Let's play 'what if'

[Behind the Aegis]

Assume for a moment that you are a Palestinian parent. Assume (really, let your imagination run free) that you are a Palestinian parent who wants peace. You would presumably want to educate your children in the same spirit. So how difficult is it, if it is even possible, for parents who live in the Palestinian Authority today to educate toward nonviolence, tolerance, recognition of the State of Israel and peace?

Sports are generally considered a good thing - a challenging, healthy activity. And that is certainly true of sports tournaments for children. A PA soccer tournament could be both fun and educational - if it were not named for the terrorist Dalal Mughrabi. She is the one who perpetrated the bloody attack on Israel's coastal highway in 1978, which killed 37 Jews.

According to Palestinian Media Watch, a celebration was held on Palestinian television to mark this terrorist's 50th birthday, sponsored by PA President Mahmoud Abbas himself. The event included a party at which a youth orchestra played in Mughrabi's honor. For the last two years, the PA has also run a summer camp named after this "martyr" (no, not Hamas, the PA - the good guys). Abbas funded a computer center named after her, and recently, a square in Ramallah was named for her as well, with Abbas' full backing. How heartwarming.


The PA and its leader, Abbas, are for some reason considered partners in the dream of peace between us and them. But peace, if it is to be true and lasting, must be based on the desire and trust of both sides.

For some time now, the PA, and even this newspaper, have been claiming that the Palestinian Authority does not incite against Israel. That is partly true. What you find on television, in textbooks, on posters and in public statements is not incitement; incitement is something superficial, something easily pushed aside by the next bit of incitement to come along. What is happening in the PA is systematic education, brainwashing that poisons the minds of its children - or rather "your children," as the U.S. secretary of state once said in commenting on the issue.

more...

[Douglas Carpenter]

1. imagine the horror of Palestinians watching the butcher of Beirut himself, Ariel Sharon

elected Prime Minister, a man who was not only complicit in the Sabra and Shatila massacres at two Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon, but also a man who commanded massive attacks causing the deaths of thousands of Palestinian civilians in Beirut - a man who personally spent his life insuring that the distribution of settlements in the West Bank would make the two-state solution implausible.

But then again they had already watched Irgun and Stern Gang terrorist Manachem Begin and Yitzhak Shamir elected to the highest position in the land.

But one doesn't have to get as dramatic as as murderous thugs like Sharon, Begin or Shamir to see the point. David Ben-Gurion himself oversaw the ethnic cleansing of Palestine and the virtual distruction of Arab Palestine which included a whole lot of horrific crimes to make it possible. Then under Mr. Ben-Gurion's orders, simple Palestinian farmers who tried to return to their fields and farm land were shot on sight.

But on the other hand, national histories of many countries are filled with people who were regarded as heroes and freedom fighters on one side and terrorist on the other. No doubt many white South Africans are bothered to see figures who they once regarded as blood thirsty terrorist now serving at the highest levels of government or venerated as heroes.

As far as what young people are taught about the boundaries of their country - here is the "map of Israel" provided by the organization, Birthright Israel:






/

[Shaktimaan]

8. While you're right, I would argue that there's a difference.

But on the other hand, national histories of many countries are filled with people who were regarded as heroes and freedom fighters on one side and terrorist on the other.

This is very true. In America, our 20 dollar bills bear the likeness of Andrew Jackson, and we all know his policies towards the Native Americans. But here's the difference. Andrew Jackson is honored IN SPITE OF his actions towards the indigenous people of America, not because of them. Likewise, Ben-Gurion is not honored BECAUSE of the Nakba, nor is Sharon because of Sabra and Shatila. In fact, Sabra and Shatila are viewed by most Israelis as historical marks of shame that they take no pride in owning. These people are honored for their achievements, not their bloodlust.

What did Dalal Mughrabi do that warrants being honored aside from her being a terrorist? What achievements does her name conjure up aside from terrorism? Ben-Gurion did not have an airport named after him because he was the best at killing Palestinians. Why does Dalal Mughrabi have anything named after her at all?

[Douglas Carpenter]

9. well, I see your point, and frankly I think it would be better that they didn't

But the over all point of the article is that Palestinians are in particular are being "brainwashed". In that everyone schooled in a nationalist version of history is being brainwashed, I would find it hard to argue. Most, if not all nationalist versions of history, especially nationalist version of history that developed while the nationalist movement was in its foundational stage are full of historic nonsense and highly questionable heroes. Still the atrocities committed by by western nationalist movements and their heroes have many times been been just as brutal and frequently more so. And the victims on the other side are not inclined to look at the other accomplishments of those who committed atrocities against them. I would agree that in the Arab world, nationalist histories are just as full of romanticism, distortions and nonsense as anyone else. A mistaken view of the past and a romanticized view of dubious heroes is what comprises most nationalist historiographies.

[Lerkfish]

2. as long as you view someone as an enemy, they will be

Because in viewing them as an enemy, you treat them like an enemy, and they have no choice but to consider you one.

[Igel]

3. That sums it up pretty well.

And really puts the start of the conflict back in the 1920s.

[Lerkfish]

4. and when will the conflict end?

[Douglas Carpenter]

7. which came first, the chicken or the egg?

From Avi Shlaim:

"The history of Zionism, from the earliest days to the present, is replete with manifestations of deep hostility and contempt toward the indigenous population. On the other hand, there have always been brave and outspoken critics of such attitudes. Foremost among them was Ahad Ha'am (Asher Zvi Ginsberg), a liberal Russian Jewish thinker who visited Palestine in 1891 and published a series of articles that were sharply critical of the aggressive behavior and political ethnocentrism of the Zionist settlers. They believed, wrote Ahad Ha'am, that "the only language that the Arabs understand is that of force." And they "behave towards the Arabs with hostility and cruelty, trespass unjustly upon their boundaries, beat them shamefully without reason and even brag about it, and nobody stands to check this contemptible and dangerous tendency." Little seems to have changed since Ahad Ha'am penned these words a century ago.

That most Zionist leaders wanted the largest possible Jewish state in Palestine with as few Arabs as possible inside their state is hardly open to question. "

Avi Shlaim was born in Baghdad in 1945, grew up in Israel, and studied at Cambridge and the London School of Economics. He is a Fellow of St. Anthony’s College and a Professor of International Relations at the University of Oxford. He was elected a Fellow of the British Academy in 2006. His books include Collusion Across the Jordan: King Abdullah, the Zionist Movement, and the Partition of Palestine, The Iron Wall: Israel and the Arab World, and War and Peace in the Middle East: A Concise History. He lives in Berlin.

http://users.ox.ac.uk/~ssfc0005/It%20Can%20Be%20Done.html

[IndianaGreen]

5. Hard to teach peace when one lives under the jackboot of the Occupation

There aren't enough pro-peace people on either side of this tragic conflict to make a difference. This will not end well for any of the parties living in that land.

On edit:

Speaking of peace, I would like to know what is to be gained by holding Gilad Shalit hostage. Keeping Shalit hostage is as counter-productive to the Palestinians as it is for Colombian leftists when FARC holds hostages.

[proteus_lives]

6. Groups like FARC and Hamas don't give a shit about peace.

For them it's power and control.

[ConsAreLiars]

10. "Power and control"

Huh? Project much? Ever take a look at those who control the state apparatus and military in Israel and their murderous slaughters? Ever do a body count without counting one Israeli butchered as worth more than 100 Palestinians butchered - or taken captive? No. Think about what that tells everyone about you.