Israelis and Palestinians obviously have competing “historical truths” or narratives, but if we are to cultivate a next generation on both sides that can tolerate each other, shouldn’t we be teaching the conflicting narratives as a bridge towards reconciliation, and not as a weapon with which to crush the other?
Speaking at an education conference in Tel Aviv on Sunday, Israel Minister of Education Gideon Saar addressed the question (Hebrew) of teaching the Palestinian narrative in Israeli schools for the first time explicitly. He asserted (predictably) that Israel’s Ministry of Education will never permit the instruction of the Nakba or anything related to the Palestinian narrative in Israeli schools since “Israeli Independence shall not be treated like the Holocaust.”
His statements were made in direct response to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas’ op-ed in the New York Times last week, in which he reiterated the call for Palestinian statehood and its recognition by the United Nations. Saar claimed that Abbas distorted the “historical truth” of the region when he argued that following the 1947 Partition Plan:
“Zionist forces expelled Palestinian Arabs to ensure a decisive Jewish majority in the future state of Israel, and Arab armies intervened. War and further expulsions ensued. Indeed, it was the descendants of these expelled Palestinians who were shot and wounded by Israeli forces on Sunday as they tried to symbolically exercise their right to return to their families’ homes.”
Certainly this is not how Zionist historians would tell the story, and Abbas’ account may have switched or altered the order of events a bit, however the point is that this is his “historical truth” as he constructs it. Although Abbas is actually an academically trained historian, his “historical truth” is not disconnected from his being a politician competing for the legitimacy of the narrative of the nation he represents – just as Gideon Saar represents what he sees as the proper Jewish, Zionist narrative, which he also calls “historical truth.”
Any good critical thinker should know that “historical truth” is neither history nor truth, but rather the collective memory of a people, at best, and propaganda, at worst. But what is at issue here is not the philosophy behind “historical truths,” but rather the Minister of Education’s vision for the educational curriculum in Israel.
During an Israeli radio show discussing Minister Saar’s speech, two professors were invited to discuss the question of teaching the Palestinian narrative – one to ostensibly represent the “lefty” position that the Nakba should be taught, the other, arguing that there is no room for the state to fund a competing narrative in schools that have an obligation to teach Zionist, Jewish identity.
The professor that argued the “pro-Nakba” position reasoned that it was necessary because the only way to criticize – and refute – the Palestinian narrative is to first present it, to make students aware of it. This is logical enough. Yes, to oppose propagating ignorance in schools. He did, however, insist that there is an ultimate “historical truth” for Israelis but that it simply has not been reached yet, essentially arguing that grappling with conflicting narratives is the only way to credibly insist on one’s own.
He went on to assert that this will help Israel justify to the world its claim to be a democracy, since all proper democracies make room for the “Other’s” narrative – as if admitting that Israel’s democratic mechanisms are activated, not out of a genuine dedication to cultivate a democratic society that actually breeds social equality and tolerance, but rather to merely appear as one in the international arena.
This is a very practical approach: Let’s teach the Nakba in some shape or form in the schools, so that we can better prepare our students to delegitimize and disregard it with impunity. There is no sense, even among those publicly in favor of teaching the Palestinian narrative in schools, that there is room for both narratives – rather the notion is that there should be education for the sake of credible rejection of another narrative.
Knowledge is indeed the key to independent and responsible decision-making, however it would be better if the means (teaching the Nakba) weren’t so blatantly justifying the end (refuting the Nakba). In an ideal world, education, openness and tolerance are NOT tools to be taught in school for the sake of propagating a specific, exclusivist nationalist goal, but rather should simply be provided as tools in and of themselves, for the purpose of endowing each and every Israeli in the next generation with the ability to responsibly scrutinize the world.
May 25, 2011
7:22 am
One would hope that along with the Palestinian narrative some actual facts would be included. There is a long list of newspaper articles from around the world during that period reporting that the Arab states were indeed encouraging the Arabs to flee, and the Jews were encouraging them to stay: see the footnotes at the end of the article
http://97.74.65.51/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=8592
May 25, 2011
7:36 am
Correction. The URL has changed for the long list of contemporary newspaper articles referenced above. Go to the appendix at:
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/Articles/The%20Big%20Arab%20Lie.htm
a small sampling:
1. “The first group of our fifth column consist of those who abandon their homes…At the first sign of trouble they take to their heels to escape sharing the burden of struggle”
– Ash-Sha’ab, Jaffa, 1.30.48
2. “(the fleeing villagers)…are bringing down disgrace on us all… by abandoning their villages”
– As-Sarih, Jaffa, 3.30.48
3. “Every effort is being made by the Jews to persuade the Arab populace to stay and carry on with their normal lives, to get their shops and businesses open and to be assured that their lives and interests will be safe.”
– Haifa District HQ of the British Police, April 26, 1948, (quoted in
Battleground by Samuel Katz).
4. “The mass evacuation, prompted partly by fear, partly by order of Arab leaders, left the Arab quarter of Haifa a ghost city…. By withdrawing Arab workers their leaders hoped to paralyze Haifa.”
– Time Magazine, May 3, 1948, page 25
5. “The Arab streets (of Palestine) are curiously deserted (because)…following the poor example of the moneyed class, there has been an exodus from Jerusalem, but not to the same extent as from Jaffa and Haifa”,
– London Times, 5.5.48
6. “The Arab civilians panicked and fled ignominiously. Villages were frequently abandoned before they were threatened by the progress of war.”
– General John Glubb “Pasha,” The London Daily Mail, August 12, 1948
7. “The fact that there are these refugees is the direct consequence of the act of the Arab states in opposing partition and the Jewish state. The Arab states agreed upon this policy unanimously and they must share in the solution of the problem.”
-– Emile Ghoury, secretary of the Palestinian Arab Higher Committee, in an interview with the Beirut Telegraph 9/6/1948. (same appeared in The London Telegraph, 8.48)
8. The most potent factor [in the flight of Palestinians] was the announcements made over the air by the Arab-Palestinian Higher Executive, urging all Haifa Arabs to quit… It was clearly intimated that Arabs who remained in Haifa and accepted Jewish protection would be regarded as renegades.”
– London Economist Oct. 2, 1948)
9. “It must not be forgotten that the Arab Higher Committee encouraged the
refugees’ flight from their homes in Jaffa, Haifa, and Jerusalem”.
– Near East Arabic Broadcasting Station, Cyprus, 4.3.49
10. “[The Arabs of Haifa] fled in spite of the fact that the Jewish authorities guaranteed their safety and rights as citizens of Israel.”
– Monsignor George Hakim, Greek Catholic Bishop of Galilee, New York Herald
Tribune, June 30, 1949
May 25, 2011
7:58 am
Mairav,
Teaching history with a non-partisan agenda should indeed be the goal of history classes.
.
But the Nakba “narrative” isn’t history.
You write: “Abbas’ account may have switched or altered the order of events a bit” – well, that’s exactly where history and narrative clash. How can you refer to the reversal of cause and effect as history?
The Nakba is history reversed; is this what you advocate to teach?
.
I know that we’re getting used to this sort of distortion, often reading about ‘Israel attacks in response to xxx’ instead of ‘in response to xxx Israel attacks…’
.
Let’s teach history, including radicalism on both sides; let’s learn each other’s cultural history; let’s learn each other’s legal views; let’s enforce Arabic in school. But let’s not pretend that ‘a small twist of order in events’ is history, even if Abbas the historian thinks it’s OK to write so in the NYT.
May 25, 2011
8:15 am
The quote: “Any good critical thinker should know that “historical truth” is neither history nor truth, but rather the collective memory of a people, at best, and propaganda, at worst. But what is at issue here is not the philosophy behind “historical truths,” but rather the Minister of Education’s vision for the educational curriculum in Israel.”
This seems to be post-Modernist confusion. For example, 40% of Israeli Arabs say the Holocaust is a hoax. It is now the official Palestinian line that there never was a Beit HaMikdash (Holy Temple) in Jerusalem. Now Israeli Arabs can go around saying “the myth of the Holocaust was invented to justify the Jews stealing Palestine”. Okay, that is their “collective view”. Does that make it true? Is it merely “opinion” to say that the Beit HaMikdash never existed? I don’t see any reason why we have to honor such nonsense. Their views on these matter are not of equal value with hours. TRUTH DOES MATTER.
May 25, 2011
8:19 am
Regarding Abbas’ credentials as an “academically trained historian”, it should be remembered that he received his doctorate in the USSR where historical truth was not a particularly important thing, and his Ph.D. Thesis denied the Holocaust.
(This reminds me of the famous joke in the Communist USSR: “The future is certain (as predicted by Marx), it is the past that is unknown” (because it was constantly being rewritten to follow the Party Line).
May 25, 2011
8:21 am
Ragged Claws, You may want to add the BBC broadcast to your list, meant to discuss the often conflicting views of triggers.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GkhSHiwzaIY&feature=player_embedded
That could cover the whole gamut: background to operations, known facts, internal strife, propaganda, effects… we may not know what the truth is, but at least we’ll understand the complexity of the issues
May 25, 2011
9:21 am
Mairav though I agree with the gist of your article, I think you’ve got ‘truth’ and ‘legitimacy’ muddled. If I, hypothetically, force you out of your home and don’t allow you to return, no amount of relativism will alter that. If you state that this eviction happened, that’s something that is necessarily true or false. In this case (hypothetical to avoid dull responses), it’s true.
Whether or not it was legitimate is where the relativism comes in: this being an issue of morals, politics, etc. To shift back from the hypothetical, that’s why the ‘arguments’ about whether or not Palestinians were forced from the land they lived on is so achingly tedious: some were, it’s demonstrable. Whether people find that right or a good thing – I don’t for the record – is where the argument starts.
Just one other point I’m going to start labouring, for people about to reference an instance of Jews being evicted, though also wrong, this doesn’t cancel out ’48 or whatever instance you care to choose. There. Hope that saves someone some typing.
May 25, 2011
5:12 pm
The Palestinians don’t have any legitimacy.
Abbas earned a PhD in holocaust denial from Moscow University. His thesis was about how the Zionists invented the holocaust or exaggerated it to justify support for Israel.
Seriously. And this guy is considered a “moderate.”
May 26, 2011
6:12 am
@ ragged claws
While you can cut-and-paste whatever you want, Meir Levi is not wghat anyone would call an unbiased source.
Various neutral authors including Erskine Childers have researched this topic and shown that there were no significant calls for the population to flee
May 26, 2011
8:05 am
phil, you’re right, there are no known significant calls for the population to flee. What ragged claws’s list shows is how many smaller nudges – and claims of atrocities – contributed to the exodus, and this has been acknowledged by prominent Arabs and Western reports at that time
May 26, 2011
8:07 am
It must be understood that the Palestinian narrative is spoken from first account, where emotions are heightened, and words sentimental. People who survive and live through disasters are not expected to speak with wise and detached objectivity. Why are the Jewish people granted to be so emotional about the Holocaust and the Palestinians not with their sufferings? The disasters were different but human emotions are the same. “My pain is worst than yours” is no argument.
May 26, 2011
12:24 pm
It’s all quite simple really:
Did Israel allow Palestinians who left their homes for whatever reason to return?
Nope.
Israel doesn’t even allow internally displaced Palestinians (so-called present absentees) to return to their homes. These are Israeli citizens, mind you!
Israel wanted the Arabs out – at least enough of them so the remainder would be a powerless minority. And it wanted their property. Otherwise it would have allowed them to return and reclaim their property.
But it didn’t. ‘Nuff said.
May 26, 2011
7:44 pm
I’m not sure whether this is till current, but there’s a very different take on the issue here:
http://www.vispo.com/PRIME/leohn.htm
May 27, 2011
2:27 am
Maitha Al-Mehairbi, of course the Palestinian narrative does and should be sentimental! That’s why it’s a narrative. The problem is when a narrative replaces history and reasoning.