Digging through the writings of various historians of 20th Century Algeria, one almost always unearths some dirt. I admire the spirit of the Algerian revolution against the French to a great degree, but I wish we were told the whole story in our educational programmes. The story I was given is that of heroic fighting, ample dedication, determination and brotherhood. Much of this true, but a large piece of the picture was not painted, and many details were swept under a neatly woven carpet of historical perfection*.
In particular, the events that happened directly at the ending of the revolution during the course of the year 1962 remain a mystery, with conflicting accounts from various historians inside and outside the country. So much happened too quickly to untangle: French Army factions breaking away, FLN internal strife, false fighters, Harkis, Pieds Noirs run anti-independence resistance movements, opportunists trying to get the best booties and the list goes on. It all ended in a blood bath where so many were killed in sometimes shameful ways, unfolding one of the dark chapters of the revolution.
Mobs would go through urban areas and extra judiciously kill anyone who was suspected of being complicit with the French side against the FLN. Sometimes false fighters would aid in these operations to get some credit and snap a couple of photos to gain Mujahid status. The benefits of the status were substantial in the newly created socialist state: a life long renumeration, free transportation, medical care, priority when importing goods (e.g a car or a fridge…). Some of these people would go on and hold high offices in the state, only for their back-story to be revealed decades later, much to the confusion and astonishment of the Algerian people. Accusations and false reports still spread to this day. It is all still a mess to be sorted.
Many suspected Algerian Muslims, Jews and Christians were targeted during the mob killings. Some Jews and Christians continued to live in the infant state even though the majority left. I do not believe that the FLN and the revolution had an inherently racist or xenophobic agenda. While digging through history books, specifically Mohamed Harbi’s “La Guerre d’Algérie”, published in 2004, I came through a letter from the FLN written to the Jewish community in 1962. The FLN tried to engage the Jewish community and appealed to them to side with the Algerian revolution. The FLN was sympathetic to the plight that the Jews suffered at the hands of the Nazis and Vichy’s government. It aknowledges the help of many Jews that were in the cause of the revolution.
Harbi was a high officer within the FLN, served in the first government after the independence and later fled after Boumediène’s coup of 1965. The letter led me to find another written in 1956, two years after the start of the revolutions. Excerpts of the letters appear below.
From the translation of the first letter (1956) (all emphasis is mine):
The National Liberation Front, which has led the anti-colonialist revolution for the past two years, feels that the moment has arrived when every Algerian of Israelite origin, in light of his own experience, must without any ambiguity choose sides in this great historic battle. The FLN, authentic and exclusive representative of the Algerian people, considers it its obligation to directly address the Israelite community and to ask it to solemnly affirm its membership in the Algerian nation. This choice clearly affirmed, it will dissipate all misunderstandings and extirpate the seeds of hatred maintained by French colonialism. It will also contribute to recreating Algerian fraternity, broken by the arrival of French colonialism.[...]
Without going too far back in history, it seems useful to us to recall the time when the Jews, held in less consideration than animals, didn’t even have the right to inter their dead, the latter being secretly buried during the night wherever this could be done, due to the absolute prohibition against the Jews having any cemeteries. At precisely this period Algeria was the refuge and land of freedom for the Israelites who fled the inhuman persecutions of the Inquisition. Precisely during this period the Israelite community was proud to offer its Algerian fatherland not only poets, but consuls and ministers.
It is because the FLN considers the Algerian Israelites the sons of our Fatherland that it hopes that the leaders of the Jewish community will have the wisdom to contribute to the building of a free and truly fraternal Algeria…
And from the second letter (1962):
The Algerian problem is at a decisive stage. We want to address this appeal to you, in the face of the hysterical and racist clamor of the fascists who claim to speak in your name, declaring that you are French and that you are all participants in the criminal acts of the backwards colonialists. You know full well that this is both a gratuitous declaration and a policy of mystification that should fool know [sic] one, and even less so you, who are Algerians.[...]
…Recently, in Oran, demonstrations provoked by young hotheads in the Israelite neighborhood took place, followed by fires set in stores belonging to Muslims. These acts are the clearest illustration of how some of you attempt to thoughtlessly align yourselves with the racial policies of the ultras. Will you today make yourselves the accomplices of the backwards colonialists by rising up against your Algerian brothers of Muslim origin?…[...]
Israelite compatriots, many Israelites are active in our ranks. Some among them were interned, others are still in prison for their acts in service to the Algerian cause. Algeria’s independence is near; independent Algeria will need you and tomorrow you will need it, for it is your country. Your Muslim brothers honestly and loyally offer you their hand for solidarity coming from your direction. It is your duty to answer.
These letters are not new, I am not trying to break new ground or rewrite history. They were just found by a curious mind digging back through the history of his country. These letters do not excuse the treatment that Jews or anyone endured after the revolution, what they show is that the Jews were not targeted because of their religion, they just shared the fate that anyone that was suspected of complicity and treason with the French did.
[* For the record, I don't believe Algerians are unique in this. Some French still believe that colonialism is great, the British believe they delivered prosperity everywhere throughout their empire, and some Americans think they ought to deliver democracy or freedom or something wherever there is oil. Nationalism is sweet like that.]
16 comments
Comments feed for this article
December 15, 2009 at 00:14
The Algerian Jews « Maghreb Politics Review
[...] 2009 December 15 by alle Houwari at Algerian Review (great new blog!) has a post up about the Algerian Jewish community, which is worth your time. Below are some of my own reflections on the [...]
December 15, 2009 at 21:19
Global Voices Online » Algeria: The Revolution and the Jews
[...] at Algerian Review, writes about the Algerian Revolution and the role of the Jewish community. Cancel this [...]
December 18, 2009 at 11:05
bataween
Interesting post, but I don’t entirely agree.
Link to your blog:
http://jewishrefugees.blogspot.com/2009/12/from-translation-of-first-letter-1956.html
December 18, 2009 at 16:38
Houwari
I don’t really grasp what you are disagreeing with. The fact that a lot of Jews had to flee is a given, and they had to do along with anyone who’ve been suspected of collaborating with the French, in cruel terms. It is well documented, by Stora and many others that many people of Jewish Origin did fight against the Algerian revolutionists. An unfortunate fact, and they are by no means alone in this, as Arabs/Muslims and Christians did the same and shared the same fate. The end of the war and the way it was influenced by L’OAS resulted in a chaos that sparred no one, regardless of race or religion.
December 18, 2009 at 22:56
bataween
A few Jews did fight against the revolutionists but it is wrong to say ‘many’. The majority of Jews were neutral. This being so, you would have thought it was enough to expel the collaborators themselves, not the entire community of 130,000. Once the Great Synagogue was wrecked that was a clear sign that all Jews were a legitimate target for violence, and despite Ben Bella’s pleas, they understood that they had no future in the new Algeria. Simply holding French citizenship was enough to condemn them in the eyes of the revolutionists.
There was a precedent for this in Egypt where 25,000 Jews were expelled by Nasser in 1956 – and they had done even less to deserve their fate than the Jews of Algeria.
You might be interested to learn that even those who supported the FLN like this Jew and his family
http://jewishrefugees.blogspot.com/2008/02/last-algerian-jews-left-five-years.html
ended up being driven out of Algeria by antisemitism.
August 4, 2010 at 19:50
Nuri ould el-Shinqiti
It is sad that you swallow the European concept of “anti-semitism”; Arabs are Semites, along with others such as Ethiopians, but being a Jew (or Muslim, or any other religion) does NOT make one a Semite. A Jew is a follower of a religion, Judaism, and can be Chinese, Aryan, Persian, Bantu, Indian, or Eskimo: Being anti-Jew does not make one “anti-semitic”, It makes one ANTI-JEW! Being anti-Arab, or anti-Ethiopian, or anti-Aramaean, makes one an anti-Semite!
Secondly, many Maghrebis were tricked by Zionist agents who performed such acts as throwing a pig’s head into a mosque, and leaving signs incriminating the Jewish community (who, usually, had nothing to do with the act). Enraged Muslims would then attack any Jews they could. The latter, being innocent, assumed that their days were numbered in the Maghreb, and fled.
A sad fact is that some of the instigations were done by so-called “Muslims” who were business competitors of the Jewish victims, or who hoped to pillage their properties after they fled!
On the other hand, it would be normal for anyone maintaining citizenship in the enemy state to be refarded with suspicion! Consider US citizens maintaining citizenship in Iran, North Korea, or Cuba, for example!
But i digress: the point is, usage of the proper terminology avoids ideological and factual errors, and can keep one on the right track.
December 18, 2009 at 23:07
bataween
The link you post seems to show that the role of the Mossad agents was to equip the Jews of Constantine for self-defence. But to extrapolate from this that the Mossad was actively fighting the FLN on the side of the OAS seems a bit of a stretch.
December 20, 2009 at 22:15
Houwari
The Mossad trained and actively armed residents who fought with the OAS against the FLN. Short of sending troops, that fits the definition of “actively”.
You seem to confuse “many” with the “majority of”. Many is established by more than a handful. You seem to be disputing “majority of”, which I did not claim.
It is quite established that “many” did. A tenable argument might be whether these did it because they felt oppressed and had to strike back or because they felt more Pied-Noirds than Algerian and thus aligned themselves with the European terrorist networks.
I do not think connecting the politics of Egypt to that of the Algerian revolution pre July 1962 and the Ben Bella presidency is a sensible argument.
Ultimately, a lot of innocent people died regardless of religion or race. A few Muslim fighters were killed in my grand parents village to the later horror of those who returned from the maquis: the killed were fighting in disguise.
The example you gave is quite sad – I feel for the guy. Post independence emotions ran high because of the conflict in the ME and that unfortunately led to horrible moments.
December 21, 2009 at 14:29
Sammish
I am not sure if your entry was an apologist for the Jews of Algeria or a defenvise toward the aim of defending the Algerian revolution. By digging some few letters showing how algerian revolutionaries extended their hands to their jewish friends means nothing. These are the exception to the rule. To me this is personal, very personal because I was born in Algeria but had to leave with a blanket on my hands at the age of 7. People were killing innocent jews whimsically whenever they had a chance. My family was told that everythig was alright and what we saw was destruction and usurpation of property, murder and in some case rape (city of Oran). Nobody wanted to stop this.
The problem is that in the upper echelon of the FLN, there was an anti-jewish agenda and anti-zionist program. It is well documented, I am not sure what these letters you have dug up are going to change the fact that the dictatorship of newly military state was bound to be anti-jewish just like their Egyptian experience. To me these letters only show the potential that COULD have been attained in multi-ethnic independent Algeria. The rest is rubbish wishful thinking. You must have heard the phrase targeting the Algerian jewish population : “La valise ou la mort” . This was the slogan of the new republic. It was the OFFICIAL policy of the FLN and was dictaded in meetings of your glorious independence movement, and people in the streets acted upon it, and the leaders looked on. It was senseless to encite murders and rapes, when the Jews were only trying even willing to leave and let you run the country. They did not even ask for nothing else….
December 21, 2009 at 17:03
Non-Arab Arab
“The problem is that in the upper echelon of the FLN, there was an anti-jewish agenda and anti-zionist program. It is well documented”
First of all, quit with the mixing of the anti-Jewish and anti-Zionist issues as if they were on the same moral plane. An anti-Jewish program would be racist and to be condemned. But given that Zionism as practiced by 99.9% of it’s adherents (and especially in the era in question) was and is pure racism, being anti-Zionist is the only serious moral position any decent person can take. Conflating the two is the sin of Zionists and their supporters, and they bear the blood of all those innocent Jews who died as a result right alongside the actual murderers.
Second of all, if it is so well documented, please show. And please show the immoral anti-Jewish sentiment without conflating with the moral anti-Zionist sentiment. I am by the way not in any way precluding what you are saying. The Algerian revolution turned dirty on so many counts as the author of the post here acknowledges. I believe his point is that the core ideals of nationalist revolution – even if later betrayed in many respects and instances – were fundamentally right. Compare that with Zionism, an inherently racist and rotten to the core ideal which has produced no saving graces whatsoever other than a trail of Apartheid, ethnic cleansing, murder, weapons proliferation, etc, etc.
December 21, 2009 at 18:37
Sammish
Wow! you seem to be able to “deconflate” moral values from anti-jewish as well as anti-zionist. I am so glad you are able to do so, because I have heard it from many Arab intellectuals. I believe that anti-zionism is only a cover for anti-jewish sentiments for many people. This is not to say that Zionism is clean from moral outrage. As far as your naive anti-jewish “program” position, which I have no clue what it means ” a program?”, as being racist and should be condemned, I think it is true in the case of enlightened secular Arabs, but as far as that goes to the masses of religious moderate and/ or zealous fanatics it is only true as long as Jews stay in their place as Dhimmis. Wouldn’t you think so?
August 4, 2010 at 20:31
Nuri ould el-Shinqiti
Samish, you are playing that old Zionist game of equating freedom for Palestine with being anti-Jewish. Well, the rebuttal to your argument comes from the ultra-orthodox Netorei Karta Jewish community based in New York ( http://www.nkusa.org/ ) which is itself strongly anti-Zionist, but very attached to the teachings of Judaism. If you visit their website, you will perhaps find enlightenment, and drop the propaganda fed by the Zionist entity in Palestine, and it’s puppet entity, the US, to the world. They have a seat on the Palestine National Congress, since the days of Arafat, and are known for the frequent public burnings of the Zionist flag near the UN, on the anniversary of the founding of the zionist entity in Palestine. They follow the orthodox teaching that the Jews can only move to Palestine when the Messiah comes, so they only go there to visit their Holy Places, and depart. They don’t recognize the Zionist state, join its military, etc! They are loyal citizens of ther countries, and I wish we had more of them and less like you.
I assume the folks you refer to as “enlightened, secular arabs” means westernized, anti-Islamic hypocrites with inferiority complexes. That doesn’t sound very “enlightened” to me, but i suppose you prefer that term for Arab traitors who support your cause.
The very nature and purpose of zionism is racist, colonialist, and predatory. Palestine is Arab, and will always be so, regard less of the Zionist Lobby in Washington. Any Jew who supports Zionism (including yourself) is an enemy of the Arab Nation; any Arab who supports Zionism is likewise. As Moshe Menuhim said, “Zionism is Nazism translated into Hebrew” (“The Decadence of Judaism in our Time”).
Jews and Arabs can disagree on many things, and remain friends; if you support the zionist entity in Palestine, you are an eternal enemy to every real Arab or Muslim, like it or not. It’s your decision.
February 6, 2011 at 01:35
Omar
Constructive Criticism: I hope.
The opening paragraph open as follows:
“Digging through the writings of various historians of 20th Century Algeria, one almost always unearths some dirt. I admire the spirit of the Algerian revolution against the French to a great degree, but I wish we were told the whole story in our educational programmes. The story I was given is that of heroic fighting, ample dedication, determination and brotherhood. Much of this true, but a large piece of the picture was not painted, and many details were swept under a neatly woven carpet of historical perfection*.
Now let us “Digg” rather than scratch. I will simply go through the first paragraph and hope its author(s) and readers, Time and motivation allowing, will apply the same analysis to the rest of the post and why not other publications. I will quote each sentence and follow it by my comments.
1. “Digging through the writings of various historians of 20th Century Algeria, one almost always unearths some dirt.”
To dig means to break up and remove materials to uncover the unseen. In this context, the author claims to have dug through the writings of historians. Two points needs to be made here.
First, there is no mention of the historians whose writings the author has “dug” thus the unseen remains unseen and the authors has not been a great help to any reader interested in digging the same “dirt” the authors claims to be digging for.
Second, If we are dealing with history here as the author claims, it would be reasonable on the part of the reader to expect facts, accurate as records allow to be advanced in support of the claims made. Not to expect objectivity given the subject matter would be indeed naive.
2. “I admire the spirit of the Algerian revolution against the French to a great degree, but I wish we were told the whole story in our educational programmes.”
I “admire” the author for admiring the Algerian revolution on the basis of incomplete information which the authors expressed in “I wish we were told the whole story”. Can one admire the spirit of a revolution is one is not fully informed about its aims, methods, outcomes and its moral basis or the absence of the latter?
History, above any things requires ownership in the sense of one standing for the historical account one provides. Yet, we do not know who the authors is. In the absence of authorship and author affiliation information, is one not left in the dark just as the author was left in the dark by those who taught him?
“our educational programmes” the author writes. I wonder who OUR refers to? If it refers to Algerians, it would only take few Algerians to disagree with the authors to render his claim invalid. Fortunately enough, not many Algerians would disagree not would any people in the world disagree that the powers to be always try to keep the masses relative darkness. If this were not the case WIKILEAKS would not be in existence.
3. “The story I was given is that of heroic fighting, ample dedication, determination and brotherhood. Much of this true, but a large piece of the picture was not painted, and many details were swept under a neatly woven carpet of historical perfection*.”
He who generalises is always at risk. To write defensively is to be one’s own critic and evaluator. It must be the case that “heroism, dedication and brotherhood” were demonstrated by many most of whom, ultimately, paid with their lives. It must also be true that others had none of the feelings of qualities listed by the authors -ans we know who these are today.
The author Writes “many details were swept under a neatly woven carpet of historical perfection*. The author invested a great deal of time on our behalf and provided us with a stimulating post -the evidence for this is the number of comments including the present one.
I only wish (or rather hope) that we will all endeavour to provide more details when writing about topics such as history we our sons and daughters will not blame us for leaving them in the dark by failing to provide then with details.
Unfortunately, I am not a historian and thus those with more knowledge and expertise in the field to assume such a noble task as that history writing.
Omar Acherc
PS. I hope this comment will be taken in the spirit it was intended.
June 26, 2011 at 04:13
Ali
hehe… wherever there is oil… sounds about right
May 14, 2013 at 09:47
jawara Post
Nice sound from a different country yaah
May 14, 2013 at 09:47
jawara Post
Nice posting too thanks you