Poll: Over 25% of Israeli Arabs say Holocaust never happened

[oberliner]

More than a quarter of Israel's Arab citizens believe the Holocaust never happened, and nearly two thirds of Israeli Jews avoid entering Arab towns, a poll by a University of Haifa sociologist showed Sunday.

The poll, conducted by Sami Smoocha, a prominent sociologist at the University of Haifa, showed a wide gap of mistrust, anger and fear between Israel's majority Jews and its Arab citizens, who make up a fifth of Israel's citizens.

In its most dramatic finding, the poll showed that 28 percent of Israeli Arabs did not believe the Holocaust happened, and that among high school and college graduates the figure was even higher - 33 percent.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/839029.html

[saltpoint]

1. I believe it did happen.

Either they need better history teachers or more open minds.

[breakaleg]

2. But is also said in the article that the sentiments about the Holocaust could be a

way of expressing opposition towards Israel. This implies they know it happened, but for political reasons choose not to say so.

[cali]

5. That is no excuse. If anything it's worse.

Holocaust denial is never acceptable.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

17. What that survey tells me, is that there is tons of anger and resentment.

I don't think that the Arabs who live inside the green line and, who live basically there as second class citizens in many cases, necessarily care that it's never OK to say that about the Holocaust.

[cali]

18. Sorry, that doesn't excuse

Holocaust denial. I don't excuse Nabka denial or Holocaust denial- whatever the reasoning behind it.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

19. There are so many layers to this that I find fascinating.

I am clear about the Holocaust, and make no effort to minimize anything.

I am also quite clear about Al Nakba.

I do think it is intersting and instructive to investigate why people say what they do.

Talk about Al Nakba for a bit, b/c it's easier and less emotional. There are tons of Nakba deniers in our own democratic community. Many who insist on the sanitized version of events from 1948 that was the official israeli line for many years.

For some the reason is that they are simply ignorant. Others hold fast to the view in spite of education. Why?

There is something about admitting the truth of those events that would undercut their current positon, I believe.

Why would educated Arabs deny the Holocaust?

I think the Holocuast has taken on a "confessional" quality. I am sure there are any who have written about this event, what it means for Jews, for Israel, for others who have been affected by the creation of Israel.

I think we're talking about 2 differing things. An historical event. An historical event that has become a defining experience for a religious/ehtnic group, a portion of which has access to huge military power including nukes.

I suspect for those who deny, it's not so much the facts of the event that they seek to deny, but the unspoken assumptions about what Jewish people are entitled to as a result, as well as a protest against how that event has impacted their own national culture and history.

I think the second part of the confession -- what Jewish peoplea are rightly entitled to as a result -- should certain be open to discussion and debate. My own peeve is that those who stupidly refute the historical facts end up making the second part of the discussion impossible.

[breakaleg]

20. I think the reasons are important.

When I read a story that says someone denies the Holocaust, it almost implies that they are uneducated or were never taught about it. And I don't think that is the case here.

[pelsar]

21. a holocaust museum in Nazetheth

the reason the israeli arab decided to do it was to teach his fellow arabs what happened to the jews. His attitude is that without understanding the holocaust and its impact upon the jews, there is little chance of any kind of peace......

needless to say, hes be ostracised by quite a few of the "locals"

btw its not about "being entitled to as a result" (thats a defeatest attitude)....its about facing the reality of 2,000 years of persecution in one form or another and making the changes so that it stops.

it not about "crying" and pleading, its about taking responsability for a problem that doesnt seem to end, and doing something about it. Thats has nothing to do with being "entitled"...its the opposite.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

22. Taking responsibility is great.

Taking land is something else altogether.

But I see your point. Jews can't live on a "by your leave" and wait for the rest of the world to behave decently.

Interestingly, I think that's how Hamas would characterize their position.... as taking responsibility for building a lasting political structure that takes into account all the difficult factors -- refugees, borders, Jerusalem, settlements. They aren't willing to give away their ace in the hole (recognition) until the end of the process.

They aren't apologizing to anyone for their resistance. They aren't willing to give up their fundamental rights.

[pelsar]

23. i dont think "apologising" is the answer for anyone

we both know that only the strong will make the necessary sacrifices....nor do i believe hamas or Fatah should apologise for their beliefs..a "peace agreement with a "snivling apologetic leader, i.e a weak one, will not last.

but i disagree about recognition..its not their "ace in the whole"...from an israeli point of view, its the stickler which makes us suspicious from the start.

Get that out of the way, tell it to the world, and the PA govt wil find a willing partner in more than half of israel.....pretend we dont exist or play with words that may or may not mean kassams on our cities and we wont help at all.....we dont have to play that game.

and they need our help, far more than we need theirs......a walk down history lane shows that, pre 67, post 67, intifada I and II (In the palestinians short history since 48, they're "best time" was post 67 pre intifada I ......everything is relative)....and it was that period when the two peoples were most invovled with one another. When we shut the gates, it was the palestinians that suffered and still are, we arent.

your pride and fighting for rights is commendable, but not realistic. Teach your children pride etc, but also teach them when pride gets in the way of making a better life for everybody involved its time to swallow ones pride and get on with life....

the alternative sucks.....

[ProgressiveMuslim]

24. we both know if Hamas recognized israel today

no one would believe it.

It's just words.

The proof is in the pudding. Let's get started making the pudding.

[cassiepriam]

3. Looks like no matter what the country about 30% of the population

is as dumb as a bag of rocks.

The same 30% here in the US who say Bush is doing a heck of a good job.

[lligrd]

4. Exactly What I Was Going To Say

25% of either country is beyond reach.

[cali]

6. Nope. The figure is higher amoung those with more

education.

[ellisonz]

7. Fundamentalism?

In power, we're all gonna die in the future!

:evilfrown:

[msmcghee]

8. Were you expecting immortality?

Just a joke. I share your sentiments regarding fundamentalism. :thumbsup:

[ellisonz]

10. About it being a death cult version of religion?

Kids, just say no to fundamentalism.

:dilemma:

[Bryan Sacks]

32. Could you explain something to me, Cali?

You say that "Holocaust denial is never acceptible." Let's assume that many of the people who reported that the Holocaust did not exist were simply stating something they know to be false for political purposes .

What exactly would you find unacceptible about this kind of resistance?

Thank you.

[msmcghee]

33. Regardless of Cali's answer to your question . .

. . you asked your question in a way that suggests you might find that kind of resistance acceptable.

If that is the case (and it may not be) what exactly would you find acceptable about it?

Thank you.

[msmcghee]

41. Bryan Sacks, where is your answer?

You asked Cali a question so I assume you saw my question to you and just don't want to answer for some reason. I think your question raises an even more serious question that deserves attention.

Cali stated that, "Holocaust denial is never acceptable".

You asked Cali, "Let's assume that many of the people who reported that the Holocaust did not exist were simply stating something they know to be false for political purposes. What exactly would you find unacceptible (sic) about this kind of resistance?"

I'll tell you what I find unacceptable about it - assuming that one would value peace over war and killing.

It should be obvious to anyone who thinks about it for more than a few seconds - that the only viable alternative to war is honest dialog and negotiation - where adversaries in a conflict work out their differences in good faith using some neutral third party referee and agree to abide by that outcome.

If one side participates holding the view that vicious propaganda and outright lying is OK because "they are in the right" and therefore anything they do to win is within bounds - including bald-faced lies - then ultimately the whole process is destroyed - because those lies with time will become evident. Also, so much mistrust is created that any future chances for peaceful resolutions of conflict are greatly reduced.

In other words, using lies as just another tactic in war, while pretending to be searching for a peaceful alternative to war, is worse than simply going to war without any attempt at dialog to start with. It will only guarantee far more death and destruction in the end. As a progressive person I find that contemptible.

What it comes down to is this: If someone so easily lies about the past - about things like the holocaust - why would anyone expect them to be truthful about the future?

Looking at the broad history of this conflict it is obvious that one side especially has embraced the act of lying about any aspect of the conflict if they see some advantage - as part of their "resistance".

Understandably, it is the side that has no semblance of a free press (or a society free to question their leadership) to check and challenge the statements and direction of their leaders. This most recent example of the Palestinian 12th grade texts - and the shameful barrage of justifications and obfuscations offered by posters here in their defense - only drives this home. Arafat's deceitful words spoken in Johannesburg that pretty much doomed the Oslo negotiations are perhaps an even better example from among very many.

Perhaps you see lying as just another useful tool for achieving one's desired political goals - as does Ahmedinijad and other antisemites in the world as regards the holocaust. But I could be wrong. I'd love to see your response to my first question if you have the ability to answer it.

[Douglas Carpenter]

34. I think there is a point where evidence is so overwhelming and compelling

that to deny it reaches into the range of absurdity. To believe that the holocaust did not occur one would have to believe that between several hundreds of thousands and millions of Jewish eye witness survivors and many other eye witnesses both survivors and other eye witnesses are intentional lying and willfully engaging in a conspiracy of lies. It would almost be on par with denying that Pearl Harbor was bombed on December 7, 1941.

I might add that even many anti-Zionist Jews perished in the holocaust especially the anti-Zionist of the ultra-orthodox persuasion such as Neturei Karta. Many of of them survived and are witnesses to the horrors of the holocaust. These are people who do not believe on religious grounds that Israel should even exist and pray every day for its peaceful and nonviolent disestablishment. link: http://www.nkusa.org/activities/Speeches/2006Iran-WeissSpeech.cfm

They clearly have no political motive in maintaining the reality of the holocaust.


Although the Nakba was no where near the scale of human suffering as the holocaust, Nakba-denial would also require the denial of the accounts of hundreds of thousands of eye witnesses and an awesome array of compelling evidence.

People on one side or another of a conflict might suspect political motives in any rendering of history. Because to a large degree history is political propaganda in any society. But one also has to look at evidence, especially when evidence is absolutely overwhelming and accept historic facts if they want to be at all in tune with reality; even if the historic facts might appear to a strengthen the case of the opposite side of a conflict.

.

[msmcghee]

53. Self delete. Server problems. n/t

[msmcghee]

54. I have never run into any sane person deny that . .

. . Nakba occurred. All pro-Israeli sources I have seen agree that the Arab population of Israel dropped by several hundred thousand as a result of the War of Independence.

Nakba denial does not exist as far as I can see and seems here to be a straw man you have erected.

What is disputed are the causes for the Nakba. There is no definitive proof available to settle that dispute.

From Wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakba

The UN estimates their number at 711,000 <2> while the Israeli estimate of the refugees is 420,000 and the Palestinian estimate is 900,000. The degree to which the flight of the refugees was voluntary or involuntary is hotly debated. Some cases of expulsion are well-documented, such as in Lydda and Ramle. In other cases, such as in Beersheba and Safed, the Arabs fled before Jewish troops had entered.<3> Paradoxically, there were instances of Jewish leaders requesting that resident Arabs stay, as well as Arab leaders who called for evacuation of civilian Arabs from the war zone.<4> How much each factor has contributed is disputed.

I have gone from believing that it was mix of reasons - but mostly the result of Arab incitement - to believing that it is not possible to answer at this time - so I no longer make any claims as to cause. We should all try to be more precise with our assertions.

[Douglas Carpenter]

55. there were hundreds of thousands of eye witnesses who do know what happened

I have talked to many, many myself.

Unfortunately, there are a lot of people who deny or do not know about the ethnic cleansing of Palestine. It is true that many left under fear of advancing Zionist forces, frequently with overt threats, and were not allowed back in spite of appeals from the United States and the United Nations. That still is just as much ethnic cleansing by any definition.

Link to Oral histories of Nakba survivors:

http://www.palestineremembered.com/OralHistory/Interviews-Listing/Story1151.html

link to talk by Ilan Pappe, Professor of History -- Haifa University

(MP3/windows media):

Part I : http://webdisk.planet.nl/houck006/publiek/album/Lectures/Broadband/Ilan%20Pappe%201.mp3

Part II http://webdisk.planet.nl/houck006/publiek/album/Lectures/Broadband/Ilan%20Pappe%202.mp3

link to page: http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article6503.shtml

link to book by Professor Pappe: The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine

http://www.amazon.com/Ethnic-Cleansing-Palestine-Ilan-Pappe/dp/1851684670/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-8701952-4352901?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1174435191&sr=1-1

___________________

And there is also a historic record of even staunch Zionist:

Let me quote former Israeli Foreign Minister and Israeli historian Shlomo Ben-Ami (who I might add is an ardent Zionist) from Scars of War Wounds of Peace, the Israeli-Arab Tragedy, page 25-26

http://www.amazon.com/Scars-War-Wounds-Peace-Israeli-Arab/dp/0195181581/sr=1-1/qid=1166681762/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-8701952-4352901?ie=UTF8&s=books

"The idea of transfer of Arabs had a long pedigree in Zionist thought. Moral scruples hardly intervened in what was normally seen as a realistic and logical solution, a matter of expediency. Israel Zangvill, the founding father of the concept, advocated transfer as early as 1916. For as he said, ' if we wish to give a country to a people without a country, it is utter foolishness to allow it to be the country of two people...."

"The idea of transfer was not the intimate dream of only the activists and militants of the Zionist movement. A mass exodus of Arabs from Palestine was no great tragedy, according to Menachem Usishkink, a leader of the General Zionist. To him the message of the Arab Revolt was that coexistence was out of the question and it was now either the Arabs or the Jews, but not both. Even Aharon Zislong, a member of the extreme Left of the Zionist Labour movements, who during the 1948 war would go on record as being scandalized by the atrocities committed against the Arab population, saw no 'moral flaw' in transfer of the Arabs...But again, Ben Gurion's voice had always a special meaning and relevance. At a Zionist meeting in June 1938 he was as explicit as he could be. 'I support compulsory transfer. I don't see in it anything immoral.' But he also knew that transfer would be possible only in the midst of war, not in 'normal times.' What might be impossible in such times, he said 'is possible in revolutionary times.' The problem was, then, not moral, perhaps not even political,it was a function of timing, this meant war"

and from page 43:

" Benny Morris found no evidence to show 'that either the leaders of the Arab states or the Mufti ordered or directly encouraged the mass exodus'. Indeed Morris found evidence to the effect that the local Arab leadership and militia commanders discouraged flight, and the Arab radio stations issued calls to the Palestinians to stay put, and even to return to their homes if they had already left. True, there were more than a few cases where local Arab commanders ordered the evacuation of villages. But these seemed to gave been tactical decisions taken under very specific military conditions..."

From page 44:

"The first major wave of Arab exodus in April-May 1948, essentially in the wake of the Dir Yassin massacre that was perpetrated by Lehi and Irgun with the Haganah's connivance and the unfolding of Plan D, might perhaps have taken the leadership of the Yishuv by surprise. But they undoubtedly saw an opportunity to be exploited, a phenomenon to rejoice at -- Manachem Begin wrote in his memoirs, The Revolt, that 'out of evil, however, good came-and be encouraged. 'Doesn't he have anything more important to do?' was Ben-Gurion's reaction when told, during his visit to Haifa on 1 May 1948 that a local Jewish leader was trying to convince Arabs not to leave. 'Drive them out!' was Ben-Gurion's instruction to Yigal Allon, as recorded by Yitzak Rabin in a censored passage of his memoirs published in a censored passage of his memoirs published in 1979, with regard to the Arabs of Lydda after the city had been taken over on 11 July 1948....Plan D, however, was a major cause for the exodus, for it was strategically driven by the notion of creating Jewish contiguity even beyond the partition lines and, therefore by the desire to have a Jewish state with the smallest number of Arabs.

The debate about whether or not the mass exodus of Palestinians was the result of a Zionist design or the inevitable concomitant of war could not ignore the ideological constructs that motivated the Zionist enterprise. The philosophy of transfer was not a marginal, esoteric article....These ideological constructs provided a legitimate environment for commanders in the field to encourage the eviction of the local population even when no precise order to that effect was issued by the political leaders. As early as February 1948, that is before the mass exodus had started but after he witnessed how Arabs had fled West Jerusalem, Ben-Gurion could not hide his excitement."

from page 42:

"The reality on the ground was at times far simpler and more cruel than what Ben-Gurion was ready to acknowledge. It was that of an Arab community in a state of terror facing a ruthless Israeli army whose path to victory was paved not only by its exploits against the regular Arab armies, but also by the intimidation, at at times atrocities and massacres it perpetrated against the civilian Arab community. A panic-stricken Arab community was uprooted under the impact of massacres that would be carved into the Arabs' monument of grief and hatred."
_____________________


Map showing the massive destruction of Palestinian towns after al-Nakba in 1948 - link: http://www.palestineremembered.com/Acre/Maps/Story572.html

[msmcghee]

56. What you provide is evidence for one view . .

. . it is not proof of that view. Much of it is circumstantial. There is just as much evidence for various different versions. Morris has retracted much of his initial assertions on the matter. Arab states involved have generally not released records for review by scholars. I have been wading through this stuff for months now trying to come to an objective conclusion. I don't think it's possible.

My best guess would be close to the results of the survey you provided in another post. I'd say the Israeli Jew's opinions are probably the closest because they have had free access to newspapers and libraries from around the world and there has been much discussion over the years in Israeli media - plenty of discussion from all sides. Also, many Israelis are pro-Palestinian on the matter.

The results you quote are:

29.9% of Israeli Jews said: "Mainly, the refugees left voluntarily"

17.3% of Israeli Jews said: "Mainly, the refugees were told to leave by Arab leaders"

31% of Israeli Jews said: "Mainly, Jewish forces expelled the refugees"

Notice that the slight majority of Israels say they were expelled by Israeli forces.

I don't know if this question will ever be finally settled but I'd bet if it is the result will be that different refugees left for a different combination of reasons that statistically could look something like this.

But I would hesitate to base any strong policy decisions or claims of cause on this issue as it stands.

[Douglas Carpenter]

58. I am impressed that 31% of Israeli Jews realize that expulsion of the Palestinians

was the main cause of the refugee problem. That indicates that a more critical understanding of history has developed within Israel. And no leading American newspaper can compare in caliber to Haaretz.

In that Egypt, Jordan and Lebanon were being inundated with hundreds of thousands of refugees all at once and all wanting work and most not being able to find it, I cannot imagine that many left for economic opportunities. It was at least two decades later when Job opportunities in the Gulf states stated to attract Palestinians into leaving for economic reasons. And most of them were already refugees living in Egypt, Lebanon or Jordan for at least two decades.

Still I tend to believe the words of hundreds of thousands of eyewitness survivors regarding the Nakba. Just as I believe the words of the millions of survivors of Nazi Germany which was undeniably a far more monstrous event. It is personal testimonies of such a massive scale that make denials sound so ludicrous.

.

[msmcghee]

59. Maybe you could give us a link to the . .

. . data base of the hundreds of thousands of eyewitness survivors of the Nakba where their words have been recorded and documented so we can all read them for ourselves.

[Douglas Carpenter]

62. obviously I don't have the exact written testimony of ever single refugee

nor does anyone as far as I know. Nor does anyone as far as I know have the exact written testimony of every holocaust survivor...There certainly is no doubt by those who left in 1948 that they were expelled whether directly or under duress. The Palestinians did not need the "new historians" to tell them what they already knew and had been trying desparately to tell the world since 1948. It is ONLY because of racism that many people didn't believe them until it was confirmed by western historians. They already knew. That was there life. Try to convince a Palestinian that it didn't happen. I'm sure with minimal effort you can find some older Palestinians whether in person or on the Internet who remember 1948. Ask a broad cross section. THESE ARE HUMAN BEINGS FOR GOD SAKE. DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND THAT? It is just as intellectually dishonest to deny the ethnic cleansing of Palestine of 1948 as it is to deny the holocaust. Although certainly I agree that the holocaust was a far, far more horrific event. That is obvious.

Here is a Palestinian website and Palestinian internet community with a great deal of detail dedicated to those who were ethnically cleansed from Palestine in 1948:

http://www.palestineremembered.com/

and again here is the website of large number of oral history testimonies:

http://www.palestineremembered.com/OralHistory/Interviews-Listing/Story1151.html

[msmcghee]

64. Douglas, you said . .

"Still I tend to believe the words of hundreds of thousands of eyewitness survivors regarding the Nakba."

How would you be able to believe the words of hundreds of thousands of eyewitness survivors if you haven't seen or heard the words of hundreds of thousands of eyewitness survivors? That's what I was getting at about being more precise with your assertions. I am sure you are a well-meaning person but verifiable conclusions about something this important - something that innocent people are getting killed over as we speak - don't come from sympathetic feelings about a topic. Just the opposite.

You then link me to a website whose mission is to:

. . emphasize that the CORE issues of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict are the DISPOSSESSION and ETHNIC CLEANSING (compulsory population transfer to achieve political gains) of the Palestinian people for the past five decades. In our opinion, the conflict would have been at the same level of intensity EVEN if both parties had been Jewish, Muslims, or Christians.

A real study of the causes of the decline in Arab population coincident with the 1948 War of Independence would have a far different mission statement I assure you. It would not state that its purpose is to prove its predetermined conclusion for one thing.

Do you think that of the 262 interviews this organization published here that there will be any of those who left their villages despite Israeli assurances that they would not be harmed or because Arab League officers told them to get out of the way of their army and that they could return in a short time as soon as the Jews were wiped out?

Do you see what I mean? Evidence is not conclusions. It must be gathered in an unbiased way then analyzed and verified against some objective standards. Then if you can prove the lack of bias in your methodology you might be able to propose some tentative conclusions - which will probably be disputed by other scientists anyway.

But, don't you agree that it's best to focus our energy on some equitable arrangement that would allow both sides to live in peace - and leave the recriminations and calls for revenge in the past where they belong?

[Douglas Carpenter]

69. by any rational definition what transpired would have been called

ethnic cleansing today in that a desired transfer of one ethnic group was transfered and was not allowed back.

There would have been no need to destroy hundreds of villages and take extraordinary efforts to prevent their return if the events of 1948 were not a form of ethnic cleansing. The exact method may have varied.

No one (or very few) from the Palestinians side are calling for revenge. They have been calling for a equitable solutions for the past 59 years.

When will the Israelis be willing to negotiate a reasonable end to this conflict at least remotely based on international law and principles of human equality?

[msmcghee]

75. Thanks for finally addressing the future solution instead . .

. . of the past wrongs that I'm sure were committed by both sides

You ask, "When will the Israelis be willing to negotiate a reasonable end to this conflict at least remotely based on international law and principles of human equality?"

I am not Israeli but it seems to me that the day some significant leadership emerges from Palestine that sincerely wishes to find an equitable settlement of this conflict and live in peace with Israel - and not destroy Israel and establish a Jew-free Palestine from the river to the sea - I believe Israel will be more than ready and willing to negotiate.

[Douglas Carpenter]

77. I absolutely agree the future is the issue

Just a few days ago I asked an admittedly particularly good natured Palestinian co-worker if he felt any personal bitterness toward the Israelis. And he answered, "no, what happened, happened. Maybe there will be a solution, maybe there will not be."

The vast majority of Palestinians recognize and it has been pointed on a hold multitude of surveys that any future Palestine-Israel will include both Jews and Arabs living together in peace. A lasting peace will require a just peace that also means that they will be living together in equality in whatever formulation that arises.

This is recognized and confirmed by a wide range of surveys. I have never seen any survey that puts the figure at less than 70% +

by the way here is an website that monitors Palestinian opinion on a whole range of issues:

http://neareastconsulting.com/

[pelsar]

68. the israeli view is probably the most realistic...

palestestinian post:

http://jic.tau.ac.il/Default/Layout/Includes/PalestineP/ArtWin.asp?From=Search&Key=Palestine%2F1948%2F04%2F25%2F1%2FAr00103%2Exml&CollName=PPOST%5FNew&DOCID=755071&Keyword=%28%3Cmany%3E%3Cstem%3Erefugee%3Cand%3E%3Cmany%3E%3Cstem%3Earab%29&skin=PalestineP&amp;amp;AppName=2&ViewMode=HTML&GZ=T

notice the arabs of Haifa are trying to decide to leave AFTER the fighting has finished


obviously the issue is far more "mixed" rather than a simplistic "they were all forced to leave"

and if your really interested in what happened, reading the paper of the day may take time, but it does write of the actual events....and like many israelis you may have your eyes opened



http://jic.tau.ac.il/Default/Skins/PalestineP/Client.asp?Skin=PalestineP&GZ=T&AppName=2

[Douglas Carpenter]

79. the Jerusalem Post (originally Palestine post until 1950) completely supported the Zionist forces

It was no more neutral then (and probably less so) than it is today.

"The Palestine Post was an English language Zionist newspaper founded on December 1, 1932 by American journalist-turned-newspaper-editor, Gershon Agron in the British mandate of Palestine and subsequently, in Israel. In 1950 its name was changed to The Jerusalem Post.

During its time as the Palestine Post, the publication supported the struggle for a Jewish homeland in Palestine and openly opposed British policy restricting Jewish immigration during the Mandate period. It reported on the birth of the State of Israel and its struggles and accomplishments over the years."

link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Palestine_Post

_____________

If the events of 1948 were not a form of ethnic cleansing there would have been no need to destroy more than 400 villages and institute draconian and extreme measures to prevent refugees from returning to their homes. There would have been no need to confiscate, their houses, their land, their possessions and their bank accounts.

[msmcghee]

57. Some additional thoughts.

Real people seldom do anything for one reason. Those who left probably did so because of the combination of reasons that were most urgent at the moment they had to make that decision. Over the years such emotional events become unreliable and distorted in our memories.

There were probably Palestinians who were told to leave by both Arab and Israeli military - who refused to do so and hid nearby until they could return or go with relatives in another town. There were probably Palestinians who wanted to leave anyway and saw the coming war as a good time to relocate - or pursue better job opportunities in Egypt or Jordan, etc. - although they were pretty much scorned by those Arab states and put in camps.

We do know that many left their homes and that some equitable resolution acceptable to both sides will have to be part of any future peace treaty. I think it's best to focus on that peaceful resolution and forget about who was to blame for what sixty years ago.

I also know that claiming a right of return for all the descendants of those refugees is simply part of the stated attempt by Palestinian organizations such as Hamas to destroy Israel and is a non-starter.

[pelsar]

66. a little balance....

a few post from the palestinian press shows a very different look:

http://palestinepostings.blogspot.com/2006_05_28_archive.html

http://palestinepostings.blogspot.com/2005/06/palestinian-arab-refugees-in-april.html


far more info if one feels like digging oneself:

http://jic.tau.ac.il/Default/Layout/Includes/PalestineP/ArtWin.asp?From=Search&Key=Palestine%2F1948%2F04%2F25%2F1%2FAr00103%2Exml&CollName=PPOST%5FNew&DOCID=755071&Keyword=%28%3Cmany%3E%3Cstem%3Erefugee%3Cand%3E%3Cmany%3E%3Cstem%3Earab%29&skin=PalestineP&amp;amp;AppName=2&ViewMode=HTML&GZ=T


http://jic.tau.ac.il/Default/Skins/PalestineP/Client.asp?Skin=PalestineP&GZ=T&AppName=2

seems the israeli view is probably far more realistic than any other.......

other articles talk about peaceful neighbors until the iraqis arrive and start a fight from a village, they lose and the village destroyed (inhabitants leave....so whos fault is that?)

[Douglas Carpenter]

71. those particular newspapers were hardly a neutral source

a quick view of how things were phrased reveals that very quickly.

But even so, regardless of the exact method, there would have been no need to destroy hundreds of villages and take take extraordinary effort to prevent the return of refugees, if a form of ethnic cleansing had not transpired.

[cali]

36. Look, I think the assertion that the Holocaust doesn't

justify the Occupation or the creation of Israel is completely legitimate. What purpose is served in the way of resistance by denying it? I don't think denying the Nakba is legit, or the Armenian Holocaust or the Cambodian one. It's just dangerous shit.

[Violet_Crumble]

38. Yeah, it is dangerous shit...

I don't see any purpose served in the way of resistance by denying the Holocaust. It just ends up making people look stupid or much worse. I'd be guessing that most of the Israeli Arabs polled who claim it didn't happen know full well it did happen and are saying it didn't coz of that stupid ailment that afflicts some Palestinians and Israelis where they try to claim the high ground when it comes to suffering and for them to acknowledge that the other side has suffered at all is a sign of weakness. In the case of Palestinians, they would see the Holocaust as being the reason that Israel was created and if they pretend it didn't happen, in their eyes Israel loses its legitimacy. In the case of Israelis denying the Nakba (and I'm not trying to equate the two as I know the Holocaust was genocide and was on a whole different scale than anything else), it's because to acknowledge what was done to the Palestinians would involve admitting that the Palestinians have suffered and also involve rejecting the Israeli version of events that are tied so closely to their nation-building myths (most countries have them - one of ours was Gallipoli). So rather than face what are in both cases historical facts, they find it easier to bury their heads in the sand and think that if they deny the suffering of the *other* while claiming the mantle of suffering exclusively for themselves, the *other* will vanish in a puff of smoke and life will be peachy...

[Bryan Sacks]

42. appreciate your answer, Cali. Thanks.

I respectfully disagree it makes a person look stupid when other intelligent people understand they don't mean what they say. I asked the question because I'm interested in resistance in all forms, and sought an honest evaluation of a method that has been, and may be in this case, being employed.

I also have difficulty with absolutist phrasings when they are meant to be taken seriously (they're fine for rhetorical purposes, as far as I'm concerned). One can imagine lots of hypothetical situations when a person might say something (even something blasphemous, sacrilegious, cruel, etc) under duress that they do not believe. One can also imagine a form of resistance that, in a dire situation of profound unfairness, denies what is patently obvious not out of misunderstanding, but simply out of the fact that one can always choose one's attitude in any situation. One can also choose to say whatever one wants, no matter how outrageous or counterfactual, if one believes that to be necessary for the assertion of the inviolability of one's humanity

[msmcghee]

43. I see I wasn't so wrong about the . .

. . position you have staked out. You now say,

"One can also choose to say whatever one wants, no matter how outrageous or counterfactual, if one believes that to be necessary for the assertion of the inviolability of one's humanity."

Certainly "one can" do that. The pages of history are full of such sweet sounding justifications for deceit and lies. I suspect Bush 43 will die claiming that he lied us into war in Iraq for the "inviolability of the humanity of the Iraqi people" or some such crap.

Or, one can choose to select more honorable and honest causes in life - so that deceit becomes unnecessary - so that honesty and truth become by definition the optimum weapon in one's struggle - a weapon that gains strength as time reveals the integrity of one's previous positions.

I can see why it may be uncomfortable for you to openly discuss the difference between these two so I won't be expecting a reply.

BTW - You answered VC's post, not Cali's.

[Name removed]

47. Deleted message

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

[Douglas Carpenter]

48. if people only knew the truth about the Palestinian people

and the Palestinian struggle -- the vast majority of people would support the Palestinian people and the Palestinian struggle.

Deceit or denial are the enemy, not the friend of the Palestinian People and the Palestinian struggle.

I thinks of the late Tanya Reinhart the courageous Israeli-Jewish woman and Professor at Tel Aviv University. Professor Reinhart is now in my avatar out of respect for her passing away this past Saturday. Dr. Reinhart spent a good deal of her life articulating the truth in a clear headed, readable and thoughtful manner.

The truth and justice and the appeal to the common sense and common good of humanity is the strongest asset the Palestinian people and the Palestinian cause has.

"Often this struggle for justice seems futile. Nevertheless, it has penetrated global consciousness.... The Palestinian cause can be silenced for a while, as is happening now, but it will resurface."

Tanya Reinhart -

On Saturday, 17 March 2007, Israeli linguist and activist Tanya Reinhart passed away in New York at the age of 63




link to media article by the late Professor Tanya Reinhart:

http://www.tau.ac.il/~reinhart/political/politicalE.html

.

[msmcghee]

49. I'd hate to take up too much of your time, but . .

. . maybe you'd have time to pick just the most important misconception and/or prejudice and expose it for us - if you have the ability to back up your accusations, that is. If you say my post is full of misconceptions and prejudices and then can't back that up - with all due respect - that's just bullshit.

I really only had one point to make. That if something is worth fighting for - then it would be better to spend one's life fighting for the truth with truth on your side - rather than fight for a pack of lies.

I'm interested to see how many prejudices and misconceptions you will find in there.

[Bryan Sacks]

63. Well, here's one misconception, for starters

We're talking about a silly poll, remember. It doesn't mean anything important. It certainly doesn't justify the destruction of a society.

Which group of Palestinians under occupation is "fighting for" a "pack of lies" about the Holocaust? I thought the fight is to rid the West Bank of a brutal, illegal and criminal occupation? It is the Palestininan people who have the "truth" on their side - they are the aggrieved party! They are being occupied and have demanded that a criminal intruder leave!

Being in possession of those truths - one which the entire world other than Israel and the US shares a vision of - has not saved, and will not save, the Palestininan people from the next horror Israel may choose to visit on them. You have offered a platitude, in my view, and have tried to suggest that somehow the Palestinian struggle is for a "pack of lies". That in itself is a lie, and you should admit so.

[msmcghee]

65. The topic of this sub-thread - and what I have been . .

. . discussing started with holocaust denial, then al-Nabka denial. Cali said such things are dangerous.

You then asked what Cali would find unacceptable about that form of resistance (lying about the holocaust).

You then stated your position as, " One can also choose to say whatever one wants, no matter how outrageous or counterfactual, if one believes that to be necessary for the assertion of the inviolability of one's humanity."

I found the philosophical implications of that statement worth some examination and I proceeded to challenge you and examine it at that level - without referring to the specific case of the I/P conflict.

I never once stated that any " . . group of Palestinians under occupation is "fighting for" a "pack of lies" about the Holocaust" or anything else.

Those are your words. Words I was trying to avoid.

First you say that it's perfectly OK for someone to " . . say whatever one wants, no matter how outrageous or counterfactual . . " under some conditions.

Then you get upset because you think I accused the Palestinians of not being truthful about the Jews who are their sworn enemy. But you are the only person who implied any such thing. You even said it was permissible in your first statement.

Go figure.

[Bryan Sacks]

78. My words? I quoted your words! Please re-read your post.

I quoted your own words, msmcghee. Here they are again, in case you need refreshing:

If you say my post is full of misconceptions and prejudices and then can't back that up - with all due respect - that's just bullshit.

I really only had one point to make. That if something is worth fighting for - then it would be better to spend one's life fighting for the truth with truth on your side - rather than fight for a pack of lies.

To that I replied, essentially: who on earth believes any of the fighting in I/P is over beliefs about the Holocaust? And if you aren't referring to the Palestinians in the O/P, who are you referring to? who else is RELEVANT to this discussion.

So I'll ask: what is your point? If what i believed to be the clear implication of those words was incorrect, then please correct me. And please explain to what you were referring, since I cannot see what else you could be referring to.

For the record, I take my position in this case to be consistent with the views of Viktor Frankl in 'Man's Search For Meaning", who wrote beautifully about the importance of mental freedom and the inviolable right (and necessity, in dire cases) to select one's own attitude to a terribly unjust situation.

[LeftishBrit]

72. Well, of course one CAN say all sorts of things...

But does it make it right?

What you seem to be saying is that it should be acceptable to lie about and defame others, in order to protect your own sense of self.

Surely that is not true?

[Bryan Sacks]

82. There are no absolutes; are you a Kantian about these things, or something?

Lying is acceptible in many situations. Telling the truth is preferable in the vast majority. I'm not arguing this.

But the I/P conflict is not like most other situations. A concern for honesty rings hollow to me when that concern is not linked to the far greater problem of the slow slaughter of an entire society.

Demanding honesty of an oppressed people, all the while you are denying them the most basic human needs, can be felt to be another strategy of domination. No poll is going to register the fact that no one, or very few people, would speak to them, after all. So I can understand deciding to 'rebel' or resist by refusing to admit something you know to be perfectly true, but the memory of which has been used (at least in part) to justify your domination. That's all I'm saying.

[LeftishBrit]

70. I find this question puzzling

In fact, it seems to me to be clearly morally worse to deliberately misrepresent the truth (especially such a serious and tragic truth) for political purposes, than to genuinely believe something that is false.

Do you really think it's OK to deny the holocaust for political purposes??? Especially if people know that it did exist.

By the same token, was it OK to falsely claim the existence of WMD for political purposes? Is lying for political purposes ever something you would deem OK?

[Bryan Sacks]

81. It is not OK for those in a position of public trust to lie to their own people

It is another matter for ordinary people to knowingly offer an opinion they and others will plainly see to be false for the purpose of political resistance. Depending on the circumstances, doing so may be considered:

--foolish
--clever
--instructive
--suggestive of deep anger
--a statement of hopelessness
--misguided

and maybe more. But I can't see how simply saying this in response to a poll is 'dangerous', at least not without some further argument that shows the false information could foreseeably lead to some bad consequence. Please explain that possibility, and I'm liable to change my view. At the moment, I don't see it as dangerous.

One last thing: if the danger comes from the Israeli gov't or populace taking the poll to be an authoritative statement of the actual beliefs of the some large percentage of the Palestinian people, that hardly is the fault of the respondents to the poll. .

[Tom Joad]

9. I wonder what percentage of Israeli Jews say the Nakba never happened.

[Douglas Carpenter]

11. actually I did find a poll on that issue awhile ago

less anyone misunderstand, I do wish to state that there is no doubt that the holocaust was a horrific event in category of its own.

I would not suggest that the Nakba was anywhere near the same league of human suffering.

However there is not doubt that Nakba denial is a very common belief and is comparable only in that it was a great tragedy and to deny it is utterly anti-historic.

Anyway, here are the results of a survey I found:

Q. 3 What caused the 1948 Palestinian refugee problem in the first instance?


29.9% of Israeli Jews and 6% of Israeli Arabs said: "Mainly, the refugees left voluntarily"

17.3% of Israeli Jews and 1% of Israeli Arabs said: "Mainly, the refugees were told to leave by Arab leaders"

31% of Israeli Jews and 60.8% of Israeli Arabs said: "Mainly, Jewish forces expelled the refugees"

link to full survey:

http://www.jmcc.org/publicpoll/results/1999/no34.htm

[Behind the Aegis]

12. "Quick! Look over there!"

So, now the Nakba and the Holocaust are on equal footing?

[Shaktimaan]

13. Naw. Just a point about how

many societies feel comfortable altering history if it helps erase a crime they perpetrated or if it lessens the image of their enemies. Societies try and embellish their own humanity while dehumanizing their rivals. It's not that the Nakba and the Holocaust are being compared in terms of tragedy so much as that the crime of altering history to your benefit is something that everyone unfortunately does.

In the case of the Nakba it is used to partially justify denying ROR to Palestinian refugees. So it is a pretty egregious thing to do. This is what my fiancee (Israeli) was taught.

[leftynyc]

14. His response was so predictable, it's laughable

Anything to change the subject.

[cali]

15. You don't disappoint.

You are as reliable with your responses as the sunrise. The Nabka and The Holocaust are not comparable, but in any case, denial of both is to be repudiated. Typical of you to change the subject. Unsurprising that you don't comment on the topic at hand. Can't you find a way to blame this on the Israelis?

[ProgressiveMuslim]

16. They've gotta quit teaching Hate in their schools

Ooops... they're Israeli-run schools!

Seriously, I find this ironic. If this finding were about Palestinian Arabs, there would be congressional hearings into the education system to determine that they "teach hate."

[oberliner]

25. Anti-Semitic education persists in PA

New Palestinian textbooks teach 12th graders in the Palestinian Authority that hating and working to destroy Israel is a religious duty, according to a new report published by Palestinian Media Watch (PMW) that will be presented to the Knesset Education Committee on Tuesday morning.

"Instead of seizing the opportunity to educate future generations to live with Israel in peace, the PA schoolbooks glorify terror and teach their children to hate Israel, vilify Israel's existence and define the battle with Israel as an uncompromising religious war," the report reads, adding that "the new PA curriculum is ingraining into the next generation's consciousness, and packaging the war against Israel as existential, mandatory and religious."

Until 2000, Palestinian Authority textbooks were reprinted Jordanian and Egyptian books that were not focused on the Palestinian situation. Since 2000, the PA has released its own textbooks, and these have met with international opprobrium for their anti-Israel messages. Though the books for first through 11th grades were subsequently replaced, the new 12th grade textbooks "are a continuation of the tragic disappointment of the earlier books," according to the report's authors.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1173879124372&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

[Douglas Carpenter]

26. The Myth of Incitement in Palestinian Textbooks by Hanan Ashrawi

link: http://www.miftah.org/Display.cfm?DocId=3060&CategoryId=21

"Since 1998, the “Center for Monitoring the Impact of Peace” has persistently published reports claiming that Palestinian textbooks incite hatred against Israel and the Jewish people. While the Center claims “to encourage the development and fostering of peaceful relations between peoples and nations, by establishing a climate of tolerance and mutual respect founded on the rejection of violence as a means to resolving conflicts,” its attitude towards the Palestinian National Authority and the Palestinian Curriculum has been described as prosecutorial in nature. Being overly suspicious of their produced reports is well advised given that the Center’s first director, Itamar Marcus, is a right wing Israeli supporter and resident of the West Bank settlement of Efrat.

The Center’s work reveals a deeply flawed methodology aimed at misleading the reader. Furthermore, evidence reveals that the Center is fair, balanced, and understanding towards Israeli textbooks, but tendentious on Palestinian books. In short, the purpose is clearly to indict the textbooks and the PNA, rather than analyze and understand the content of the books. Were the Center to take a similar approach in other countries, including Israel, it could easily find comparable material.

Studies of Palestinian textbooks have revealed that any strong anti-Israel and anti-Semitic material in the curriculum comes from books that the Palestinians did not author and are replacing. (Ironically, these same books that were actually authored by Jordanians and Egyptians were distributed by Israel in east Jerusalem after only removing the cover.) Furthermore, books that were written by the Palestinian Authority in 1994, 2000, and 2001 are free of such material. Information gathered by the EU missions on the ground, as well as independent studies carried out by Israeli and Palestinian academics and educators that have examined the new textbooks, show that allegations against the new textbooks funded by EU members have proven unfounded

Below are the various reports, articles, and studies conducted on Palestinian textbooks exonerating them of inciting hatred towards Israel and the Jewish people:"

More on myth and prejudice in Israel:"Negative thinking" By Sarah Ozacky-Lazar Representations of Arabs in Israeli Jewish Society" by Yona Teichman and Daniel Bar-Tal, Ha'aretz June 24, 2005 - link:

http://www.haaretz.co.il/hasite/pages/ShArtPE.jhtml?itemNo=590064&contrassID=2&subContrassID=12&sbSubContrassID=0

Clarification from the Ministry of Education Regarding the Palestinian Curriculum and Textbooks - link:

http://www.miftah.org/Doc/Factsheets/MIFTAH/English/Jan30ay2k4.doc

Battle of the Books in Palestine by Fouad Moughrabi in The Nation, 1 October 2001 - link:

http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20011001&s=moughrabi

Democracy, History and the Contest over the Palestinian Curriculum by Nathan J. Brown November 2001 - link :

http://www.geocities.com/nathanbrown1/Adam_Institute_Palestinian_textbooks.htm

Comparing Palestinian and Israeli Textbooks - link:

http://www.miftah.org/Doc/Factsheets/MIFTAH/English/Jan30by2k4.doc

What Did You Study In School Today, Palestinian Child? - link:

http://www.miftah.org/Doc/Factsheets/MIFTAH/English/Jan30cy2k4.do

What Do Palestinian Textbooks Really Say?

http://www.geocities.com/nathanbrown1/CAJE.htm

If You Are For Truth, You Seek The Truth First

http://www.miftah.org/Doc/Factsheets/MIFTAH/English/Jan30dy2k4.doc

_____________________

[msmcghee]

27. The myth of peace-promoting Palestinian textbooks, by HRC.

http://www.pmw.org.il/getresults/political/i211849.html

Hillary's address on this topic given Feb. 8,2007

<snip>

I have been speaking out against the incitement of hate and violence in Palestinian textbooks for years. In 2000 I joined Nobel peace prize winner Elie Wiesel in New York to denounce the lessons of hatred and violence that are part of the curricula in Palestinian schools. I wrote, with my colleague Senator Schumer, a letter to President Bush, urging his Administration to do everything in its power to persuade the Palestinians to reverse their hateful rhetoric and embrace the opportunity to move toward a strong and lasting peace in the region.

I joined with Itamar at a Senate hearing, where I reiterated the importance of our country making it clear in every way - these children deserves an education that instills respect for life and peace instead of glorifying death and violence. The videos we viewed at that Senate hearing were a clear example of child abuse. I said that at the time and I repeat it again today. Children were encouraged to see martyrdom and armed struggle and the murder of innocent people as ideals to strive for.

Today, we are here once again to release a report that is deeply disturbing, particularly for the denial of Israel’s existence and the historical omissions of the Holocaust, to cite just two examples.

These textbooks do not give Palestinian children an education; they give them an indoctrination. When we viewed this report in combination with other media that these children are exposed to, we see a larger picture that is disturbing. It is disturbing on a human level, it is disturbing to me as a mother, it is disturbing to me as a United States Senator, because it basically, profoundly poisons the minds of these children.

<snip>

[Englander]

37. Is that from FrontPageMag?

http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=27171

Or CBN?

http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/110592.aspx

[msmcghee]

39. I should have included the link. Sorry.

It's from Palestinian Media Watch - that has a fairly complete report on the report - videos, pdf's, etc.

http://www.pmw.org.il/getresults/political/i211849.html

On edit: I just checked and the same link is at the top of my post. You didn't even read it did you?

[Tom Joad]

50. A pro-Iraq war politician is not a credible source.

[msmcghee]

52. LOL!

[Englander]

73. Not a fan of subtle humour, or satire, obviously?

Try reading my previous post a few times, & see how long it takes before the point is grasped. :)

Palestinian Media Watch are an rw org, who happily stand with FrontPageMag & xtian
fundamentalists, and who mispresent the views of orgs who don't support their extremist pov.

">snip

Misrepresented

Sir, - Itamar Marcus and Barbara Crook painted an unbalanced picture of Palestinian education and misrepresented the positions of Brit Tzedek v'Shalom, the Jewish Alliance for Justice and Peace ("Supporting peace education in the PA?" February 24).

In our letter to Sen. Clinton, Brit Tzedek stated that we "deplore the use of any textbooks with political, national, religious or other kinds of bias." Furthermore, we oppose any educational materials which damage the prospects for peace.

The vast majority of textbooks in use in Palestinian schools represent a significant improvement over the older Jordanian texts they replaced. We readily acknowledge that some texts are still problematic, including anti-occupation rhetoric. Yet arguably this is because the occupation is still in place and the conflict continues to rage.

According to Irwin Wall of New York University, many texts demonstrate "tolerance and respect for other religions, and respect for diversity of opinion and multiple political parties characteristic of democracy."

Brit Tzedek works commitedly for Israel's best interests through advocacy for a two-state resolution to this horrific conflict that has led to countless deaths and immeasurable suffering. The ongoing hostilities between the Jewish state and the Palestinian people were not caused by pedagogy, nor will they be resolved by merely editing textbooks. A mutually acceptable, negotiated settlement will lead to understanding in the educational and every other arena. Only such a settlement will bring Israel the peace and security her people so richly deserve.

MARCIA FREEDMAN
President
DIANE CANTOR
Executive Director
Brit Tzedek v'Shalom
Chicago

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1171894570669&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

[Englander]

80. "You've Come A Long Way, Baby."

Hills, circa 1998;

Hillary Clinton Supports a Palestinian State

Published: May 7, 1998

Speaking by satellite from Washington with young Israelis and Arabs meeting here, Hillary Rodham Clinton said today that it would be in the long-term interest of the Middle East for the Palestinians to have a state.

Mrs. Clinton used the word ''Palestine'' in answer to a question and then was asked why she would use that term ''considering the fact that right now this country does not exist.''

She replied: ''Well, I think that it will be in the long-term interest of the Middle East for Palestine to be a state, to be a state that is responsible for its citizens' well-being, a state that has responsibility for providing education and health care and economic opportunity to its citizens.''

(In Washington, Marsha Berry, a spokeswoman for Mrs. Clinton, said that the First Lady was giving her own personal views and that they did not represent the position of the Clinton Administration.)

Mrs. Clinton added, ''I think that the territory that the Palestinians currently inhabit, and whatever additional territory they will obtain through the peace negotiations'' should in the interest of peace be considered ''a functioning modern state.''

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D06E3D81531F934A35756C0A96E958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print

[Douglas Carpenter]

28. Palestinian textbooks: Where is all that 'incitement'? International Herald Tribune

Roger Avenstrup International Herald Tribune

link to full article:

http://www.iht.com/articles/2004/12/17/opinion/edavenstrup.html

Saturday, December 18, 2004

http://www.iht.com/articles/2004/12/17/opinion/edavenstrup.html


'Detailed analyses of the textbooks have been done by research institutes. The U.S. Consulate General in Jerusalem commissioned studies from the Israel/Palestine Center for Research and Information (IPCRI), and in Europe the Georg Eckert Institute facilitated research. Research papers have also been published in international fora such as the Hebrew University's Harry S. Truman Research Institute for the Advancement of Peace, the Palestine-Israel Journal of Politics, Economics and Culture, and presented at the Oslo Coalition on Freedom of Religion or Belief.

At the political level, a U.S. Senate subcommittee on Palestinian education and the Political Committee of the European Parliament have both held hearings on the matter. No country's textbooks have been subjected to as much close scrutiny as the Palestinian.

The findings? It turns out that the original allegations were based on Egyptian or Jordanian textbooks and incorrect translations. Time and again, independently of each other, researchers find no incitement to hatred in the Palestinian textbooks.

The European Union has issued a statement that the new textbooks are free of inciting content and the allegations were unfounded. The IPCRI 2003 report states that the overall orientation of the curriculum is peaceful and does not incite to hatred or violence against Israel and the Jews, and the 2004 report states that there are no signs of promoting hatred toward Israel, Judaism or Zionism, nor toward the Western Judeo-Christian tradition or values.

Yet Sharon now claims that the Palestinian textbooks are a greater threat than terrorism. If that is so, education for peace and conflict resolution has become the greatest threat to Israel. Maybe it is: What little independent research has been done on Israeli textbooks, together with the recent New Profile report on the militarization of the Israeli education system, gives grounds for serious concern about what is happening to future generations on that side of the wall. Peace might feel threatening to a war-ingrained identity.

If, as part of its policy of reconstruction in Afghanistan and Iraq, the White House is looking for a modern education founded in positive Islamic values and which promotes peace and conflict resolution, it should look at Palestinian textbooks for a model. "
'
http://www.iht.com/articles/2004/12/17/opinion/edavenstrup.html
__________________________

Battle of the Books in Palestine
by FOUAD MOUGHRABI

October 1, 2001

link to full article:

http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20011001&s=moughrabi

"The CMIP report is full of distortions, exaggerations and outright lies. For example, it claims that an old anti-Semitic history book written by Mustafa Dabbagh is now required reading for Palestinian students, that this book is dedicated to "those who are battling for the expulsion of the enemy from our land!" and that it contains a banner on the title page of volume one that supposedly proclaims, "There is no alternative to destroying Israel."

The book in question, Our Country Palestine, is a ten-volume history written in 1947 that scholars consider a classic Arab reference on Mandatory Palestine. It is not required reading for Palestinian students. I found a copy of the 1988 edition at the Ramallah public library. It contains no banner on the title page of volume one or any other volume with the alleged proclamation. And a more accurate translation of the dedication is "to those who have struggled to keep Palestine Arab." The only segment that Palestinian students are required to read is a moving personal account in the introduction to volume one in which the author describes the circumstances of his forced departure from his hometown, Jaffa, in 1948.

The Palestinians have been tried and convicted in total disregard of the facts.

Deborah Sontag of the New York Times visited a Palestinian classroom in Ramallah on September 7, 2000. My own 6-year-old son happens to attend this school, and he was in the same classroom. It is obvious from the text of her subsequent article in the Times that Sontag was primarily looking for evidence to substantiate the charge. She found none. Instead, she drew a thorough picture of the pedagogical dilemmas facing Palestinians in dealing with complex historical issues.

Israelis who have carefully examined the new Palestinian textbooks have arrived at different conclusions from those of the right-wing researchers. Writing in the leading daily Ha'aretz in January, Akiva Eldar said: "The Palestinians are being rebuked where they should in fact be praised. For this school year the Palestinian Authority has, for the first time ever, printed its own textbooks. A research team from the Harry S. Truman Research Institute for the Advancement of Peace, led by Dr. Ruth Firer, has established that the new books are 'freer of negative stereotypes of Jews and Israelis, compared to Jordanian and Egyptian books.' The defense establishment has investigated and confirmed this finding." Quoted in Le Monde diplomatique, Dr. Firer attributes a political motivation to the right-wing researchers at CMIP, who, she says, have no educational or methodological background and only want to prove that it's impossible to achieve peace with the Palestinians."

link to full article:

http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20011001&s=moughrabi


.

[msmcghee]

31. These seem to be dated articles.

One from 2001 - three from 2004.

None address this latest report that Hillary Clinton discusses. Do you really want me to believe that Hillary Clinton is lying through her teeth and possibly jeopardizing her candidacy to be the first female president for this?

Do you really want me to believe that she would endorse a report full of wholesale lies - because she hates Palestinians? Or is afraid of AIPAC? Or wants more AIPAC money?

Do you really want me to believe opinions of people who range from anti-zionist to antisemitic who don't address any of the specific examples of hatred in the 12th grade texts - that are described in detail and are the focus of the CMIP report.

The CMIP report gives book titles and page numbers and describes each of the many instances of anti-Israel and antisemitic twisting of reality - to make it very easy for anyone to check. In all those 12th grade texts books there was not one map that even identifies Israel as a state in the ME.

I think I'll go with the view that makes the most sense here.

[Andromeda]

35. Well, my money is on HRC...

:evilgrin:

[ProgressiveMuslim]

45. Lots of Israeli-PAC money on her too, obviously.

I'd sit home before I'd cast a vote for Hillary. I'll never forgive her for turning her back on Palestine. She's seen it with her own eyes. She knows. She's the worst kind of hypocrite, IMO.

[Tom Joad]

51. That's all she cares about.

[Malikshah]

29. When giving public lectures, I've learned to have a copy of Nathan

Brown's work on hand. It is amazing the resilience of willful ignorance that exists in the community where I live.

I'm pleasant, but I stick to the facts. Strange...I'm not asked back anymore.

I guess I got tired of being called in to enable the old myths...

[Douglas Carpenter]

30. thank you. here is the link to Nathan Browns' detailed research

Democracy, History, and the Contest over the Palestinian Curriculum

By Nathan J. Brown

Professor of Political Science and International Affairs

The George Washington University, Washington, DC 20052

link to full research paper by Nathan Brown:

http://www.geocities.com/nathanbrown1/Adam_Institute_Palestinian_textbooks.htm

snip:"The Palestinian textbooks were such a politically attractive target that even those who were better informed as to their content criticized them. Hillary Clinton, running for the U.S. Senate, criticized Palestinian textbooks in a way that buried her acknowledgement that the new first and sixth grade books, authored by the PNA itself, were different: “All future aid to the Palestinian Authority must be contingent on strict compliance with their obligation to change all the textbooks in all grades—not just two at a time.”<14> After her election, her comments lost even this subtlety: in June 2001 she joined with her fellow senator from New York, Charles Schumer, in a letter to President George Bush, introducing the false charge (clearly based on a Center report): “A book that is required reading for Palestinian six graders actually starts off stating, ‘There is no alternative to destroying Israel.’”<15> As the second intifada took on diplomatic as well as violent dimensions, the Israeli government cited textbooks as evidence of Palestinian bad faith and hostile intentions. Others held international donors responsible for not forcing changes or even for funding new sources of incitement.<16>

The Center’s reports were the clear source for most of these charges, whether cited or not. A member of the United States Congress wrote to The New York Times:

According to the Center for Monitoring the Impact of Peace, today’s sixth-grade Palestinian students are required to read the textbook “Our Country Palestine,” which has a banner on the title page of Volume I that reads, “There is no alternative to destroying Israel.”<17>

The charge was false, though it was widely repeated and even displayed in an advertising campaign by an organization calling itself (with unintended irony) “Jews for Truth Now.” No textbook included such a phrase. The member of Congress and others had read the Center’s carelessly-written report in a careless manner. The original report had actually claimed: “An old book introduced into the PA curriculum is filled with virulent anti-Semitism.” It then claimed that there is a banner on the title page stating “There is no alternative to destroying Israel.” The Center’s claim was misread and may have been inaccurate. The book “Our Country Palestine” was an old geographical guide to Palestine begun in the 1940s and published in some subsequent editions. Those looking for the supposed banner could not find it (nor could I). Certainly the edition available to the textbook authors did not include the phrase.<18> Further, the claim that the book was introduced into the curriculum is highly misleading. Its author’s evacuation from Jaffa in 1948 was described, and, at the end of the unit, students are given a suggested activity of looking up the name of their town or village in the book. To leap from this suggested activity to a charge of inculcating virulent anti-Semitism seems—to put it politely—curious indeed."

link to full research paper by Nathan Brown:

http://www.geocities.com/nathanbrown1/Adam_Institute_Palestinian_textbooks.htm

[Malikshah]

40. Thanks for the thanks, but they should go to Nathan Brown & others

As academics, it's a mine field out there. I'll never teach the A-I or I/P conflict as I like my stomach lining too much. Too many sides need their views appeased/supported. The idea of "balance" is what some are calling for; I disagree.

Balance is a red herring.

Completeness is what is called for. All sources need to be assessed and used to render as complete an account of the events and history.

Brown's initial work and his ongoing battles with the ICPR and Co. are valiant efforts; I don't believe that he or any academic did their degree work with these sorts of battles in mind. I know I didn't.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

44. Teaching facts would be helpful as well! n/t

[Malikshah]

61. I agree-- the questions that arise however are

Are those all the facts?
Are those that one calls facts really facts or just conjecture?

I get pilloried by my students when I relay to them the data that they did not know about--especially if it destroys what they've been taught to believe...

It's a patient process we have to got through.

Like the old line of Pilate's from Jesus Christ Superstar: What is truth? Is truth unchanging law?

[msmcghee]

46. Sounds like you speak from experience.

But, certainly you don't believe that academics are above ideology - do you?

It's been my experience that some academics simply use their degrees and titles to justify their ideology - especially in fields that are naturally attractive to the ideologically inclined - like political science. Doesn't just the fact that academics from that field so often come to completely opposite conclusions from the exact same data - kind of prove that?

I mean, doesn't that prove that at least one of them is ideologically driven - though maybe both?

[Malikshah]

60. Woozle wuzzle? You kind of lost me half way through with the permutations

This little missive won't be any less befuddled--

Clearly any individual is biased at some level-- the very choice of questions one decides to ask betray one's interests. The very sources one uses and the methods used to interrogate said sources are reflect one's biases.

I don't speak for academics as a whole, by any means, but in the social sciences/humanities (I'm history, a lapsed pol sci person til I saw the light :) )seek to live "the life of the mind" and to address the issues in as rigorous a fashion as possible.

So often the Natural Sciences, Engineering, etc. view themselves as being the "hard sciences" while the social sciences and humanities are the "soft sciences" To them I say bring it on babies. 2+2 = 4 and it has for quite a long time. Nothing too difficult or "hard" about that. Now when you can give me the definitive reasons behind 1) The U.S. Revolution 2) French Revolution 3) Abbasid Revolution then you've done something.

To that end-- to study twentieth century history is quite difficult in my estimation-- it's all so current and we're continually coming across new bits of information-- as we move closer to our own time it becomes all but impossible. Then, when you add the tortuous nature of the development of the Arab-Israeli conflict, its impact on other regional events, other regional events' impact on it, it's dynamic nature, etc. etc. and so forth....don't tell me history is a soft science.

At each of those variables--each of those events-- each of those situations when sources remain classified, when semantics are bandied about as if the words have no bearing on human lives-- we're not longer talking about history-- we're talking about current ongoing events--each of which still resonates with related events from the immediate and not-so-immediate past.

Simplistically put--if you'll all humor me-- History is the interpretation of the past to understand the present in order to better confront the future. It's not a pretty process.

I strive for as complete a picture in my own research (not a modernist thank you very much) but know that there is still so much to the picture than I can hope to ever depict.

On a more cynical note-- it's been written that there are three kinds of history

What happened
What we are told that happened
What we come to believe happened.....

Again-- no easy answers.

[msmcghee]

67. Thanks for your views of the study of history.

I had a US History teacher in high school who spent a very long time with us getting really deep into the US Civil War and its causes. By the time he was done with us - none if us would ever look at history and causation simplistically again.

You say, "History is the interpretation of the past to understand the present in order to better confront the future."

I really like that. It seems that when we try to interpret the past we often end up interpreting causes. That seems like the important part of history - if being able to better confront the future is our goal. And I agree that it should be.

Human history is pretty much created by human behavior choice. So it seems to me that understanding history also requires some understanding of how we humans make those choices. Do you agree?

I mean I never found the Revolutionary War very interesting or meaningful until I read Arundel by Kenneth Roberts - my first historic novel. I then sucked up as much as I could because I was starting to understand not just what happened - but why someone decided to do what they did.

I'll admit I was (am) suspicious about your objectivity - as I am sure you are of mine. I think that started when I read, "Brown's initial work and his ongoing battles with the ICPR and Co. are valiant efforts."

I found ICPR's reports to be pretty complete and well cited and I haven't seen any convincing refutations (yet).

I would like to give you the benefit of the doubt though because I'm sure you've been exposed to more raw history than I have and you are probably used to applying objective standards to what you come across. Can you point me to something that will convince me that this latest ICPR report re: the 12th grade texts is bullshit? Or even some of their earlier stuff? I will try to read it with an open mind.

[Malikshah]

74. I can see what you're saying-- Brown in my opinion though has

shown the clear biases of the CMIP (Correction from ICPR) research, its founder, and the like.

The valiant effort is just that valiant-- is it the complete story? Nothing is.

Did he provide empirical evidence to back his view? Yes. Did he point by point refute the issues raised by CMIP (Correction from ICPR)-- pretty much. Is it the complete story? No

And so we move on

I'd suggest studying the history of the ICPR and its methodology. Who founded it? Look at the ongoing debate

http://www.geocities.com/nathanbrown1/Response_CMIP.html

[msmcghee]

76. Thanks for your response.

I have looked a bit into those things. Certainly not exhaustively. And decided that ICPR is OK.

I was kind of hoping for one smoking gun kind of statement that shows that ICPR is knowingly spreading false information in their reports for political reasons.

Without that it will take me a while but I will give it a shot as I have time.