"Nakba" removed from school text book

Nodin

Israel's education ministry has ordered the removal of the word nakba – Arabic for the "catastrophe" of the 1948 war – from a school textbook for young Arab children, it has been announced.

The decision – which will alter books aimed at eight- and nine-year-old Arab pupils – will be seen as a blunt assertion by Binyamin Netanyahu's Likud-led government of Israel's historical narrative over the Palestinian one.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jul/22/israel-remove-nakba-from-textbooks

'Lets all deny it - it'll be like it never happened'. And of course the idea that banning an historical fact gives it power and a certain cache doesn't seem to have occurred to them.

What think ye?

wes

Israel already denies the Aremenian Genocide (the first Holocaust), so denial of historical fact is hardly something new for the state. Hell, they even denied the existence of the Palestinians at one point.

It does raise the existence of a double standard, where Iran is condemned for there denials of historical fact and Israel can get away with doing so scot free.

FTA69

You'll find occupying colonial b*stards have an awful habit of re-writing history, anyone who got hurt deserved it for being enemies of the nation etc etc etc. What would you expect from a pig only a grunt.

BlaasForRafa

As per usual with this forum the usual suspects get a story and twist it. What happened in 1948 is not being denied, the facts of what happened are not being denied, its the term "nakba" ie catastrophe that is being excluded.

I don't often agree with likud policy but on this they have a point. Why should Israel describe 1948 as a catastrophe? It wasn't a catastrophe, it was a miracle.

The reaction to the armenian genocide (for that is what it was) is a political one, Turkey is the least unfriendly muslim state to Israel and more importantly Turkey is an ally of the USA which means that Israel has to tread carefully when it comes to references to the armenians.

But its typical of this forum that you would focus on Israels reaction rather than on the true centre of the problem in Turkeys denial of its ancestors crimes. Instead of facing up to the issue like the Germans did they hide it away and furiously combat any attempt by the Armenians to gain recognition for what happened, turkish academics have been prosecuted for mentioning the word genocide in relation to the armenians. But I guess thats probably all a plot from the idf, mossad and the israeli government....

Sesshoumaru

The word "nakba" is being removed. Don't get your panties in a twist just cause the word "Israel" is also in there.

Nodin

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

I don't often agree with likud policy but on this they have a point. Why should Israel describe 1948 as a catastrophe? It wasn't a catastrophe, it was a miracle. ....

Why describe "slavery" as "slavery"? It helped build America and gave free ticket immigration to many Africans....

Why describe the "trail of tears" in such an emotive fashion? They got to set up casinos in the end, didn't they?

.

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Instead of facing up to the issue like the Germans did they hide it away and furiously combat any attempt by the Armenians to gain recognition for what happened,....

Yeah...theres a lot of that about it seems.

brianthebard

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

As per usual with this forum the usual suspects get a story and twist it. What happened in 1948 is not being denied, the facts of what happened are not being denied, its the term "nakba" ie catastrophe that is being excluded.

I don't often agree with likud policy but on this they have a point. Why should Israel describe 1948 as a catastrophe? It wasn't a catastrophe, it was a miracle.

In your defense of the policy you've proven why it is such a bad idea to get rid of the word nakba, giving the Israeli experience of history primacy over the Palestinian one. Denying that anyone lost out in 1948 and that for everyone it was a 'miracle' (making hundrands of thousands of people into refugees is a miracle now?)

Liam Byrne

Anyone remember playing "cowboys & indians", shooting all those nasty natives ?

Of course, we didn't realise that, as natives, they were entitled to defend their lands from invaders.

History does this all the time.

Liam Byrne

FTA69 wrote: »

You'll find occupying colonial b*stards have an awful habit of re-writing history, anyone who got hurt deserved it for being enemies of the nation etc etc etc.

It's not just the occupiers that rewrite history or say stuff like that, though.

FTA69

Liam Byrne wrote: »

It's not just the occupiers that rewrite history or say stuff like that, though.

Not at all, but then again the nasty terrorists are rarely the ones writing the history books are they?

wes

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

As per usual with this forum the usual suspects get a story and twist it. What happened in 1948 is not being denied, the facts of what happened are not being denied, its the term "nakba" ie catastrophe that is being excluded.

I don't often agree with likud policy but on this they have a point. Why should Israel describe 1948 as a catastrophe? It wasn't a catastrophe, it was a miracle.

So driving out between 750,000 and 900,000 people from there homes is a miracle? Maybe the people who had to leave there homes would consider that a bad thing. I find your calling ethnic cleansing a miracle to be truly distrubing.

You see by getting rid of the term Nakba, they are engaging in denail. They are denying that the Palestinains lost something percious to them. They are denying the pain and suffereing caused by the creation of the state of Israel. The Palestinains paid a heavy price, when Zionist colonists created Israel.

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

The reaction to the armenian genocide (for that is what it was) is a political one, Turkey is the least unfriendly muslim state to Israel and more importantly Turkey is an ally of the USA which means that Israel has to tread carefully when it comes to references to the armenians.

Poor excuse for a country, that make a huge deal out of other people doing the same thing. Maybe, Adminjaed says all the Holocaust denial stuff, to get support from his right wing base, so using your logic, thats alright then.

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

But its typical of this forum that you would focus on Israels reaction rather than on the true centre of the problem in Turkeys denial of its ancestors crimes.

What is typical is that the same old double standard. Iran bad for denying a holocaust, but it just fine for Israel to do the same thing. You can't have you cake and eat it you know.

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Instead of facing up to the issue like the Germans did they hide it away and furiously combat any attempt by the Armenians to gain recognition for what happened, turkish academics have been prosecuted for mentioning the word genocide in relation to the armenians. But I guess thats probably all a plot from the idf, mossad and the israeli government....

True enough and there aided and abbeted in this denial by Israel, but its ok when Israel does that.

Oh and no one accused Israel of orchestrating denial of the Aremnian Genocide, they however most certainly engage in it (but it ok according to you for Israel to do so, as they are Israel and the rules don't apply to them), but of course a ridiculous straw man is always needed to defend Israel. The fact that no one here suggesting that Israel is the solely responsible for denail of the Aremenian genocide doesn't matter, the ridiculous accusation will still be thrown out in the vain hope of smearing people, as Anti-Semites that blame everything on Jews. Really typical argument presented by the "usual suspects".

Then there is there absurd denail of the Nakba, but again thats just fine, as its Israel doing it. I find you double standard truly hilarious personally. You say its wrong for Turkey to deny History and yet in the same post you defend Israel for doing the same thing and you even deny that Israel is denying anything, when they clearly are. The amount of denialism you are engaged in is truly astounding.

The whole "Deny, deny, deny" thing ain't going to work here, but nice try nonetheless.

The Saint

I really don't know whether to take this post seriously.

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

As per usual with this forum the usual suspects get a story and twist it. What happened in 1948 is not being denied, the facts of what happened are not being denied, its the term "nakba" ie catastrophe that is being excluded.

What is happening is the exclusion of the indigenous populations interpretation of what happened in 1948. The offending passage that is being changed is hardly controversial and seems quite reasonable giveing both points of view on the event.

"The Arabs call the war the Nakba - a war of catastrophe, loss and humiliation - and the Jews call it the Independence War."

What this is, is an attempt at the dilution of Palestinian history that does not correspont to the Israeli foundational mythology. This mythology seems to be spread amongst Jewish children already. I don't see why the Arab interpretation of 1948 shouldn't be included in the Jewish curriculum.

Correspondents say most Hebrew-language history books, especially when written for schoolchildren, focus on the heroism of Israeli forces in 1948 and gloss over the mass exile of Palestinians.

If it is mentioned at all it is attributed to a voluntary flight, rather than the deliberate expulsion which later revisionist historians claim to have uncovered from archive sources.

All this on top of the Foreign Ministers attempt to have the commemoration of the Nakba banned. Do you not find this denial and attempt to rewrite history a bit unsettling?

While to you Nakba might just be a word to the Palestinians, isn't holocaust a word for the Jews? Why not remove that word from German text books and call it marshmallows?

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

I don't often agree with likud policy but on this they have a point. Why should Israel describe 1948 as a catastrophe? It wasn't a catastrophe, it was a miracle.

Really, are you serious? Was it a miracle for the indigenous population? Was it a miracle for the over 700,000 people who fled or were driven from their homes and not to allowed to return? The passage gives both interpretations which seems fair. Rather removing the term from Arab textbooks it should be included in Jewish textbooks to show that there's more than one side to every story. After all, the Cromwellian conquest of Ireland wasn't all that bad, was it?

Red Alert

There's still this ridiculous assumption that WW2 excuses any and all bad behaviour by Israel; truth is, they're not far off Iran in terms of indoctrination.

Pffft.

Nabka, Nabka denial, use of the word Nabka...is it that much of a big deal?

I mean, is it not just a bit like that story the Sun runs every years of some school or other, or some English Borough trying to ban the word 'Christmas', or stop kids saying 'baa baa black sheep'. The world will keep turning whether Israel calls it a catastrophe or not.

Meanwhile, in this part of the world, countries like France simply erase all reference to the Silent Massacre from the media and history books for 40 years and noone really batted an eyelid.

Mad Finn

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

As per usual with this forum the usual suspects get a story and twist it. What happened in 1948 is not being denied, the facts of what happened are not being denied, its the term "nakba" ie catastrophe that is being excluded.

....

Really? Do the Israelis now concede that the expulsion of the majority of Arabs from their homes was a deliberately engineered feat carried out by the Zionist militias and later the IDF, or do they still prattle on about "broadcasts" from Arab leaders advising the residents to leave temporarily so that they could have a clear canvas on which to compat the Jews, after which the people could return to their homes?

That would be a step forward but I don't think that is the Israeli position at all.

Deleted User wrote:

Nabka, Nabka denial, use of the word Nabka...is it that much of a big deal?

I mean, is it not just a bit like that story the Sun runs every years of some school or other, or some English Borough trying to ban the word 'Christmas', or stop kids saying 'baa baa black sheep'. The world will keep turning whether Israel calls it a catastrophe or not.

Well you've got a point there. I mean, how many people in this country call Derry Londonderry? Even though that has been the official name for hundreds of years.

The Palestinians will still call it Nabka, but the Israelis perceived attempt to rewrite history will only confirm their nefarious intent in other people's eyes.


Even if that old line were true, I've always thought the notion that those who leave their homes for their own safety in time of war automatically forfeit their right to return to them was absolute nonsense. But it made sense to Israelis.

tolosenc

Hold on. I've fogotten. Why do we hate Israel, again?