Foreign Affairs Committee on May 2nd, 2013

[David Matas]

Stan, why don't you....

[Dr. Stanley Urman]

I'll just draw your attention to a resolution that was adopted by the U.S. House of Representatives in 2008. The major call was for the President of the United States—or in this case the Government of Canada—to instruct its diplomats to use its voice to ensure that in any and all Middle East discussions, any explicit reference to Palestinian refugees is matched by an explicit reference to Jewish refugees.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Perhaps our analyst could get a copy of that. We'll take a look at it.

I'll ask you another question, Mr. Urman, while you're at the microphone. You mentioned the assets that were seized by Jewish refugees in many countries. I think you pointed out that the amount is approximately $6 billion. Can you give us some description of the types of assets that were seized, what happened to them, and how they compare with the kinds of assets that were seized from the Palestinian refugees?

[Dr. Stanley Urman]

Different countries treated Jewish populations differently, but in terms of assets, there were of course individual assets. By that I mean homes, bank accounts, property, pension plans, jewellery. When people were told they must leave, or when people fled, they were only allowed to take out 20 British pounds sterling and had to leave everything behind.

In some cases it was just informally taken over by others. In some cases it was formally expropriated by governments.

By way of example, in Iraq it was an orchestrated displacement of Jews where everyone who wanted to leave in 1950 had to register and the government established Law No. 5, which set up a custodianship, and all the Jewish property went under the control of the custodianship, not seized, not owned by the Iraqi government, but being maintained by the Iraqi government. Whereas in other countries such as Egypt, absolute expropriations of property, government taking over assets....

The important thing to also note with Jewish refugees, in juxtaposition to Palestinians, is that Jews also had communal property, extensive holdings of synagogues and cemeteries and schools and libraries and social clubs. Those vast assets are not included in that $6 billion figure. There are good records of what was available and that has entirely been taken over.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Do most of those communal assets now belong to the various states involved?

[Dr. Stanley Urman]

That's correct.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

I was recently in Turkey and heard a similar thing from the chief rabbi in Istanbul. I know there's a process under way there to try to recover some of those assets, especially the former synagogues.

[Dr. Stanley Urman]

And—vive la différence—Morocco is one country that is trying its best to preserve Jewish communal assets. It put a plaque on a Jewish school recently to mention that it was a school, and it is refurbishing some of the cemeteries.

Each country has a different narrative in terms of its particular treatment of Jews.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Please give a quick response, because we're out of time.

[Dr. David Bensoussan]

Major expropriations took place in Iraq, Egypt, Libya and elsewhere. However, in other countries, most people left on the sly. They liquidated their assets very quickly, willing to take any price, and they often did so during their escape. Most people who left did so secretly. People simply abandoned their possessions. They lost everything.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Rae, you have seven minutes, sir.

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Thank you, and thanks to our visitors for a very compelling presentation.

I'm going to start by asking for a bit of clarification. I was interested in a comment of Mr. Urman's, when he said that there's no symmetry between the two experiences, which is a view that I have, too.

Mr. Abitbol spoke of a common experience between the two, but I think that in order to be fair, one must acknowledge that these were two different experiences. No one is demanding refugee status due to the historic situation, but this does not mean that the two experiences can be seen as mirror images of each other.

Is that right?

[Dr. Stanley Urman]

You said—

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Let me say for the record that Mr. Abitbol is shaking his head and Mr. Urman is nodding his head. I just want to understand this.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Dr. Stanley Urman]

We're in perfect sync. As they say, “You're right and you're right.”

There is no history or geography that would allow for any just comparative on the narrative of Palestinian refugees. The only way we talk about them, and the only symmetry—to use that word—is based on the fact that both were victims of the Arab–Israeli conflict, both were determined to be refugees under international law, and virtually the same numbers became refugees around that time period.

For us, any discussions of the Middle East refugees must include both populations. That's the only symmetry between the two narratives, as we see it.

[Sylvain Abitbol]

That's what I meant by symmetry.

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Okay. That's a helpful clarification.

The second thing is on the chart facing us. This is just a suggestion, but I would suggest to you that your statement that there were no communal losses by Palestinian refugees is frankly argumentative. I think you'd find it very difficult to convince a Palestinian refugee who has not been able to return to his parents' or grandparents' place, where in fact whole communities were evacuated, and where there were schools and places of worship that have been left.... To suggest that there were no communal losses whatsoever is a tough case to argue, and I don't think you have to argue it.

You see, there are some examples in which I see you trying to make a parallel situation, saying, “They got this, and we didn't get that.” The experience after 1948 was so completely different in terms of what happened. Yes, there was terrible discrimination in every one of the Arab capitals mentioned. Yes, there was horrific anti-Semitism. Yes, people left without anything, and people were deprived of their property and their way of life. That's a situation that has continued right up until the present day in some countries. But it's still not possible to say that the treatment of those people upon their arrival in Israel was the same as the treatment of the people who are, for whatever reason, and we can argue all of the circumstances surrounding the Palestinian issue.... It's a different set of issues.

I'm concerned as you make your argument, which I think is a very powerful one, that as in many arguments, if you make it a little too aggressively, let's say, you get a reaction from other people,: “Wait a minute. How can you say there were no communal losses of Palestinian refugees?” They would argue with that.

I don't think you have to make that case in order to make your case. That is my suggestion.

[David Matas]

Let me respond, if I may. One of our principles, which we have tried to follow throughout, is not to talk down or undercut or deny the rights or plight of Palestinian refugees. Our position is not that they don't have rights or that they weren't treated badly; on the contrary. Some of the accusations, and this relates to a previous question about how the international community has reacted to this issue.... One of the reactions has been that this is an attempt to deny Palestinian refugees their rights. It's absolutely not.

I think the caution you give is a wise one, because obviously, as we walk through this, sometimes we may despite our best principles not stick to them consistently in terms of the details of the advocacy.

I think the point is taken; in terms of principle, we agree.

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

I ask the question in the context of the events that occurred this week and the fact that the Arab League and the Government of Israel are starting to discuss the possibility of holding negotiations, therefore our words and arguments will have significant consequences. We are not discussing things in theory, but rather in practice. We understand the importance of truth and reconciliation. As I have always said, for true reconciliation to take place, a certain level of truth needs to be restored.

Not everybody agrees on what happened, but we must recognize the experiences of others. This aspect of the human experience is important. And that is what gives importance to our arguments.

I congratulate you on the work that you have done, but I think that the committee has some work to do in order to find the words to accurately express the thoughts that we share.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you very much, Mr. Rae.

We're going to start our second round of questions, of five minutes, with Mr. Van Kesteren.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

Thank you, gentlemen, for coming this morning.

It's a sordid tale when we look back at the way people have been treated, and specifically we're talking about Arabs and Jews, but you have only taken the story so far. I think about what you experienced in World War II.

Many people don't realize that in places such as England and France these things took place too. In 1492, of course, there was the expulsion from Spain. In World War II.... We took a trip to Ukraine recently and we went to Lviv. Much of that city, probably a quarter of it, was inhabited by Jewish people.

I have to say that I understand your argument and I completely sympathize with it, but you're leaving out a very important element, and that is if you're looking for some fair play and some recognition of what has taken place in history, and I know that this is a really sensitive issue, why haven't you included what happened to you in Europe? If you think about those things, they are just as tragic. I know that compensation isn't your issue.

Just let me finish my line of thought. It's very simple for us on the western side to look at this and say, “They have a point. These Arabs have not treated them right.” But there should probably be—not probably.... We should really own up to the fact that we—when I say “we”, I mean our western culture—are just as guilty of those....

[Dr. David Bensoussan]

I would like to address an aspect that is perhaps more psychological than anything else.

Those who lived in Europe for years never wanted to talk about their experience. They were referred to as displaced persons. It took years for them to be able to express themselves. Today, we talk about the holocaust regularly.

In the Sephardic and Jewish worlds of Arab Muslim countries, people are finally starting to talk about things that, to some extent, others wanted to silence. It took some time to get to that point. What we are calling for is well defined and very clear in my opinion. It directly affects Arab League countries, with whom there will be discussions. This is extremely important in the context of the narrative and of the development of the conflict.

[Sylvain Abitbol]

I'd like to go back to your question. The history of the European Jewry of the Holocaust is very well known in the world. Even if we have Holocaust deniers, I think the world knows what happened in Europe. It's very well documented. Movies have been made, testimonials have been made, and books have been written, but we believe that what happened to us, to people like me, people of my origin, has not been known, and it is a very sad story.

I would like to relate comments made by U.S. Senator Jerry Nadler when he joined us in Israel for a conference on these very subjects. When he went through security, he was asked a question by a young Israeli security officer. She asked him, “Why are you going to Israel?” He said, “Because there is a conference on Jewish refugees from Arab countries.” She said, “I never knew there were Jewish refugees from Arab countries.”

We believe that it's about time to educate our own children and to also let the world know what happened. It's not a parallel with the Holocaust; each history is a different history and each experience is a different experience. Even out of the same conflict, two populations are living it differently.

[David Matas]

If I may follow up, in the written materials we've done on this, we have referred to the Holocaust and the victims of the Holocaust as a point of comparison, because there were the Nuremberg trials, there's the recognition that Sylvain Abitbol talked about, and there is elaborate redress, not enough, but at least it's there.

The Holocaust victims who are now in Israel and who themselves were refugees—many of them still have integration problems and resettlement problems—are getting some form of help in dealing with it. The refugees from Arab countries who have many of the same problems, because they too are refugees and they too have integration and resettlement problems, don't get any compensation at all because of their refugee situation. That is one of the ways in which the rights that were violated have a continuing effect, which needs to be remedied.