UNRWA chief: Gaza school curriculum does not include Holocaust

[oberliner]

Gaza – Ma’an – Karen Abu Zayd, the commissioner-general of the UN agency for Palestinian Refugees, UNRWA, said on Tuesday that curriculum at UN schools in Gaza does not refer to the Jewish Holocaust.

During a news conference at the Gaza harbor Abu Zayd said, “I can refute allegations that UN school curriculum includes anything about the Holocaust. Anyone can have a look at the school books. Really we focus on human rights in curriculum.”

http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=222848

What a relief!

[ProgressiveMuslim]

1. ‘Nakba’ removed from textbooks

July 23, 2009

JERUSALEM (JTA) -- "Nakba," the Arabic term meaning "catastrophe" used to describe the creation of the state of Israel, will be removed from school textbooks.

The announcement was made Wednesday by Israel's Education Ministry.

The term was approved for use in a textbook for Arab-Israeli schools in 2007.

"After studying the matter with education experts, it was decided that the term nakba should be removed," Yisrael Twito, a spokesman for Education Minister Gideon Sa'ar, told Ha'aretz. "It is inconceivable that in Israel we would talk about the establishment of the state as a catastrophe."

http://jta.org/news/article/2009/07/23/1006752/nakba-removed-from-textbooks


What a relief!

[Kurska]

2. Everyones already been up and down the forums over this.

Not teaching Nakba is not recognizing a opinion (that the founding of Israel is bad in it being good vs. bad) everyone admits that the actual events that Israeli's consider the founding of Israel and Palestinians consider the Nakba took place. Not teaching the holocaust is denying that a incredibly well documented historical event actually took place.

On edit: I really do like how this is the only response from some of the hardcore Palestinians supporters, as if they really believe two wrongs make a right.

[azurnoir]

3. Not recognizing an opinion?

What the Palestinians only think it happened,or is what they do not recognize is that in the opinion of the Israeli government and its supporters is that they somehow deserved it.

[Kurska]

5. Oh because thats phrasing the disagreement in a totally academic and impartial way.

As much as you try to and define the issue it, there has always been and there will always be considerable debate on whether the founding of israel was a moral justified act or a tragedy.

Regardless, I don't support the change. However trying to conflate a government taking a position on a historical disagreement that relates to it and a government actively deciding to not teach about a historical event because it undermines their position, is wrong.

It is the difference between a US textbook trying to justify the Vietnam war and a US textbook saying the war never happened.

[azurnoir]

8. The founding of Israel was indeed justified

what was not was the displacement of almost 3/4 of a million Palestinians during that same founding but that is only my opinion

[Kurska]

9. I'll agree with that, no person should ever have to become a refugee.

I'm not even going to try and downplay it with the number of jewish refugees or the nature of war, it is just always a tragedy.

[Behind the Aegis]

13. Quick! Look over there!

[ProgressiveMuslim]

23. My point is plain: the propensity to ignore history is hardly unique to Gazans.

Israel has it down to an art form.

[oberliner]

24. What a terrific point to make!

That's certainly a critical takeaway from this incident.

If only more people would responded to Holocaust denial in this way!

[ProgressiveMuslim]

39. Have you considered that Palestinians might be better able to "feel your pain" if Israel's boot was

not on their necks?

Honestly, I find the need for the abuser to get pissy because their victims don't recognize their pain beyond absurd! And that *is* what this is about. There isn't a single Palestinian who doesn't know about the HOlocaust.

Honestly.... what do TPTB in Israel expect? The utter hypocrisy of this gets my goat.

Whatever...

[oberliner]

54. No one needs to feel any pain or show any sympathy

Just an awareness that the Holocaust actually happened and was not "a lie invented by the Zionists."

[Behind the Aegis]

27. You're correct. Your point is plain.

It is "Quick! Look over there!" Of course, it doesn't distract from your real message.

[aranthus]

14. As it should have been.

The concept of "Nakba" includes a litany of facts that are believed contrary to the historical evidence. Yes, there were refugees, but most were not intentionally expelled. Neither were they made refugees by Israel's creation; rather they were the product of the war that the Palestinians started. Nor, was the displacement of Palestinians a prerequisite for the creation of Israel. Unfortunately, the Palestinians believe lies. There is no reason for the Israeli school system to pander to that.

[shira]

17. all good points - teaching a false Nakba narrative and denying the holocaust does nothing to bring..

Arabs and Jews closer together.

[Violet_Crumble]

20. Pity they don't commission some one-eyed pro-Israel type from the US to check the school-books....

And even funnier would be if that one-eyed pro-Israel type from the US proceeded to try to define what the concept of "Nakba" is based on their own personal views rather than what the term itself actually signifies. When it comes to refugees, why does it make so much difference to you whether they were expelled or fled out of fear? The fact remains that they weren't allowed to return to their homes....

[aranthus]

57. I have both eyes, thank you very much.

And I'm sure one could manufacture a relatively innocuous description of the Nakba narrative (though you didn't; you just assumed it). As for, "why does it make so much difference to you whether they were expelled or fled out of fear? The fact remains that they weren't allowed to return to their homes...." If you are as smart as I think, and have as much knowledge and understanding of the conflict as you claim, then you already know the answer, so this question seems to be a bit of posing. Nevertheless, the answer is that it has to do with responsibility for one's actions and situation. The Palestinians think of the Nakba as something that was done to them, rather than as something to which they have a causal relation. If they were forcibly expelled, then it's all Israel's fault. If they became refugees in a war that they started, then they have some responsibility. Now you might say that even if the Palestinians have some responsibility for being refugees, that it isn't and shouldn't be all on them, and I would agree with you. However, I have yet to read anything by a Palestinian arguing that it was a mistake to have followed the Mufti in 1947; that they shouldn't have opted for a general strike, rioting, and attacking the Jews after the Partition Resolution vote, and that maybe they should have tried to negotiate a settlement. I have yet to see the Palestinians take any responsibility for their actions and their own refugee status. For example, in a recent interview in the New Statesman, Khalid Meshal, head of Hamas, said, among other things:

": Are you committed to the destruction of Israel?

Khalid Meshal: What is really happening is the destruction of the Palestinian people by Israel; it is the one that occupies our land and exiles us, kills us, incarcerates us and persecutes our people. We are the victims, Israel is the oppressor, and not vice versa."

And also:
"KL: What is your view of the cause of the conflict between the state of Israel and the Palestinians?

KM: The conflict is the outcome of aggression and occupation. Our struggle against the Israelis is not because they are Jewish, but because they invaded our homeland and dispossessed us. We do not accept that because the Jews were once persecuted in Europe they have the right to take our land and throw us out. The injustices suffered by the Jews in Europe were horrible and criminal, but were not perpetrated by the Palestinians or the Arabs or the Muslims. So, why should we be punished for the sins of others or be made to pay for their crimes?"

These ideas are bullshit. If the Palestinians continue to believe them, then they aren't going to be interested in any reasonable peace.

[Igel]

25. The jta citation says they're

removing the term. I have to assume that the course content is unchanged, because the article is quite explicit in its use of the word "term" whenever "naqba" is mentioned.

Are we back to confusing the Wort and the Sach? The word and the thing? If we don't use the word "Naqba" or the word "Holocaust," is it still possible to teach the historical facts and consequences, and discuss motives?

Yes, we offend the ever-so-delicate sensitivities of some by avoiding their choice of terms. But it's also a way of moving beyond charged rhetoric. Consider all the nonsense over what to call Macedonia, or the quibble over "the" Ukraine, or even the insistance that we refer to the indigenous populations of North America as "Native Americans" (at least until the "Indian Gaming Act" was up for a vote, then all the tribes in California went with "Indian"--because it avoided confrontation, no doubt).

If we call the killing of Christians in Aleppo in the 1850s a "pogrom," have we skewed history by using a Russian word applied to the killing of Jews by Russians (or Slavs) to the killing of Arab Christians by Arab Muslims?

No. We haven't. We've just played with language. I'm obviously not a follower of Whorf.

On edit: If you're into sociolinguistics, consider this. When you promulgate a term it can be accepted or rejected by speakers. Typically speakers adopt terms that they find useful or which shows they belong to a group, or want to belong to a group, possibly because that group wields power. You can also bald-facedly compel the adoption of a term in an out-and-out show of power, whether political or moral. When you see people trying to specify the terms they want to be called by, it's not just dignity they're necessarily after--often enough they also want a certain amount of power, to control how other people speak, to control how others refer to them.

[azurnoir]

4. Sounds like propaganda released

to start a propaganda shitstorm. Explains much, it did seem weird that UNRWA would choose to teach this only in its schools in Gaza

[Kurska]

6. "UNRWA would choose to teach this only in its schools in Gaza" where are you getting this from?

source?

[azurnoir]

7. Gaza schools were the only ones mentioned

in the original post on this subject also made by Oberliner did mention that the Holocaust was not part of the curriculum in schools on the West Bank but I suppose it could be in UNRWA schools in Lebanon or something

[Kurska]

10. Where else does UNRWA run schools?

I assumed it was just a matter of the other schools not being mentioned because it isn't controversial there.

[oberliner]

11. Palestinian Authority textbooks, used in the occupied West Bank, refer to Nazi massacres

and anti-Semitism as part of high school lessons about World War II but do not go into detail about the scope of the genocide, according to Israelis and Palestinians familiar with the texts.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/01/AR2009090102496.html?hpid=sec-world

From the same article:

"Talk about the holocaust and the execution of the Jews contradicts and is against our culture, our principles, our traditions, values, heritage and religion," Jamila al-Shanti, a Hamas legislative official said...

[Violet_Crumble]

12. Do you agree with what Kurska said about the Nakba in post 2?

It's just that while you post quite regularly about how the Holocaust is presented in Palestinian schools, I can't recall seeing you being anywhere near as concerned when it comes to how the Nakba's presented in Israeli schools....

[oberliner]

16. J Street Statement on Hamas’ Holocaust Denial

J Street unequivocally condemns Holocaust denial by Hamas officials, most recently in an open letter to UNRWA Chief John Ging stating that the group refuses to “let our children study a lie invented by the Zionists”.

Hamas leader Khaled Meshal remarked to the The New York Times that Hamas needs to be “part of the solution” but it is difficult to take that seriously while Hamas officials continue to perpetuate and promote Holocaust denial.

We call on leaders and political movements throughout the Arab and Muslim worlds to cease using Holocaust denial as a political tool. As President Obama remarked in his speech in Cairo, Holocaust denial “is baseless, it is ignorant, and it is hateful.”

Hamas’ continued use of such incendiary rhetoric – not to mention its ongoing use of terror and violence – undercuts efforts to find a path to its inclusion in a political two-state resolution to the conflict.

http://www.jstreet.org/blog/?p=565

[Violet_Crumble]

18. please answer my question

If you don't want to answer the question please just be honest and say so

[azurnoir]

15. From the original article

which I incorrectly credited to you

The Holocaust is not taught in West Bank schools, said an education ministry official in Western-backed President Mahmoud Abbas' government.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090831/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_hamas_holocaust

but I do see the whole affair has been antiPalestinian or antiGaza propaganda boon

[pelsar]

19. why is it propaganda?

is it true or not?...if its true than its not propaganda...its Hamas being true to their ideology. I like Hamas, for the most part they don't"hide" their ideology, nor their plans. They have made it clear their viewpoint by both words and actions. Hamas is anti western, anti liberal, anti jew, anti israeli etc...and as time goes on, they're not providing "propaganda material" they are simple making it clear (for those who are confused) about what they believe in.

Hamas does stuff all on their own, and israel has nothing to do with the way they treat the gazans.....and many Palestinians in the west bank have taken notice

[Violet_Crumble]

21. That's not how propaganda works....

if its true than its not propaganda

Things that are factual can definately be propaganda, and that's because propaganda is a means of communication that tries to get an audience to think in a particular way. Whether the propaganda itself is factual, selective facts, or outright BS is irrelevant when it comes to it being propaganda...

[pelsar]

37. ok...never actually thought of it...

which explains other posts that i didn't respond to. i always thought of propaganda as an exaggeration....

[Violet_Crumble]

56. That's how I used to think of it as well...

I still sometimes let the word lazily slip out here at DU when I should be saying something's incorrect or grossly exaggerated. My understanding of propaganda is that it's mainly used by governments, and it can be either positive or negative, but basically it's the use of a form of PR to get a population on board with something the govt wants them to feel a certain way about. Working in external communications for a govt department here, what we present to the public is put together in a way where the public's supposed to end up feeling good about doing what we want them to do, so that's a form of propaganda, though it's positive and factual....

[azurnoir]

22. It becomes propaganda when

a single statement is used to represent an entire group to the exclusion of other statements or the entire premise is proven untrue both would apply in this case

[pelsar]

38. yes and no ...see post above..

as far as the single statement to represent and entire group...etc..that then eliminates any discussion what so ever on any subject:

settlers, israelis, Hamas...etc....all are groups with various shades of gray. Are you going to seriously make a claim that we can't discuss the characters of those groups without putting (*) saying that they're may be exceptions to a particular statement......

[azurnoir]

49. Discuss yes but center on a particular statement as representative

of a broader issue creates propaganda, I would hardly want that when it comes to American views, would you want statements made by either Moshe Feiglin or Uri Avnery taken as representative of Israel?

[Ken Burch]

26. We all agree that Holocaust denial is wrong.

Did we need ANOTHER thread on this?

[Behind the Aegis]

28. Your post is hysterical in it's irony.

Your post is the opposite of PM's, it isn't "quick! Look over there!", it is "quick! everyone, put your head in the sand."

[Ken Burch]

29. I denounced the idiot in Hamas who defended leaving the Holocaust out of the curriculum

All I was saying was that we already had threads going on on this.

It's wrong to deny the Holocaust. While it's not morally equivalent, it's also wrong to use the Holocaust(as the Israeli right often does)to justify the way the Israeli government has treated Palestinians, because Palestinians had nothing to do with that horrific event. The Holocaust was an act committed solely by Europeans, and only Europeans should have suffered for it. This is the position I take, and it's a morally consistent one.

And it was a strawman to imply that I was calling for everyone to "put their head in the sand" on the issue. I have never said or even thought anything remotely like that.

[Behind the Aegis]

30. Good for you.

I mean, there is NEVER a repeat thread in IP. There is NEVER a thread posted in another forum then moved to IP, which resembles a thread already in IP.

It is wrong to pretend the Holocaust is used to justify the actions of the Israeli government's treatment of the Palestinians.

"The Holocaust was an act committed solely by Europeans, and only Europeans should have suffered for it. This is the position I take, and it's a morally consistent one."

You have the same "moral" position for the Nakaba?

[Ken Burch]

31. The Holocaust was solely a European act. Solely a European CHRISTIAN act.

You can't seriously be disputing that.

It was ONLY Europeans putting Hitler in power.

It was ONLY Europeans spreading fascism through Italy, Spain, Eastern Europe, the Baltics and The Balkans, thus making the great crime possible.

It was ONLY Europeans deciding to open the camps(at Wannsee).

It was ONLY Europeans deciding to send Jews, LGBT's, Marxists, Jehovah's Witnesses and Roma to the camps.

It was ONLY Europeans guarding the camps.

It was ONLY Europeans deciding to kill everyone in the camps.

It was ONLY Europeans turning on the ovens and the gas chambers.

No Palestinian and no other Arab had anything to do with implementing any of the above.

The blood of Hitler's victims was only on European hands. This is the truth. There's simply no reason for you to question it.

[Behind the Aegis]

32. Blah, blah, blah.

All those words, and not a single answer.

"There's simply no reason for you to question it."

:rofl:

There is simply no way I have ever questioned it, that only happens in your bizarre narrative world of straw.

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Behind the Aegis]

34. Wrong. Again.

"With your remark about the Nakba, you were implying that my view was inconsistent"

That was not what I implied, it was what YOU inferred, incorrectly.

"You have no reason to be laughing at me. And I used no strawmen in the previous post."

I have EVERY reason to laugh at your remark. You are correct though, you didn't use a strawman, you just used made something up all together, so, "Give it a rest. BTW, I'm alerting on that post."

[Ken Burch]

35. What point were you making in referencing the Nakba, then?

BTW, if there was an inference on my part, it is due to the fact that your posts often depend on insinuation and on getting people to infer something.

My statement on the Holocaust war perfectly sound and there was no reason for you to imply that it was in some way silly.

And no, you have no reason to treat anything I've said with contempt or derision. You are not the exclusive arbiter of what is and is not a valid point of view on the I/P issue. It doesn't belong to you more than it belongs to anyone else.

[Behind the Aegis]

36. It really isn't all that difficult to get.

From post 30:

"The Holocaust was an act committed solely by Europeans, and only Europeans should have suffered for it. This is the position I take, and it's a morally consistent one."

You have the same "moral" position for the Nakaba?

It is easy to see, but since you are unable: "The Nakaba was an act committed solely by Israelis, and only Israelis should have suffered for it. This is the position I take, and it's a morally consistent one."

"My statement on the Holocaust war perfectly sound and there was no reason for you to imply that it was in some way silly."

Again, poor observation skills. I wasn't laughing at your diatribe, I was laughing at your idiotic strawmen conclusion; "There's simply no reason for you to question it."

"And no, you have no reason to treat anything I've said with contempt or derision."

I most certainly do.

"You are not the exclusive arbiter of what is and is not a valid point of view on the I/P issue. It doesn't belong to you more than it belongs to anyone else. "

:rofl: Back to making shit up, I see. I should say the same thing to you as it is you who seems to think this way with anyone who disagrees with you

[Ken Burch]

41. The Israelis of today should not suffer for the Nakba

There needs to be an admission that a great injustice was done to the Palestinian people in the way the establishment of the state was handled, and this admission needs to be coupled with compensation and apologies.
But acknowledging the Nakba does not mean questioning the right of Israel to exist. Obviously it does exist and its continued existence is not really in question.

I would never liken Israelis to the authors of the Holocaust, as your post above clearly and falsely implies that I would. Saying that only Europeans should suffer for what happened in the death camps(since neither Palestinians nor any Arabs at all had anything to do with those camps or the decision to establish them) is not in any way comparable to the imaginary position you create for me in the post I am now responding to. Why on earth would you think that it would?

And my "exclusive arbiter" comment was not making anything up. I didn't say you had used those words. But you do seem(I emphasize seem) to assign yourself ownership of this history in a way you are not entitled to.

The Holocaust has been used by many apologists for the Israeli government(if not by yourself, fine, I wasn't saying it had been)as a blanket justification for what has been done by Israel in the name of security(despite the fact that Palestinians and other Arabs are clearly not in any way comparable to Nazis)and has also been used by the same government and the same apologists to silence criticism of Israeli policy. There is no way that you could be unaware of that tactic. At one point in the 1970's, Holocaust survivors living in Israel even sent a petition to Menachem Begin asking him to STOP invoking the Holocaust as a blanket justification for everything he did on security.

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

47. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

40. They have no answer for that, Ken.

[Ken Burch]

42. Well, Aegis has his usual "answer"...unjustified abuse and derision

but you're right, they have no answer.

[pelsar]

43. of course theres an answer....its just not so simple...plus, it requires knowledge of history....

i really find the whole idea of giving a history lesson kind of absurd, but then again, i guess even the basic knowledge of israel and its jewish inhabitants seems to be either irrelevant at best or demonized.

here we go....zionism grew out of world wide anti semitism..and yes that includes the arab states with the blood libels etc. and of course we have the russian programs, the jew quotas etc. And all of this was way before World War II and the holocaust.

Given the unique nature of anti semitism, the fact that it has followed the jews all over the world, the idea of a place where the jews could live "normally came up and it was called zionism.

and the place to go was back where the jews got started...and so they went, unarmed people who bought land according to the laws of the time, built farms etc...And the locals had mixed feelings, some worked for the jews, some hated them with their foreign ideas of socialism, equality etc

and all of this way before WWII (guess we have to remind some people of that)

Now there is no question that pre WWII zionism wasn't terrible successful, whereas post WWII, with all the jew quotas fill up and jews still in DP camps, going to Palestine was probably the better option. Of course by this time the local arabs were wholly against the idea of more jews coming and it was their moral right to resist, just as it was the moral right of jews to demand to live freely as jews in their own country given the past 4,000 years.

did the Palestenians get screwed?.....some did, not all...., a not so small amount of arab israelis, druze, bedouin, have made it clear that they prefer israel to the alternative, are we to ignore them? They actually prefer living in an imperfect democracy. But thats not the point.....The real point is that post WWII was a mess, people got shoved all over,mostly innocent people, the Palestinians were one more group that had to adjust to a new reality...and they, or their friends decided not to adjust.

and thats why 60+ years later those that chose not to adjust are living without a state,....trying to decide whos "morality" is greater, is game for universities, in the real world, its best to make lemon juice when there is lemons-i.e make the best out of the situation. Sadly the Many Palestinians chose not too.(those that did, have made it clear that they do prefer israel to the PA alternative-they made the smart decision)

[Ken Burch]

48. While I can see a case for Israel's existence, iZionism actually wasn't ever an effective tool

for combatting antisemitism. In fact, it involved an implicit tradeoff with antisemitic American, British, and European political leaders: We'll back this "Jewish state" if you'll agree to let antisemitism and barriers to Jewish residency and Jewish immigration remain unchallenged.

Arthur Balfour backed such a state because he hoped to keep Jews out of the UK, for example. Herzl actually saw antisemitism as something to be tolerated and even tacitly encouraged in the name of building the case for such a state.

The best way to have fought antisemitism in Europe would have been to build a global movement for social and economic justice for all. Countries with freedom, equality and a decent standard of living do tend to have less prejudice, of any kind, than any other states. The much lower levels of prejudice of any form that the U.S. had when the War on Poverty was at its peak of funding, and the equivalent when the welfare state in Britain was at its fullest levels, bear this out.

Israel exists, and it's always going to exist. But the creation of that state was never the ONLY possible valid response to what Hitler did. And the great lie that Palestine was "a land without people" does need to be addressed, as do all the lies about how empty North America supposedly was when the white men came to take it.

[pelsar]

51. there goes the coffee again.....

he best way to have fought antisemitism in Europe would have been to build a global movement for social and economic justice for all.

yea right..history is full of those successful movements, in the meantime those jews in the DP camps post 1945.....(guess should have just "stayed there" until the movement showed some fruit-and you'll note that many times anti semitism is tied to the economics...and that is something that constantly changes....you're basically saying to the jews is what they did for 4,000 years...trust somebody else to "fix" the problem and you just hope that it works......except that it didnt ).

the creation of israel was a good thing, not just for the jews who liver there and no longer have to worry about anti semitism and feeling helpless, but it turns out for the arabs who decided (for whatever their reasons) to stay put and ended up living in a liberal democracy.

and that is the key.....liberal democracies beat the alternatives by a zillion percent, and when they can be developed with all the difficulties they should.

I wouldn't know about all of those alternatives....i would say the world made themselves very clear after 4,000 years of various degrees of anti semitism....they had their chance and obviously wasn't too concerned with doing anything about it, so the jews decided finally to do it themselves.

you can say some of the Palestinians got screwed..and you can say the jews got screwed as well.....are you really going to try to measure the various levels of "being screwed" and come up with an index of who has the moral superior position?.....




note:
... Palestine was relatively sparsely populated land with a mix arabs, druz, Bedouin and jews as was the US with its Indians. but that is not relevant to the degrees of morality involved in the decisions made.

[Ken Burch]

52. I wasn't saying people should have stayed in the DP camps

They should have been allowed to move to the United States and Canada(which is where most of them WANTED to go). They should have been allowed to move to prosperous countries that were at peace...not forced to move to a combat zone in a desert whether they supported the nationalist movement that was fighting in that desert or not. One of the great blots on the history of the North American countries was that, even AFTER the truth of Hitler's crimes was known, they barred the door to most potential Jewish immigrants. And the truly sickening part is, if you tried to get a resolution apologizing for this through Congress today, it would be defeated...with AIPAC lobbying against it.

Palestine had a significant and growing Arab population. That population cultivated the land, had towns and cities, was educated, and had a sense of itself as a distinct entity. What happened in 1948 showed no respect for any of the above realities. Instead, the disgraceful smear that Palestine was empty and that the few (and of course, as the myth had it, the universally ignorant) Arabs who lived there had left it fallow and overgrown was spread. It would not do the present day Israeli government any harm to admit that it was wrong for this myth to be spread. One of the major things that would help heal relations with Palestinians would be to admit that they were, essentially, a nation, and that they did deserve respect as such.

[pelsar]

53. tsk tsk tsk...please some reality.....

They should have been....

what does that mean?...their SHOULD have been (i should be rich and the world Should listen to me...and hitler never should have been in power...) zionism was a reality based movement, it didn't deal with fantasies.....

btw, when you post to, please don't put in claims that can't be backed up, its a waste of bandwidth to correct you....as in the following:

statement 1 that can't be backed up (thats PC for making it up)
which is where most of them WANTED to go). They should have been allowed to move to prosperous countries that were at peace...not forced to move to a combat zone in a desert
false statements being "wanted and forced"..unless of course you have a poll taken at that time........a retraction will be appropriate.

Partial false statement 2
Palestine had a significant and growing Arab population. That population cultivated the land, had towns and cities, was educated, and had a sense of itself as a distinct entity.
the growth actually came as a result of the jewish development of the land, which brought an influx of arabs in the 1920s 30s. They were not educated in general, mostly living in villages. There was some self identity as 'arabs" far less as Palestinians (this is clear since after 48 the "Palestinian identity did not emerge, only after 66 with Arafat)

toally irrelevant:
What happened in 1948 showed no respect for any of the above realities.....ah...history?...in 1948 multiple arab countries invaded with the local arabs help to destroy israel...i guess they didnt respect the jews, who so many barely survived the camps

as far as an apolgy goes...i would say the arabs owe the jews a HUGE one. instead welcoming the jews who came as farmers and employed the locals, or after WWII and helped survivors of the camps and together develop a liberal democracy, they tried to kill them.

[oberliner]

55. Most Jewish DP's wanted to go to Palestine, not the US or Canada

A sizable majority wanted to go to Palestine, though British immigration policies made that extremely difficult.

According to the American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee, 62 percent of survivors wanted to go to Palestine and 18 percent wanted to go to the United States.

That information can be found in various sources, including the book, The Holocaust: Roots, History, and Aftermath by David Crowe.

[Vegasaurus]

58. Do you understand anything at all about Jewish history? nt

[shira]

44. more for Ken, PM, and others truly interested in history

A little info. on the father of Arab nationalism, the Grand Mufti al-Hussayni:
http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_mandate_grand_mufti.php

And a little more on the role of the British government in helping make this conflict unresolvable for many generations:
http://www.think-israel.org/loftus.muslimbrotherhood.html

==========

Palestinians and Jews are victims going WAY back before WW2 - but we must pretend the conflict is strictly between the Palestinian people (not their leadership and of course not pan-Arab leadership) and the Jews of Israel.

That way, if we pretend then we can keep demonizing Israel and revise history so that it appears Israel is the main perpetrator of all or most that is bad in this conflict.

Remember kids! In order to maintain an untenable position, you have to be actively ignorant!!!

[Name removed]

46. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.