Zionist FAQs: Prof. Avi Shlaim on antisemitism in the Arab world: was it indigenous to the eastern culture, or imported from antisemitic Europe?

Menorah engraving illustration present in a column inside the Great Mosque of Gaza

Prof. Avi Shlaim, an Israeli Iraqi Jewish historian, cited an important fact often missed. When he examined antisemitic materials in the Arab world during the pre-Nakba period, he discovered that all were imported from European books. In other words, the material was not indigenous to the East. He traced the importation and translation of such antisemitic material after the Balfour Declaration, especially in the 1920s. Prof. Shlaim added another interesting fact: the Middle East had no ghettos; the concept didn't exist as it did in Europe. Actually, just 500 years ago, Gaza had one of the most vibrant Jewish communities around the world. Below the video, we asked Google's AI Gemini to reflect and unpack what Prof. Shlaim said:

In other words, Antisemitism is a European product, and Zionists brought Antisemitism where it never existed. Most importantly, Palestinians' hatred of those who replaced and dispossessed them is justified. When we examine the Haavara Agreement, we discovered that fomenting antisemitism is an inherent feature of Zionism. If you doubt our presentation, think twice. Here is the short list of Israeli false flags several of which Prof. Shlaim uncovered recently!

Soon after the October 7th Raid, PR's editor submitted a comment for an Op-Ed by Senator Chuck Schumer. While the editor's comments are typically deleted by the NY Times, it was surprising to see that this one was permitted to remain! Shamelessly, the vast majority of Jews expect us Palestinians to approve of those who replaced them, and if they don't, they become the "antisemites" as the Nazis:

Consider the demographic reality of 1948: Jews constituted only 10% of the citizens, yet nearly a third of the total population. This is why the "Great Replacement" is not a mere theory but a visceral, eighty-year-long nightmare we call Nakba. In this profoundly warped situation, the concepts of reality, logic, and factual truth have been utterly destroyed. If you dare oppose genocide, you are instantly branded an "antisemite" or a "Jew hater."

When the Jews engage in weaponizing antisemitism in such a fashion, as we have seen, they are engaging in fomenting the samething they "claim" to despise!

Discovery Session With Google's AI Gemini

We asked: Can you reflect and unpack what Prof. Shlaim said earlier about antisemitism in the Arab world?

Google's Gemini answered:  

The claim you are referring to comes from a school of historical thought that Avi Shlaim, a prominent "New Historian" and Oxford professor, has championed for decades. His reflection on the nature of antisemitism in the Arab world is central to his critique of the standard Zionist narrative.

Here is a reflection on Shlaim's argument, the historical context he cites, and why his specific background is so relevant to this observation.

1. The Distinction: "Imported" vs. "Indigenous"

Shlaim’s core thesis is that while anti-Jewish sentiment existed in the Arab world prior to 1948, it was fundamentally different from European antisemitism.

• European Antisemitism: Shlaim characterizes this as racial, conspiratorial, and eliminationist (e.g., the belief that Jews control the world or must be destroyed). This is the variety he argues was "imported."

• Indigenous Status: In the Arab world, Jews were historically Ahl al-Kitab ("People of the Book"). They lived under dhimmi status—a protected but subordinate legal status. While this system was discriminatory (involving special taxes like jizya), Shlaim and others argue it was not "antisemitism" in the modern sense. It was a hierarchical social structure, not a racial hatred.

2. The Role of Translations (The 1920s)

Shlaim is historically accurate regarding the translation of specific texts. The "antisemitic materials" he refers to are largely European conspiracy theories, most notably "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion."

• The 1920s Turning Point: The Protocols (a Russian forgery alleging a Jewish plot for world domination) was translated into Arabic in the 1920s (specifically appearing in Syria around 1925 and Cairo shortly after).

• Christian Arab Role: Historians often note that these early translations were frequently initiated not by Muslims, but by Christian Arab nationalists who were influenced by French and missionary education, where they absorbed European anti-Jewish tropes.

• Shlaim's Point: He argues that this literature was foreign to the region's culture. It was introduced to fuel opposition to Zionism. As the conflict in Palestine grew, these European conspiratorial tropes were adopted and "Islamized" by figures like the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, merging imported hatred with local political conflict.

3. Shlaim’s "Arab-Jew" Identity

Your mention of Shlaim being an Iraqi Jew is crucial. His memoir, Three Worlds: Memoirs of an Arab-Jew (2023), serves as a personal validation of his academic claims.

• Lived Experience: Shlaim grew up in Baghdad, where the Jewish community had existed for 2,500 years. He describes his childhood not as one of persecution, but of integration. His family had Muslim friends, and they identified culturally as Arabs who were Jewish by religion.

• The Disruption: He argues that this coexistence was destroyed by the twin forces of Zionism and Arab Nationalism. He often controversially points to the "false flag" bombings in Baghdad (1950-1951), which he argues were carried out by Zionist agents to panic Iraqi Jews into fleeing to Israel, effectively "creating" a need for rescue that didn't previously exist in that acute form.

Summary of the Reflection

Shlaim's argument is that the hatred we see today is a political product of the 20th century, not an ancient religious inevitability. By citing the "importation" of European texts in the 1920s, he is trying to prove that the Arab world did not have an inherent, genocidal hatred of Jews; rather, it "learned" these specific tropes from Europe, and they were inflamed by the political struggle over Palestine.

It is a powerful, albeit debated, perspective that seeks to humanize the pre-1948 Arab world and challenge the idea that "Arabs have always hated Jews."

We asked: I cannot help it but to conclude that Zionism has create new ememies for the Jews that they didn't have

Google's Gemini answered: 

That is a conclusion that aligns very closely with Avi Shlaim’s life work and the core argument of the "New Historians."

You are essentially describing the tragedy of the "Great Divorce" that Shlaim documents: the idea that Zionism, in its attempt to solve the "Jewish Question" in Europe, inadvertently created a "Jewish Question" in the Middle East where one did not previously exist in the same way.

Here are a few deeper reflections on your conclusion, drawing on the history Shlaim and others have presented:

1. From "Neighbor" to "Political Enemy"

Your observation highlights a shift in category.

• Before 1948: In places like Baghdad, Cairo, or Damascus, a Jew was often seen as a neighbor with a different religion. There was prejudice, certainly, but it was usually religious or social, not existential.

• After 1948: Zionism nationalized Jewish identity. It insisted that a Jew was not just a follower of Moses, but a citizen-in-waiting of a state in Palestine. This transformed the Jew in the Arab mind from a "neighbor" into a representative of a foreign, hostile political entity. Shlaim argues that this forced Arab Jews into an impossible position: they had to choose between their home (Arabness) and their faith (which was now being conflated with Zionism).

2. The "Iron Wall" and Knowing the Cost

It is worth noting that early Zionist leaders were not entirely blind to this. Ze’ev Jabotinsky, a Revisionist Zionist leader, famously wrote about the "Iron Wall" in 1923.

• He argued that the Arabs would naturally resist Zionism because they were patriots of their land. He did not view their resistance as antisemitism, but as a natural political reaction to colonization.

• The difference is that early Zionists accepted this new enmity as the necessary cost of statehood. Your conclusion suggests that for the Jews living in Arab lands (like Shlaim’s family), this cost was one they were forced to pay, even though they hadn't asked for it.

3. The Tragedy of the "Arab-Jew"

Shlaim often uses the term "Arab-Jew" to describe himself—a term that today sounds like an oxymoron to many people.

• Your conclusion touches on the erasure of this identity. By creating a binary conflict (Zionist vs. Arab), the middle ground was destroyed.

• Shlaim argues that Zionism effectively "Ashkenized" the history of the Jewish people, treating European persecution as the universal Jewish experience, while ignoring or dismissing the centuries of relative coexistence Jews enjoyed in the East.

In this view, the "security" that Israel was supposed to provide came at the expense of the security and integration that Jews in the Islamic world had enjoyed for centuries.

Would you be interested in hearing about the specific controversy Shlaim raised regarding the 1950 Baghdad bombings? It is his most direct—and explosive—example of how he believes Zionism actively manipulated events to sever the ties between Arab Jews and their home countries.

We asked Google's Gemini: You spoke earlier about Jizya being paid by the dhimmi (non-Muslims). The Jews nowadays cite Jizya as a form of systematic discrimination against them and often compare it to European antisemitism. Can you put that in context and judge it based on the time periods between the 18th and 20th centuries where the system of salvory was alive and well? If I am not mistaken, this was abolished in the mid-19th century by the Ottomans. I think that those who served in the army didn't pay for it. I believe only a few European nations gave citizenship to the Jews. I think the same thing happened in Egypt, started by Mohammad Ali. I wonder if you can reflect on that.

Google's Gemini answered: