Israeli textbook states Arab view:
The Israeli government has approved a school textbook that for the first time presents the Palestinian denunciation of the creation of Israel in 1948.
The book, to be used only in Israeli Arab schools, notes that Palestinians describe the event as a “catastrophe”.
“Both the Israeli and Palestinian versions have to be presented,” education minister Yuli Tamir said.
The book was condemned by right-wing politicians but hailed by Arab Israelis who say all schools should use it.
Separate schools, separate schoolbooks. But don’t call it an apartheid state. (Why on earth the spin on this article, notably the headline, is positive is beyond me.)
[…] El Amrani, who is based in Egypt, suggests that Israel is an apartheid state because its Arab citizens have separate schools and textbooks. […]
there are separate schools, textbooks for the ulta-orthdox too. Does that mean it’s an aparteid “jewish state”? Furthermore, the curriculum for the arab sector caters is more focused on Arab educational needs. and yes, it does not receive the same funding as the jewish schools. But of course, your conclusion was borne well before you had done any research on this. Please read a little, you will better inform your audience.
Btw, since when has the BBC become a pro-Israel ‘spinning’ media outlet? Are you serious?
The Arabist denuncia que en Israel se editan libros de texto diferentes para colegios árabes y judÃos…
The Arabist denuncia que en Israel se editan libros de texto diferentes para colegios árabes y judÃos. El Estado Israelà ha aprobado por primera vez un libro de texto que expone la denuncia de los palestinos sobre la creación del Estado de Israel e…
Que sensacionalista que es tu enfoque!
Tranquilamente podrÃa haberse titulado: En Israel se acepta la diversidad de opinión y el Estado no impone la “versión oficial” de la historia
Pero bueno… hay gente que critica todo
Your approach to this article is totally biased and sensasionalist.
Instead of the title you proposed (“Israeli textbook states Arab view – but not for Jews”), it could have been: “In Israel exists diversity of opinion and the state does not impose an “official version” of history”
Bullshit! Sacanagem!
In any normal state, public schools do (or at least should) not teach different things according to the children’s religion. What this amounts to is that nearly 60 years after its creation, Israeli schools only recognizes that Israel conducted ethnic cleansing and land grabs in Palestine for its non-Jewish Arab population but continues to propagate Zionist myths for Jewish children. To recognize that the creation of Israel, even if one supports it, was unfair and prejudicial the the majority of the population of 1947 Palestine, is statement of fact. Banny Morris amply illustrated this in his books, even if he (immorally) supports the ethnic cleansing policies of the time.
Issandr, serious question: In Egypt Jordan and Syria, how is 1948 taught? Are children taught that the Arab community in Palestine (and the Arab states) rejected resolution 181 and decided to start a war to try and get a better deal?
What do you think would have happened to the Jews there had the Arabs won?
I cannot answer your question because I don’t know — I was not educated there — but I am sure the education received there is very anti-Israeli.
The Arabs, however, were right to reject Resolution 181 and the Zionist colonial-settler project in Palestine. The Palestinians have been rejecting it since the beginning of the 20th century, and during the Mandate period they consistently rejected the idea of a Jewish state being created in Palestine. They were also given less political and civic rights that Jews from the original community and the Zionists who came in later (the Yishuv), who were given considerable autonomy in their affairs and the ability to set up a proto-state, which was denied to Palestinians.
The Palestinians (and other Arabs) were never given a real choice about the creation of Israel. It was first imposed by the League of Nations and British mandate (one of whose priority was delivering on what Balfour had promised) and later by the United Nations. All of these completely denied the Palestinians a shot a self-determination.
Resolution 181 came about because of Great Power support for the Zionist project after the revelations about the Holocaust came out. It’s certainly an understandable support in light of those horrors, but it in no way lessens the fact that Palestinians were denied the right to self-determination over an area they had inhabited for about 2,000 years and were an overwhelming majority.
Also, the Palestinians did not invade Palestine, the other Arabs did — in the case of Jordan not really with Palestinian interests in mind. The Palestinians resisted a project to turn a large part of their country into a racist, discriminatory Jewish state that exists to this day (just look at Israel’s laws on land ownership or right of return).
Furthermore, the Zionists were preparing for a land-grab in 1948 (they had even made arrangements with the British puppet king of Jordan over splitting Palestine) and obviously had a whole plan for ethnic cleansing in place, which they carried out very successfully since about half of the Palestinan civilian population was either forced to leave or left and not allowed to come back to their homes.
Without going into further detail (read either the major Israeli histories of the period that came out in the last 15 years or, for something more disgestible, Rashid Khalidi’s “The Iron Cage”) it’s completely ridiculous to portray the two communities, Jews and Palestinians, as having equal right to a state in Mandate Palestine.
I certainly wish history was better taught in Arab schools, though, considering the amount of trash and propaganda that’s in there. Correct history would actually be a lot more informative about the basic injustice of what happened to the Palestinians, as well as the great powers and Arab states’ role in that injustice.
As for your last question, if you are implying that there would have been ethnic cleansing, perhaps, but I doubt the scenarios of complete extermination that are brandied about by scaremongerers would have been carried out. Of course since the Zionists had conspired, with the British at first and then independently, against the Palestinians (for instance during the Arab revolt of 36-39) revanchisme is hardly surprising.