University Press) says that this was in reaction to increasing assaults on the Jewish community by the Iraqi leadership, and did not stop rising anti-JEwish feeling. Goodoldpolonius2 14:52, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Third, you used the Philip Mendes piece you found to support the statement: " Accusations by Iraqi Jewry on the implication of Israeli Zionist terrorists, intent on driving unwilling Jewish immigration to the then newly created Jewish state, have been dismissed by Israel." This is a sketchy use of the source, however, because Mendes actually says that the evidence is against the idea of conspiracy, not for it, as your insertion implies. Further, you cite him later that two Jews were arrested for the crime, leaving out the fact that Mendes says that the accused were tortured and made to confess, and that the perpetrator was almost certainly an anti-Jewish Iraqi party.

As my edit summary specifies, I used one right-winged Jewish source, one left-winged Jewish source, and one centre-right winged Jewish source. The content used from all three were taken historically docuented portions of the sources. I specificallly chose to ignore the each authors independant commentary and personal view. In all three sources, the authors also make their own conclusions (each concluding with their left, right and centre leanings), but I stopped from including any of this. You, however, chose to additionally include the authors' independant comentary, but only from the right-winged source. Interesting that.

Even the author which is of a right leaning, when he presented his facts he nonetheless maintains his POV in check. Only then does he sepcify that although there is evidence (which he presents) that suggests that Zionist terrorists were responsable, it is only in his opinion that the Zionist terrorists were not responsible. You, however, have also added that opinion (which again, was specifically identified as an opinion by the author) and basically further asserted that it is at the end of the day the correct assertion of the two available conclusions. Let's be neutral, and present it as it stands to this day, that it has neither been proven nor disproven, and not push either view. As it is, it has been hard enough to get you to even allow both views to be shown. Al-Andalus 09:03, 21 December 2005 (UTC).

But the problem is that you are using your own sources selectively. The Mendes piece was your "centre-wing" source, which you draw from extensively elsewhere, and he argues against the idea of a conspiracy. Though you use his work extensively (and correctly) when it supports your point (that Iraqi Jews thought of themselves as Arabs of Jewish religion) you deleted the section where he said that the conspiracy story was unlikely, you deleted the caveats he provided to evidence of the conspiracy story as well (the torture of the arrested men, the history of bomb-throwing, etc). It was not an opinion, instead the section you deleted referenced, with notes, a well-known historian of Iraqi Jewish exodus, along with a couple other scholars. I find it strange that you accuse me of deleting views when you erased the counter argument from your own cited source without an explanation. You seem to have radically different standards of proof for material you support (where a cite to a book review in the New Left Review is good) and those you don't (the opinions of a historian). I am in favor of a balanced view as well, so please don't delete sourced material. --Goodoldpolonius2 14:52, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I am going to continue to ask you to provide sources for your work, and I hope that you stop the accusations about my motives, since I could similarly question you about how you are using the sources you are finding. I think we can work together to make this a better article, but more care needs to be taken with unsurported claims.--Goodoldpolonius2 06:25, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I think the problem is that you believe everything that people contribute can be linked to internet-based sources. I'm sorry, but when I contribute, most times it's from sources other than internet-based ones. Furthermore, it's also recompiled from my earlier years of education, and remembering where exactly each piece of information came from can be problemtatic (I have a lot of information stored in my pretty little head). Nevertheless, I'm affraid I will have to search for net-based sources to back up my non-net-based sourced information jut to humour you. Al-Andalus 09:12, 21 December 2005 (UTC).

No, it does not need to be internet linked -- Zero's use of Morris, offline though it was, is fine. The problem is that you did not provide any scholarly sources, that the sources you then provided were not very strong, and saying that your information was "recompiled from my earlier years of education" is not enough. You are not "humoring me" in providing sources -- so far, your sources have not supported your contentions, and if you are going to continue to make assertions, you have to back them up. You keep implying that I am being intellectually dishonest here -- I am not, I am trying to make this information well-referenced, not based on "information stored in your pretty little head," so lets try to be civil.

Basically, the consensus history seems clear here: The Jews in Iraq had a long history and considered themselves Jewish Arabs first, and were generally not Zionists. By 1941, the situation for the Jews in Iraq grew precarious with the Farhud being the first of a series of violent events against the community. With 1948 and the birth of Israel, tensions rose to a head and Zionism became a capital crime, movements of Iraqi Jews were restricted, they were banned from government posts, and members of the community were harassed. While many Iraqi Jews would have probably been happy to stay in Iraq, increasing persecution made that increasingly unlikely. Some Iraqi Jews and commentators blame the 1950 bombings, which were the final straw for the community, on Israeli or Zionist agents, but most historians think that the bombings were carried out by Iraqis. Though two Jews were later tried and executed for a later bombings (although not the 1950 bombings), there is substantial evidence that they were tortured and that the convictions were false. The controversy of the bombings continues to the present day.

We can work together to build an accurate account, but you need to include information on both sides of the event, and not skip over evidence by your own sources that contradicts your POV.Goodoldpolonius2 14:52, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Personally I have no patience for POV pushing; I've reverted it, awaiting proper sourcing. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:32, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Change in attitudes in the 1930s

The current language reads: However, as a consequece of world tribulations of the time which came to influce politics in Iraq, and following the end of the British mandate, the situation of the Jews in Iraq changed in the 1930s I think that we can do a better job explaining the reason for this.

Al-Andalus rightly pointed out that in the 1920s and before, Arab nationalism was inclusive, but, tragicly for Iraqi Jews, that started to change in the 1930s due to a number of factors. An excellent summary is given in Simon's Rethinking Arab Nationalism (Columbia University Press), from the section on Iraq: "The distinctions made by early Arab nationalists between the Jewish religion and political Zionism began to blur in the 1930s, especially after 1936 with the infiltration of Nazi propaganda, and when Iraqi support for Palestinian Arabs coalesced with its pan-Arab foreign policy." (p 102) Simon then goes on to explain how Iraqi Jews were then required to make statements of loyalty, and how Iraq forbade the teaching of Jewish history or Hebrew. The account then discusses how the Farhud became the turning point for Iraqi Jews, afterwards, many became Zionists (though they still had to denounce Zionism to graduate from school, etc), or joined the Communist Party or liberal opposition groups.

So, I would propose changing the existing sentence to this: In the 1930s, the situation of the Jews in Iraq worsened. Previosuly, the growing Iraqi Arab nationalist sentiment included Iraqi Jews as fellow Arabs, but these views changed with the introduction of Nazi propaganda and the ongoing conflict in the Palestinian Mandate. Despite protestations of their loyalty to Iraq, Iraqi Jews were increasingly subject to discrimination and harsh laws. Then we can use the existing language about the events of 1934 and the Farhud. --Goodoldpolonius2 16:56, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm quite happy with that wording. It sets out the truth as it is, makes no other implications, and retains the essence of my edit with the only difference being that your edition is specific. My only complaint is with the word "worsened". For things to have "worsened" they must have already been quite bad, which is a notion which all accounts disagree with; most of all the elevated position of Iraqi Jews, and the testimony of Iraqi Jews themselves prior to all the changes due to world politics (which was a tragedy). I would stil favour "changed". Al-Andalus 04:25, 23 December 2005 (UTC).

I've made the edit to reflet your changes, with the one change of the word "worsened". I also removed "Additionally, early Labor Zionism mostly concentrated on the Jews of Europe, skipping Iraqi Jews because of their lack of interest in agriculture. The result was that "Until World War II, Zionism made little headway because few Iraqi Jews were interested in the socialist ideal of manual labor in Palestine." (Simon, Reguer, and Laskier, p 364)" Is this really relevant? It seems that the only purpose for this is to imply that the identification of Iraqi Jewry was as a result of the neglect of Zionists. This assumption is a bit arrogant. Zionism itself is a European concept. It implies the POV that the Jews of Iraq were in their ignorance identifying erroneously. That the identity of Jews (in this case Iraqi Jews) as being people X (in this case Arabs) of the Jewish faith is incorrect, is an opinion of European Zionism. In the context of the history of European Jewry (and hence Zionism) perhaps it is true that it was "incorrect" for European Jewry to identify as Germans of the Jewish faith or Poles of the Jewish faith (for example), but the evolution of Iraqi Jewry (and other non-European Jewry) is independant from the circumstances and the atmosphere of European Jewry and Zionism, and thus should not be compared and contrasted with it, as they are entirely different. The identification of non-European Jews - not only Iraqis - should infact be viewed independant of Zionism to be assessed in it's proper context. Since the evolution of their (in this case Iraqi Jewry) identities were indeed independant of European Zionism, to conclude whether their identification was "right" or "wrong" places the Zionist POV as the correct one (especially since Zionism was a foreign innovation to them), and that the Iraqi Jews just didn't know any better. As I said, it's a bit arrogant. Al-Andalus 04:53, 23 December 2005 (UTC).

Relevant well-informed article

by Israeli academic Yehuda Shenhav: [1] --Zero 04:57, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Article title

Is there any particular reason for including the word "the" in the title? It seems to me that it would sound more natural and succinct without it, and the article should simply be at History of Jews in Iraq. Coffee 17:04, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

al-Andalus and Jayjg

At least some of al-Andalus' addition is well-sourced and relevant. Maybe some needs more discussion here. Perhaps it would be fruitful to consider the additions in smaller chunks so that better focussed discussion becomes possible. --Zero 04:30, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Confused

Al-Adalus, could you try what Zero suggested above and break your additions and omissions into smaller chunks so we can discuss them here? For example, can you say why you deleted this: "Additionally, early Labor Zionism mostly concentrated on the Jews of Europe, skipping Iraqi Jews because of their lack of interest in agriculture. The result was that "Until World War II, Zionism made little headway because few Iraqi Jews were interested in the socialist ideal of manual labor in Palestine." (Simon, Reguer, and Laskier, p 364) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:21, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

This is what I'm talking about. You people are all so revert-happy. I have expained my changes. Even the specific concern you pointed out (my omission of the early Zionist) has also been explained. Scroll up 4 paragraphs. Basically I removed it because it is arrogantly condescending. That the European Zionist "concentrated on the Jews of Europe" is irrelevant, and serves only one purpose; to imply the Jews of Iraq were child-like imbeciles incapable of their own destiny, and that any reasoning or development of theirs prior to European Zionism (because of the "neglect" of the Zionist of those poor little backward Jews of Iraq) was not a valid Jewish evolution or identity (for it was not Zionist, it was not European). That commentary is best left in the mouth and souls of the Asheknazi founding racists of Israel and out of an article on Iraqi Jewry.

As with the rest of my edits, they too have their own explainations. Now, let's await your input so this discussion can continue and we can get somewhere. At least you have shown the decency of comming to the talk page to post, and contribute. Unlike the other two, who just demand it all be taken to talk, but assume they are referees and not players. I am not going to sit here and discuss by myself for the entertainment of Jayjg. If anyone has any concerns, then VOICE THEM. Don't revert without even giving reasons (blatently violating Wikipedia:Revert#Explain) and then demand people take it to the talk page, but avoid it yourself and think you the referee and not just another player. Al-Andalus 11:50, 2 January 2006 (UTC).

Hi Al-Andalus, regarding the quote above, we're not allowed to removed properly sourced, relevant material, and this is clearly relevant, and sourced to a book you accept elsewhere in the article. I don't think there's any implication that Iraqi Jews were child-like imbeciles: simply that Zionism was a socialist movement, based on the idea of labor and the land, and for a variety of socio-economic reasons, this held no appeal for Iraqi Jews. I think perhaps you may be imposing your own POV on the sentence and reading too much into it.

Could you go through your various changes and give a brief explanation of them, or direct me to where on the talk page they've been explained already? My apologies if I'm asking you to repeat things you've said already. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Concerning this same fragment of text: First, it seems to be out of place since it sits between a paragraph about the early 20th century and one about 1922. It would be better just before the paragraph "In 1948...". Second, I don't feel so strongly negative about it as Al-Andalus does, but I can see the problem. It is quite a Euro-centric view that feels somewhat like how a Christian missionary might have "explained" the failure of the Savages of the South Seas to learn to love Jesus. The possibility that they might simply have other priorities is seen as a defect in either case. We need to add a properly-sourced comment that "Zionism was a foreign innovation to them", as Al-Andalus put it. Also, the "socialism and the land" explanation is not terribly convincing; even though that was a major theoretical theme of Zionism, the majority of Zionist immigrants to Palestine from Europe were urbanites who wanted to live in the cities. On the other hand, it is not irrelevant to mention that the Zionist movement generally ignored Iraq in its recruitment campaign until quite late. The Iraqis were not European and therefore didn't meet the entry standards, nor were they considered likely (as the Yemenites were) to be willing to do manual labor for "Arab wages". --Zero 13:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, you keep on reverting and re-introducing content that had been previously discussed here in the talk page. Your revert re-introduces "However, in a climate of increasing Arab nationalism following the end of the British mandate, the situation of the Jews in Iraq changed in the 1930s." This has already been adressed here, and a compromise wording (a more detailed one at that) was formulated. You're reverting all our collective work. It was not the increase of "Arab Nationalism", it was the introduction of the foreign European Jewish concept of Zionism into the region. Arab Nationalism did in fact encompassed "Arab Jews". You can't go to articles and revert entire editions on the pretext that "too many changes are happening at once". The fact is, these changes were gradual, based on discussions going on in this talk page. That you were absent during this time and these discussions, and that you were not a part of the dialogue is on you. If you have problems with the current content of the article, the make a note of what points they are, and see if they have not already been adressed here. If you think a proper argument has not been made, and that a subject still remains to be solved before other content is included or omitted, then bring it up. That the progression of the article now seems to be "too much too fast" is for you to go over what we have discussed, not for us to start all over again. We can't be going over things again and again for every user that may not be aware of the deliberations in that went on to get to the current edition. Al-Andalus 15:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC).

Some excerpts of sources

While the following is sourced from a Zionist "anti-Mizrahi" article (http://www.meforum.org/article/707 "Post-Zionism and the Sephardi Question by Meyrav Wurmser"), I will quote an excerpt because it deals with the error of introducing the interpretation of merit of Iraqi Jewish identity, evolution and self-determination in the context of European Jewish Zionism, a context alien to non-European Jewry. (I refer to the paragraph which SlimVirgin has pinted out, even though it has already been discussed previously , but is continously reverted into the article). While the author of my source is obviously sympathetic to the Zionist version of history, and ultemately concludeds on the Zionist account, he nonetheless does not negate undeaniable truths and historical facts of the Mizrahi. At the same time, I post link of another source that counters the non-factual elements of Meyrav Wurmser article (http://www.ha-keshet.org.il/articles.asp?article_id=442 "How To Assassinate a Sephardi 101: The Calumnies of Meyrav Wurmser").

---

"The Mizrahi academic embrace of post-Zionism is an attempt to address a broader, genuine problem. Post-Zionist Mizrahi writers present a compelling account of the systematic economic and ethnic discrimination that they personally, their families, and Mizrahi Jews in general have faced since the establishment of Israel to the present day. They provide evidence of discrimination and racist attitudes beginning with the early years of statehood. For example, in 1949, Ashkenazi journalist Aryeh Gelblum wrote the following about the arriving Mizrahi immigrants:

• This is the immigration of a race we have not yet known in the country. We are dealing with people whose primitivism is at a peak, whose level of knowledge is one of virtually absolute ignorance and, worse, who have little talent for understanding anything intellectual. Generally, they are only slightly better than the general level of the Arabs, Negroes, and Berbers in the same regions. In any case, they are at an even lower level than what we know with regard to the former Arabs of Israel. These Jews also lack roots in Judaism, as they are totally subordinated to savage and primitive instincts. As with Africans you will find among them gambling, drunkenness, and prostitution ... chronic laziness and hatred for work; there is nothing safe about this asocial element. [Even] the kibbutzim will not hear of their absorption.[13]

Gelblum was not alone. Post-Zionist Mizrahim quote one of Israel's leading intellectuals in the 1950s, Karl Frankenstein, a celebrated professor at Hebrew University and the man considered the father of the Israeli education system. Frankenstein expressed outright racist attitudes towards Mizrahim, writing, "We have to recognize the primitive mentality of many of the immigrants from backward countries."[14] He further suggested that Mizrahi Jews have the mentality of primitive people who are somewhat mentally disturbed.[15] Israeli sociologist Yosef Gross argued in the early 1950s that Mizrahi immigrants suffered from "mental regression."[16] One of the worst examples of the anti-Mizrahi discrimination involves The Ashkenazi Revolution published in 1964 by writer Kalman Katzenelson in which the author argues that the Mizrahim suffer from irreversible genetic inferiority that endangers the superiority of the Ashkenazi-Zionist state. He called for the establishment of an apartheid regime that, among other limitations, would abolish their political rights. He also objected to mixed marriages and demanded the prohibition of the Hebrew language because it resembled Arabic too greatly. Instead he demanded that Yiddish become the national language because of its supreme Germanic origins. His book was a bestseller until Ben-Gurion banned it.[17]

The sentiments expressed by these intellectuals, the Mizrahi post-Zionists argue, were not uncommon. There were racist attitudes toward the Mizrahi Jews even among the highest political levels. Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion described the Mizrahi immigrants as lacking even "the most elementary knowledge" or "a trace of Jewish or human education."[18] Furthermore, he said, "We do not want Israelis to become Arabs. We are bound by duty to fight against the spirit of the Levant that corrupts individuals and society."[19] Likewise, Abba Eban, one of Israel's most eloquent diplomats, noted that "one of the great apprehensions which afflict us is the danger of the predominance of immigrants of Oriental origin forcing Israel to equalize its cultural level with that of the neighboring world."[20] In 1949, Shoshana Frasitz, a member of the Knesset, said of the Mizrahim, "You know that we have no common language with them. Our cultural level does not fit with their level; their lifestyle is the lifestyle of the middle ages."[21] Nachum Goldman, chairman of the Jewish Agency and president of the World Zionist Organization in the late 1940s and 1950s, said, "A Jew from Eastern Europe is worth twice as much as a Jew from Kurdistan," and continued, "We should return a hundred thousand of the Jews of the East to their countries of origin."[22] Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir once asked, "Shall we be able to elevate these immigrants to a suitable level of civilization?"[23]'

The current clique of radical post-Zionist Mizrahim argues that such attitudes have not disappeared from Israel. Even as late as 1983, for example, the left-wing liberal and Palestinian-rights advocate, Shulamit Aloni, who headed the Citizens' Rights party and served as a member of the Knesset, denounced the Mizrahim as "barbarous tribal forces" who were "driven like a flock to the sound of tom-toms … chanting like a savage tribe."[24] In the same year, the celebrated Ashkenazi columnist Amnon Dankner raised the possibility of an Ashkenazi-Mizrahi cultural war in Ha'aretz:

• This will not be a war among brothers … [because] these are not my brothers … The sticky blanket of "Jewish love and brotherhood" is thrown on my head and I am asked to be considerate of the [Mizrahi] cultural deficit and the authentic feelings of discrimination. My blood boils when I hear those hypocritical calls. They put me in a cage with a baboon running amok and then they tell me: "Okay, now you are together and begin a dialogue.…" Now I want to tell you that I am tired of empathizing and understanding. I have heard all the stories about discrimination, the social-economic gap, the feelings of frustration, the DDT and the maabarot. [I am told that] we [the Ashkenazim] have Heine, Freud, Einstein, and the wonderful synthesis between Judaism and Western culture, but the [Mizrahim] also have some wonderful things: hospitality, respect for mother and father, and a wonderful patriarchal tradition. … For me, however, they are not among the traits that I wish to see in the society that my spiritual fathers and I dreamed about establishing here: an exemplary and modern society laced with the most beautiful visions of humanistic liberalism. [Still] the advocates of Jewish love and brotherhood say, "Do not call them [the Mizrahim] Khomeini-like or primitive. It makes them even angrier.'[25]

These anti-Mizrahi attitudes, argue the post-Zionist Mizrahim, exist in the depiction of Mizrahim in movies, literary works, and especially, the media. They quote the findings of researcher Eli Avraham who investigated the media portrayal of the Mizrahim in the 1980s and 1990s. He found a number of recurring themes were associated with the Mizrahim. Those included violence, crime, and social unrest; unseemliness and neglect; limited future prospects; a herd mentality, and ethnically-determined political identity; an inability to be "like us [Ashkenazim]; and a syndrome of ‘primitivism.'"[26]

While anti-Mizrahi attitudes are a legitimate concern, for radical post-Zionist writers, the problem does not end with the racism of some of Israel's founding fathers, politicians, and intellectuals. For them, the core issue is economic and social discrimination. In the 1970s, the Mizrahi Black Panther movement emerged to address economic and social discrimination through violent protests. Prime Minister Golda Meir ordered a brutal crackdown on the movement, which took its revolutionary outlook from the African American struggle in the United States and Marxist movements in Latin America. Radical post-Zionists believe that socioeconomic discrimination continues to exist, and they see it as the key factor that has led the Mizrahim to vote in droves since 1988 for the religious Mizrahi party Shas."

Al-Andalus 16:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC).

What makes you think these sources (and particularly the latter) are encyclopedic? Jayjg ^(talk) 20:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

What makes YOU think that you have the authority to dismiss quotes of Irael's past founders? The second source is not so much a source, I don't intend to use it, but I linked it so it may give a counterbalance to the agenda of the first source. In any case, like I'm really surprised that you don't "accept" the first one as a valid source, 'cause you're the Almighty Judge of these things, right, and it is your parameters that must be met. Al-Andalus 08:03, 3 January 2006 (UTC).

We've been through this many times, Al-Andalus; please comment on article content, not on editors. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Al-Andalus, you still haven't addressed the objections above, nor my questions here. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes I have. I will not entertain your stalling tactics. You allude to a discussion here in Talk:, but there is no participation of your part (or on SlimVirgin's part). I can't have a conversation here on my own. It leads no where. It's a tactic to call for discussion to seek consensus, then to not participate in the requested discussion, thus maintaining your pretext for constant reverts because "consensus" is apparently not being achieved. However, look up, there has been Talk: going on; content has even been worded by other users (ie. consensus was reached) and introduced into the new edition of the article, yet you keep on reverting things back into the article. Your tactics are weasly and I will seek mediation. Al-Andalus 21:37, 6 January 2006 (UTC).

I'm sorry, Al-Andalus, that's my fault. I'm trying to divide myself between too many pages at the moment. I'll pay more attention to this one, and will read through the talk page properly today or tomorrow. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:20, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Al-Andalus, I've looked through both the talk page and the edits you've made. There is no consensus for the latest ones, which include POV which has no source, turn citations of individual opinions into statements of gospel truth, and remove properly cited information from encyclopedic source. If you refuse to discuss your individual edits, rather than just doing massive POV jobs and littering the Talk: page with insults and copyvios, then I don't see how you're going to get your edits into the article. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:45, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

"Too much too soon"

Only you SlimVirgin and Jayjg keep using this same phrase. Both keep screaming "POV" to the four winds, but neither will have the descency of pointing them out! How about you guys do that one SIMPLE thing. What has already been discussed in this article, and has a consensus (apart from one user, ie. YOU), is that the following content is POV.

1. "Additionally, early Labor Zionism mostly concentrated on the Jews of Europe, skipping Iraqi Jews because of their lack of interest in agriculture. The result was that "Until World War II, Zionism made little headway because few Iraqi Jews were interested in the socialist ideal of manual labor in Palestine." (Simon, Reguer, and Laskier, p 364)"
2. "However, in a climate of increasing Arab nationalism following the end of the British mandate"

The same content with an alternate NPOV wording has been formulated here in Talk: with the input of various users, and has been agreed to be placed in the article. Your massive reverts, however, take these changes out. And it's done intentionally. If not, then the next time you revert, make sure you leave in the parts that have consensus. "Consensus" means most people, with or without YOU. "Consensus" does not mean everyone PLUS you, and much less does "consensus" mean just YOU against most other users, which seems to be what your trying to impose, based on your ignoring of the discussion that has taken plave in Talk and your constant reitroduction of POV content that has been disccussed here. Al-Andalus 04:59, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

You've made huge changes to the page, Al-Andalus, not just this one. Start with one at a time. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:12, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I have not made "huge" changes, we (minus you and slimvirgin) have made gradual changes that to you seem "huge" because you got here adter they had all been done. Since we've alredy been engaged in discussion here before you came along, how about YOU start with one section at a time that you think should be removed/omitted/censored because of alleged POV. Al-Andalus 13:14, 8 January 2006 (UTC).

You have made all sorts of changes since you drove Goodoldpolonius2 from the page on December 22, 2005 - many of them are in direct contradiction to Goodoldpolonius2's stated objections here, and most of them are clearly POV from dubious sources at best (and often none). Please go through the changes here first. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:13, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

You are deliberatly getting this to go in circles. Ok, I have a proposition. We'll leave your POV version of the article without revert until you at least reply to the concerns made of those two singled out paragraphs (look up, they are numbered). If you have not replied to those concerns, then the page will be reverted, and it will be made obvious that YOU have been the one in violation of wikipedia rules. As for your claims that one particular source is "dubious", I would like for you to make your case as to why it is not valid. It does not suffice for you to just alleged "dubiousness", expecting your VIEW of sources (that do not fit your leanings) to be given greater authority than the merit of sources themselves. Al-Andalus 15:57, 8 January 2006 (UTC).

I've looked at the sections in question, and I see no POV issues with them, nor any agreement for other text. Can you please explain what you think is wrong with them, and what text you think would be more neutral? The first one in particular is well cited, and the second is sourced even from the Philip Mendes article you keep citing. If there is text that is more neutral that we can agree to, I'm all for inserting that specific text into the article. However, of course, that would in no way justify the complete POV re-write of the rest of it. As for sources, please read WP:RS to understand which sources are reliable and which are dubious. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:35, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Do you really not understand or are you just pretending? How can it not be a POV that anti-Jewish sentiment in Iraq was a result of Arab Nationalsim. It is a fact that Arab nationalism included Arab Jews. There is no getting around that. Arab nationalism to this day stresses the importance of the distinction between Zionists and Jews (even though extremists don't do so). The PLO also has this definition of who is a Palestinian, including Arab Muslims of Palestine, Arab Christians of Palestine, and Arab Jews of Palestine. As for the other quote about Zionisms "neglect" of Iraqi jewry, its POV has been explained in detail, and has the support of various users who also see the problem with it. It is only YOU that refuses to acknoweladge (or perhaps in all honesty you really can't see it as a result of your cemented Zionist leanings which have blinded you) the blatent POV, you are going against consensus, and thus in violation. Al-Andalus 03:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC).

Al-Andalus, are you saying that Arab nationalism treated Jews as equals? ←Humus sapiens←ну? 04:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Al-Andalus, your own sources talk of Arab anti-minority actions in Iraq in the 1930s, and not just restricted to Jews. You've seen this source before, which points out that Arab nationalists targetted and scapegoated Jews. This source points out that "In 1941, a group of army officers and politicians, headed by Rashid Ali al-Gaylani, briefly seized power. Allied to the Germans, they espoused a kind of Arab nationalism that saw no place for Jews in Iraq." Here is another source which lists "rising Arab nationalism" as one of the causes of the flight of Jews from Arab lands. Need I go on? While some Arabs may have viewed Jews as Arabs as well, others certainly did not. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

That is the point. It is when they "allied to the Germans", that "they espoused a kind of Arab nationalism" that excluded minorities, which included Jews and others. Prior to intrusions from these ideologies, it was not that way. And furthermore, even after the infiltration of foreign ideoliogies, it was amongst extremists that it was embraced; extremist that leaned more towards Islamism (itself in the extremist form) rather than Arabism. Even today there are Arab nationalists that embrace ALL Arabs, regardless of religion. Personally, righteous people must not only learn to distinguish between Jews and Zionist, but between Arabists and Islamists. You yourself say "While some Arabs may have viewed Jews as Arabs as well, others certainly did not", but you show no evidence of the presence or prevalence of anti-Jewsih sentiment was in general Arab society, or exclusion of Arab Jews from Arab nationalism prior to colonial European encroachment (including Zionism). And again, please know to distinguish Arabism from Islamism when analysing the situation, the latter being evil in my opinion, as is any religiocentric ideology.

Nevertheless, in case you do take the position of analysing it through Islamism and not secularly Arabism, then we must also compare how we fared in our history in Muslim lanfs verus how you Ashkeanzim fared as a result of Christian Europe. I am not a defendor of Islam, and am the first to acknowelaged dimmihood, but we all know which of the ethnic divisions of the Jewish people throughout their hisotries (Ashkenazim vs Mizrahi and pre-Reconquista Sephardim) have trully been opressed.

Going back to the other problem, the "neglect" of European Zionists and its POV that Iraqi Jewish identity was a defect (attributable to Zionisms neglect). No one is arguing why this Zionist point is not a POV, and why it remains in the article. I've said it before, we cannot analyse Iraqi Jewish or other non-European Jewish evolution using European Jewish, and much less Zionist, parameters. Al-Andalus 06:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC).

Al-Andalus, I am sorry to note but it is the same story in almost every country of Galut. Just as the Mizrahim lived in Iraq and Iran before the arrival of Islam, the Ashkenazim lived in Europe since the Roman times. When life turned sour (from the Black Death to economic depressions to religious wars, to nationalism etc.), they were targeted.

To the subject, in his A History of the Jews Paul Johnson describes a 1121 letter from Baghdad concerning decrees regulating Jewish clothes: "two yellow badges, one on the headgear and one on the neck. Furthermore, each Jew must hang round his neck a piece of lead with the word dhimmi on it. He also has to wear a belt round his waist. The women have to wear one red and one black shoe and have a small bell on their necks or shoes." (1987 ed, p.204)

Of course, at that time European Jews were mass murdered by the Crusaders and of course there were times when it was not that bad, but let's not idealise history.

As to being anti-Zionists, this reminds me some Soviet Jews who were cleverly herded by the KGB into Anti-Zionist committee of the Soviet public to reinforce the official policies (and some really believed it - as many in the West did), but as soon as the Communist oppression vanished, more than a million Soviet Jews emigrated. Respectfully, ←Humus sapiens←ну? 11:49, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Al-Andalus, your own sources state that rising Arab nationalism contributed to anti-Jewish actions, and that these occured long after 1941, when the German influence was removed from Iraq. It's hard for me to understand why you object to noting the influence of Arab nationalism, when the many sources both you and I have brought all refer to it. What do you think would be a more accurate statement? Jayjg ^(talk) 18:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I propose we keep the wording that was agreed upon during the earlier discussions on this page which you were not a part of, and insited they begin from scratch for your entertainment. I'm talking about the NPOV edition that was formulated by Goodoldpolonius2; "In the 1930s, the situation of the Jews in Iraq changed. Previosuly, the growing Iraqi Arab nationalist sentiment included Iraqi Jews as fellow Arabs, but these views changed with the introduction of Nazi propaganda and the ongoing conflict in the Palestinian Mandate" which you keep on reverting out of the article. Al-Andalus 03:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC).

The agreed upon text above was In the 1930s, the situation of the Jews in Iraq worsened. Previosuly, the growing Iraqi Arab nationalist sentiment included Iraqi Jews as fellow Arabs, but these views changed with the introduction of Nazi propaganda and the ongoing conflict in the Palestinian Mandate. Despite protestations of their loyalty to Iraq, Iraqi Jews were increasingly subject to discrimination and harsh laws. I'll put that into the article, OK? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:41, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Again, as before with Goodoldpolonius2, my only complaint is with the word "worsened". For things to have "worsened" they must have already been quite bad - a notion which all accounts disagree with, including the preceding paragraph discribing the the elevated position of Iraqi Jews, prior to all the changes due to world politics, and the testimony of Iraqi Jews themselves. I would encourage the use of "changed". Al-Andalus 01:13, 14 January 2006 (UTC).

"Worsened" only means "got worse". It doesn't mean that the current conditions were poor. "Changed" is a weasel word that means nothing at all; it could even mean they got better (which they did not). How about "deteriorated"? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:34, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Now lets get to the other issue - the inclusion of that condescending, arrogant Euro-centric Zionist view of Iraqi Jewish identity and evolution (and all other Arab Jewish identities, and other non-European evolutions of Jewishness) as flawed because of the "neglect" of the "enlightened" Indo-European Jews (ie. Zionists) of their little imbecile co-religonists. Supposdely in our cultural and genetic deficit we evolved a defected Jewish identity and heritage, a non-European Jewish identity. The correct, righteous, and proper evolution of Jewishness is European isn't it? Rosenbergs, Yiddish, bagels and Zionism! How primitive of us; still actually being Semites. Al-Andalus 03:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC).

Huh? I'm not sure how that all relates to the article. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:41, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Seriously Jayjg, stop playing the confused. Your stalling is quite obviously a tactic of keeping out content or wording contrary to your POV. That paragraph is a POV. A colonial view of defective natives. Al-Andalus 06:45, 13 January 2006 (UTC).

Actually, I have no idea what you are talking about. Can you explain it in relation to specific sentences in the article? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:34, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

No, I can't. You can however look up a few paragraphs to see the 6 different times I have put my case forward (which again, are backed by various users) as to the POV (Euro-centric and insulting) nature of that specific paragraph about the "neglect" of European Zionists. Seeing that I've already addressed this various times, you refuse to acknoweladge it and play the confused. I'm not asking you, Jayjg, to do anything, I know how you waste time, and your tactics. I would like to as for an administrator to remove that content that various users have now made known is a problematic and arrogant POV. I can't do it, even with consensus, as Jayjg always reverts my edits, whetever they are. Al-Andalus 23:35, 18 January 2006 (UTC).

It's a properly cited and relevant quote from an encyclopedic work; what "consensus" do you imagine exists regarding it's removal? Who are all the people who agree to that? And I certainly do not always revert your edits; if I did, we wouldn't have that material you inserted there from a sociologist (not even a historian)! Jayjg ^(talk) 23:49, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Persecution of the Ottomans significantly reduced Iraqi Jews importance?

"The community thrived as the center of Jewish learning until the Middle Ages, when the Mongol invasion, and the subsequent persecutions of the Persians and Ottomans, significantly reduced its importance"
This content is in the introduction of the article. Though it is obviously incorrect to enumerate the Ottomans (were they just assumed to have persecuted and opressed beacuse they were Muslims, which is the modern-day stereotype) as opressors or persecutors of their subject of the Jewish faith, I haven't deleted it becuase I know Jayjg simply reverts any edits implemented by me, even if they are to introduce a consensus previously reached. I know I don't even need sources to convice people of this. It is in fact under these Muslims Ottomans that we saw the greatest acceptance and prospering during the Diapora. I am requesting any other user do the edit to reflect that reality, preferably an administrator. Thank you. Al-Andalus 06:52, 13 January 2006 (UTC).

Why do you think it is "obviously incorrect"? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:35, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

This is actually a bit complicated, though I agree the present phrasing is wrong. The Mongols really destroyed the Jewish community in Iraq, the Persians were little better, and the Ottomans were welcomed, their victory over the Persians 1678 was actually celebrated as a "day of miracles" by the Jews of Iraq. The community generally propered under Ottoman rule (though it was no longer anywhere near the size or importance it was before the Mongol conquest), but occasionly suffered pretty nasty abuses, see, for example, Daoud Pasha in the 19th century. Let mw see what I can do to make this a bit clearer.--Goodoldpolonius2 01:53, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Image:Jews of Iraq.jpg

What is this the purpose of this image? It's just a photoshop of some guy reading a Hebrew book and the post-1991 flag, adopted when the Jewish population of Iraq numbered in the dozens; how is this relevant to history? And the fair use justification is "promotional"; I don't understand that at all. Surely we can find something better to illustrate Iraqi Jewish history than this.--Pharos 21:31, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Iraqi Jews today

Shouldn't we also have an article about today's Jews of Iraqi descent around the world, with their customs, surnames, status in Israel and the Diaspora and so on? Sorry I don't have the knowledge to start such an article. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) 10:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Its a good idea, I'll be glad to contribute when I get a chance. Tewfik^Talk 20:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. There is already an article "Iraqi Jews", which redirects to this article. Simply remove the redirect and write what you want. (That's what I did with "Syrian Jews".) --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) 10:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Edit: Revert

Reverted vandalism by 68.80.12.215 παράδοξος 00:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Naeim Giladi

Has anyone read Naeim Giladi's article or book on Iraqi Jews? He seems to take more pride in Iraqi origin than being Israeli puts the blame for the bombings on Zionists even though he worked to relocate Jews to Israel... any thoughts or comments on that?Domsta333 (talk) 13:16, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Naeim Giladi is not a historian and has self-published his allegations. many of them have been rebuffed by professional historians. he is not considered a reliable source. MiS-Saath (talk) 06:19, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, this article was for JEWS IN IRAQ I believe - or else somebody should retitle ZIONISTS IN IRAQ. Naeim Giladi was a JEW Zionist or anti-Zionist and a notable against Israel. Looks we got some Zionist radicals... here. PacificWarrior101 (talk) 06:34, 31 January 2013 (UTC)PacificWarrior101

Solution to Arabia vs Saudi Arabia vs Arabian Peninsula

Please see the following articles that should now solve the problems we have been discussing:

• The History of the Jews in Arabia page is now the History of the Jews in Arabia (disambiguation) page (see it to understand the comprehensive nature of the solution and why it is necessary.
• A new main article is now History of the Jews in the Arabian Peninsula that summarizes the Jewish histories within and connected to the areas of all the present countries in the Arabian Peninsula.
• The History of the Jews in Saudi Arabia is now part of a set of nine articles that relate to the nine countries in the present day Arabian Peninsula, as follows:
  • History of the Jews in Iraq
  • History of the Jews in Jordan
  • History of the Jews in Bahrain
  • History of the Jews in Kuwait
  • History of the Jews in Oman
  • History of the Jews in Qatar
  • History of the Jews in Saudi Arabia
  • History of the Jews in the United Arab Emirates
  • Yemenite Jews

• The main category for all the above is now the new Category:History of the Jews in the Arabian Peninsula which is itself a sub-category of: Category:History of the Arabian peninsula, Category:Jewish history by region, Category:Jews and Judaism in Southwest Asia, Category:Judeo-Islamic topics

This took me a while to write, research and organize, but it was well worth the time and efforts I put into it to create clarity and avoid confusion from now on. Thank you very much, IZAK (talk) 13:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Abraham was from Aram Naharayim, not Sumerian/Babylonian, and probably not "Iraqi"

These unproven claims keep cropping up without any foundations. There is no proof that Abraham had any connection to Sumer, Babylon or that he was an "Iraqi". The Bible explicitly and repeatedly mentions Abraham and the Hebrews as stemming from 'Aram Naharayim', upper Mesopotamia, which may not even be within the borders of the present-day Iraq. The so-called city of 'Ur' in southern Iraq was in fact the Sumerian metropolis and maritime seaport of Urim/Urimma', and there were no 'Kasdim' in that region for another 1200 years after Abraham, and no inscription from "Ur" has identified them as a component of that city's population at any time. Contrast that to the Biblical statement (Deuteronomy 26:5) that the Hebrew patriarch was a "wandering Aramaean" who selected a wife for his son from the "land of my nativity" in Aram Naharayim. It was the British archeologist Wooley from the British musuem who dubbed Sumerian Urim (Akkadian Uriwa) "Ur of the Chaldees". The Jewish exiles to Babylon did not claim that they were somehow returning to the "land of the patriarchs". The 5 books of Moses do not associate the 'Kasdim' with Baylonia (in fact, Kesed, the nephew of Abraham, son of Nahor, is identified in Genesis 22 as residing in the area of Haran, Aram Naharaim (Upper Mesopotamia). Baylonia is identified as 'the plain of Shinar', whose first cities are found by Nimrod, son of Kush, and later ones by Asshur. Moslem tradition holds the city of Sanli Urfa (ancient Greek Orra / Orrha, Edessa, Syriac Urhai) , southeastern Turkey, 20 miles north of Harran, as the birthplace of Abraham, and it is a major religious site and pilgrimage destination. This city at one time had a very ancient Jewish community, so this tradition is definitely pre-Islamic. J.D. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.68.95.65 (talk) 21:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

This is an instance of the usual problem about ethnic descriptions that change their meaning with time. At the time of Abraham, and well into the time of the Babylonian Empire, "Chaldeans" were a specific ethnic group, akin to the Arameans, living on the fringes of Babylonia. However, by late Biblical times the misapprehension had grown up that "Chaldeans" was synonymous with Babylonians generally, and that the Chaldeans/Babylonians had always spoken Aramaic. So depending on when you think Genesis was written, a city in Babylonia could easily have been described, anachronistically, as "Ur of the Chaldees".

I agree that there is a case for Urfa/Edessa on geographical grounds; for one thing it makes the journey to Haran, and the existence of relatives there, more likely. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 09:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the first mention of the Chaldeans ('Kaldi') in the cuneiform tablets is in the 8th century b.c.e., when the Assyrians noted that their clans had first started appearing in the sealands. This is far far in the future of when the events surrounding Abraham were supposed to have taken place, and an anachronism of that magnitude is something wholly uncharacteristic of the Torah. The criteria for canonization of the Torah which happened during the period of Ezra rested upon the credibility and reverence of texts which were deemed to be authoritative, respected for their antiquity, and believed to have been written at the time of Moses. A late insertion of such an obvious anachronism as the Kasdim into the early text of Genesis would have raised more than a few eyebrows. Since the Kasdim are nowhere mentioned in the 5 books of the Torah except as a suffix for Ur, the grounds for claiming this was a late insertion are more than a little shaky. As I said earlier, the only clue given in the Torah as to the origin of the Kasdim is Nahor's nephew, Kesed, who is clearly placed in the vicinity of Haran in Aram Naharaim (Upper Mesopotamia).

It should also be added that even according to the criteria laid down by the so-called 'Documentary Hypothesis', both the reference to Kesed and at least one of the references to 'Ur Kasdim' are in the "J", rather than "P" portions of the Torah, and therefore long predate the Babylonian exile.

I also would like to note a couple of further observations which I believe gravitate against a post-Exilic insertion of 'Kasdim' into the Genesis text and associate 'Ur Kasdim' with Aram Naharaim and not Sumero-Babylonia. The Chaldeans are constantly referred in Akkadian cuneiform as 'Kaldi', never as 'Kasdi'. Had the Jewish scribes of the post-Exilic era wanted to insert a reference to the Chaldeans, they would surely have used a form based on that of Akkadian cuneiform to avoid confusion. Could it be that 'Kasdim' were the original name of this tribe BEFORE their entry into Babylonia?

It so happens that one of the clans of the Chaldeans in Babylonia known to the Assyrians scribes was called 'Bit Adini', exactly the same name as an Aramaean kingdom referred to in cuneiform as 'Bit Adini', but known in the Bible as 'Beth Eden', dating to the 10th and 9th centuries b.c.e., predating the appearance of the Kaldi, and ultimately conquered and absorbed into the Assyrian Empire by Shalmaneser III in 856 b.c.e. The kingdom of Beth Eden was based around the region of, guess where, Urfa and Haran.

Could some of these 'Kaldi' in the Babylonian sealands been exiles or refugees from the destroyed kingdom of Beth Eden in Upper Mesopatamia?

Please stop re-inserting the unverifiable comments I deleted RE Abraham

The comments alleging that Abraham was a Sumerian or an ancestor of Mohammed are wholly unveriable. J.D.

Shafiq Ades

even if tripp doesn't specify him by name, it's obvious that he refers to him. the reference is kind of vague so i can't check that at all. but i think it's okay. MiS-Saath (talk) 06:17, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

2008 Contradiction Tag

I must admit I don't know enough of this topic to even begin to look at the Self-Contradiction tag that someone left in June of 2008. The tag is in the section Modern Iraq (1918 to the present). Since it's been such a long time, the issue may have been resolved, but the tag may never have been removed. Could someone more knowledgeable on this subject take a look and if there is no contradiction, remove the tag? If a conflict exists, please revise and then remove the tag as this article is listed in the back-log. Thanks so much! Kjnelan (talk) 16:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Charles Saatchi.jpg

The image File:Charles Saatchi.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --06:32, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Wrong information in the excerpts of sources (above)

The author states:

"The Ashkenazi Revolution published in 1964 by writer Kalman Katzenelson in which the author argues that the Mizrahim suffer from irreversible genetic inferiority that endangers the superiority of the Ashkenazi-Zionist state. He called for the establishment of an apartheid regime that, among other limitations, would abolish their political rights. He also objected to mixed marriages and demanded the prohibition of the Hebrew language because it resembled Arabic too greatly. Instead he demanded that Yiddish become the national language because of its supreme Germanic origins. His book was a bestseller until Ben-Gurion banned it.[17]"

Having read the book, cover to cover, I can tell you with certainty, that Katzenelson did not call for an abolishment of Sephardo-Mizrahi political rights. He did NOT object to mixed marriages (he specifically accepts them as natural), he did NOT call for the prohibition of Hebrew, and he did NOT demand that Yiddish become the national language. Where did you get this faulty information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.27.222.147 (talk) 21:17, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I had forgotten to sign in. I'm user rhayat1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhayat (talk • contribs) 21:23, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

This isn't in the article but is just an excerpt from a website that was discussed on this talkpage years ago. I removed your email address; you don't want to be getting spam. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:19, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Move... Again

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Favonian (talk) 14:01, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

---

History of the Jews in Iraq → Iraqi Jews – Similar to Persian Jews, Syrian Jews etc...--Rafy talk 13:32, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• Comment The Persian Jews and Syrian Jews articles exist in addition to, not instead of, the articles History of the Jews in Iran and History of the Jews in Syria. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 23:09, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose As the IP editor suggested, every country has its History of the Jews in Foo. The only reason an article about Fooian Jews might be created is because History of the Jews in Foo is sufficiently long. See WP:Summary style. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 13:05, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

If this is the norm here then keep it this way.--Rafy talk 19:49, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Who removed Naeim Giladi from the mosaic?

Uh oh, looks like we got some bias Zionists here. Somebody removed Naeim Giladi from the pictures mosaic and I'm not too happy about it. PacificWarrior101 (talk) 06:32, 31 January 2013 (UTC)PacificWarrior101

Overlap with Jewish exodus article

Please see discussion at Talk:Jewish_exodus_from_Arab_and_Muslim_countries#Overlap_with_.22History_of_the_Jews_in....22_articles. Oncenawhile (talk) 10:09, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Number of Jews in Iraq

Besides the fact that an IP had falsified/ vandalised the information, I understand now that the number - now 450 000 - refers to people identified as "Iraqi Jews", NOT Jews in Iraq. Can we either 1. make this more clear in the infobox or 2. present a number that refers to Jews in the country, as is done in a number of other articles? Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 19:58, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Iraqi Jews or Jews in Iraq?

The article makes numerous references to Iraqi Jews which may be distinct from Jews in Iraq (what the title refers to). Notably the chart at the top claims that there are fewer than ten ‘Iraqi Jews’ in Iraq, but this is in conflict with the article for (and most accounts of) Kurdish Jews which are supposed to number a few hundred in Iraqi Kurdistan (Iraq) to this day. This figure appears to come from quotes in the article claiming fewer than ten Jews in Baghdad. Can this be cleared up?

Mistakes about the Iraqi Jewish community

The article says that after the Mongol invasion the Iraqi Jewish community later has largelry consisted on migrant population from Aleppo. The truth is that most of the Jews who lived in Southern and Central Iraq until recently are actually largely descendants of the Jews who remained in Iraq after the Mongol invasion but they have adopted the Sephardic rite in the 18th century under the leadership of Rabbi Sadaka Husin from Aleppo who settled in Baghdad after the Jewish community there asked from him to lead the community because all the rabbis of Baghdad died from a disaese and THIS IS the reason that Iraqi Jews cannot being regarded as continuous with the Babylonian tradition of Talmudic or Geonic times, but are a variant of those of Middle Eastern Jewry generally. There are some migrants from Aleppo, Assyria and Iran but most of the Jews who lived in Iraq are for most part the descendants people who remained after the Mongol invasion, i myself belong to the Uzair family who are descendants of Ezra and lives in Iraq for more than two thousands of years. Now for the second thing. The dialect of the Iraqi Jews differs than the Muslim one because of migration of Arabian tribes from the Arabian peninsula that intermarriaged with the survivng Muslim population of Lower Mesopotamia after the Mongol invasion, as a result the gilit dialect was born as a bedouin influx of Mesopotamian Arabic, Iraqi Judeo-Arabic is similar to the pre-Mongol Southern and Central Iraq as well as Khuzestan province and Eastern Syria dialects and the present day Northern Iraq, Northeastern Syria and Southeastern Turkey dialects, The Jewish dialects maintain much more native Mesopotamian influences (such as Babylonian, Akkadian, etc) than the gilit dialect (or Muslim dialect) — Preceding unsigned comment added by(talk • contribs) 21:19, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Some Edits for Consideration

During the British Mandate and through the Hashemite Period, the ability of urban Jewish populations in Iraq to receive a western, multilingual education made them apt candidates for positions in the ministries and administrative bodies of Iraq. Iraq's first minister of finance, Sir Sassoon Eskell, was a Jew, and Jews were important in developing the judicial and postal systems. Records from the Baghdad Chamber of Commerce show that 10 out of its 19 members in 1947 were Jews and the first musical band formed for Baghdad's nascent radio in the 1930s consisted mainly of Jews. Jews were represented in the Iraqi parliament, and many Jews held significant positions in the bureaucracy, which often led to resentment by the Muslim population.

Also during the Mandate and Hashemite periods, Iraqi Jewish society underwent a process of secularization. Partially due to a secular education’s ability to provide a stable income in the government or in law, and also because of the Iraqi Jewish community’s rise in secular power. This coincided with a decline in prominence of the rabbinical leadership in Iraq, which younger secular Jews criticized as outdated, narrow-minded and conservative.

Robbiekroe (talk) 00:37, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Good stuff. Be bold! --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 12:10, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on History of the Jews in Iraq. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131016084808/http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/93DCDF1CBC3F2C6685256CF3005723F2 to http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/93DCDF1CBC3F2C6685256CF3005723F2

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:48, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on History of the Jews in Iraq. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101202071653/http://www.aaiusa.org/pages/demographics/ to http://www.aaiusa.org/pages/demographics
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081121080153/http://www.babylonjewry.org.il/new/english/nehardea/14/10.htm to http://www.babylonjewry.org.il/new/english/nehardea/14/10.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110713125345/http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull&cid=1121568339673 to http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull&cid=1121568339673
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131020035641/http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/CE955FEA5683ACCF85257512006D8E9E to https://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/CE955FEA5683ACCF85257512006D8E9E

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:44, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on History of the Jews in Iraq. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140804144621/http://babylonjewry.org.il/new/english/nehardea/nehar12.htm to http://www.babylonjewry.org.il/new/english/nehardea/nehar12.htm
• Added archive https://archive.is/20130108010128/http://hazzan.qpon.co.il/ to http://hazzan.qpon.co.il/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928030235/http://www.doingzionism.org.il/resources/view.asp?id=1418&subject=50 to http://www.doingzionism.org.il/resources/view.asp?id=1418&subject=50
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928030159/http://www.doingzionism.org.il/resources/view.asp?id=1459&subject=50 to http://www.doingzionism.org.il/resources/view.asp?id=1459&subject=50
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061021030108/http://www.bloomsbury.com/authors/microsite.asp?id=1276&section=1&mscssid=KQJATLPD7J6F8K3XRUG3LWS8T9ARB2L8 to http://www.bloomsbury.com/authors/microsite.asp?id=1276&section=1&mscssid=SENSENMCUKWL8PHQ2HH53S9KT06BDBBD

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:50, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Useful Source

Perhaps this article is worth adding information from as a source to keep the article balanced. It is written by an Iraqi Jew. http://ifamericaknew.org/history/ref-giladi.html

Gmc0351 (talk) 21:57, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Population

How come they are 750.000-1 million, while most of them are in Israel where they are about 250.000 only there?--175.156.111.163 (talk) 14:16, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:History of the Jews in Abkhazia which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 05:07, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Population in Infobox

Edit: Realized I misunderstood the population counts. However, why are we using a total population count from 1947, which is not helpful for understanding the present-day population? remainsuncertain (talk) 15:03, 10 November 2023 (UTC)