Posted on 06/28/2002 9:56:30 PM PDT by Phil V.
|
w w w . h a a r e t z d a i l y . c o m
Analysis / Palestinian schoolbooks fan the flames of hatredIn the first years after the Oslo Accords, discussions about Palestinian incitement against Israel were deemed as borderline annoying, and the press did not take much interest in the subject. Bearing in mind Shimon Peres' propechy of "a new Middle East," picking through Palestinian schoolbooks and listening to declarations made by senior Palestinian officials seemed an exhausting act, if not completely irrelevant.
However, the wave of violence seen in the last two years apparently proves otherwise. The suicide bomber does not reach Netanya and Hadera just because of the occupation and desperation. Social ambiance, some of it directed by the Palestinain Authority itself and some of it by Islamic organizations, also dictates his actions.
With this in mind, it might be worthwhile to re-examine the contents of Palestinian schoolbooks. According to an investigative report conducted recently by the IDF's West Bank and Gaza Strip Liaison Office, it appears that the main theme in the textbooks is a militant and nationalistic one, far from recognizing the state of Israel - that same partner for "peace of the brave," as stated in the Oslo Accords by Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat
The PA curriculum in the West Bank is based on Jordanian schoolbooks, while in the Gaza Strip schoolbooks from Egypt are used. The Jordanian ones, which include many anti-Semitic and inciting expressions, were actually written by Palestinians for sole use in the West Bank education system. Since the start of the 2000 school year, the Palestinian Education Ministry has handed out its own books for the first and second grades, in addition to fifth and sixth grades.
The investigation, led by Noah Meridor, from the liaison office, examined 23 such books. It revealed "systematic education to delegitimize the existence of the State of Israel, fanning the flames of hatred and violent revenge to destroy the country." The books express a lack of recognition of Israel, not even according to the 1967 borders, alongside adamant claims to Palestinian rule of all the land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea.
The Palestinians, the books claim, have first rights to the country. The "Arab Canaanites" were here before the Jews, therefore the Zionistic claim of rights to the land by virtue of forefathers are a lie. Zionism is described as a movement of which the seizing of land is foremost among its tenets. The act of populating Israel, including inside the Green Line, is considered "settlement."
The adoption of the term "settlement" in this context, the liaison investigators state, means a total de-legitimization of Jewish cities in Israel, expounded by the fact that the Palestinian public opinion enthusiastically supports harming all settlers.
Israel is described as an evil country, which exploits and degrades, where soldiers shoot merciful nurses, and Jews build gallows. The exploition and degradation of the Arabsn are also achieved by changing the names of Arab villages and cities, and by defacing and stealing Arab manuscripts.
The name "Israel" is missing from many maps of the region, which is termed entirely "Palestine" by the books. Cities such as Haifa, Afula and Jaffa are described as belonging to Palestine, while statistics regarding the size of Palestine use those relevant to Israel.
The solution to the Palestinians' situation is revealed through the exultation of two goals: the Right of Return for refugees, and Jihad (holy war). The Right of Return is the solution for Palestinian refugees, and this is endorsed through songs, drawings, stories and history lessons. The vision of returning to Israeli lands is promoted as a legitimate national goal.
A drawing dedicated to the Palestinian independence day in a second grade book depicts a school, called "the Return," with a banner reading, "Our vacation is on the day of our return." In the second grade book, "Our beautiful language," a "trip across the homeland" is described: "The families of Kareem and Lilly leave for a trip in the city of Jaffa," the caption states, with an overhead picture of Jaffa.
Jihad is also considered a legitimate and esteemed course of action. Valorous fighting and dying in battle - as a "shaheed" (suicide bomber) - are considered worthy values. The words to the "Song of the Shaheed" are in a seventh grade book: "It is better to die without my stolen right and homeland, the flow of blood is music to my ears." The textbook goes on to explain: An honorable death is one in Allah's name, defending the homeland.
Even though the segments brought forth here from the investigation are all too true, sometimes the Israeli investigators have their own twist to the point of view.
Several additional drawings are depicted as incitement against Israel, including those showing IDF soldiers preventing families from visiting Palestinian prisoners, and bulldozers uprooting olive trees. Even if these pictures also make no effort to portray who is good and who is bad (the soldier with the mean face standing opposite the innocent child), they are familiar occurrences in the life of nearly every Palestinian child, as any voyage along West Bank and Gaza roads will show.
Apparently, the painter is aware of his surroundings: the soldiers in the picture are reservists. One of them even has sunglasses and a beard.
By Amos Harel, Ha'aretz Correspondent
|
|
w w w . h a a r e t z d a i l y . c o m
Zionism or colonialism?It is generally accepted today that at this stage, the declared primary aim of Jewish settlement in the territories has already been achieved. As this was described by Hanoch Marmari in the heartfelt plea he published here two weeks ago (`You are sitting on the key,' Ha'aretz, June 14), it is the ideological settler who holds the key to our future. And indeed, if settlement is not ended once and for all by an unequivocal political decision and in the framework of a comprehensive peace agreement, Jewish settlement in the territories is a process that will continue until the last dunam of land in the West Bank is "redeemed," or until the last of the Arabs who refuses to accept the sentence of Jewish overlordship is thrown out. Thus, the war that has been imposed on us is an eternal war. Now, when settler leader Ze'ev Hever (Zambish) and his people have won allies like U.S. President George W. Bush and the Islamic terror people, each of whom in his own way and for his own reasons is positing unreasonable or insane conditions for ending the war, only the sky, in the West Bank, is the limit.
However, the greatest danger inherent in the settlement concept lies elsewhere. Instead of strengthening and glorifying Zionism, ultimately, settlement will erode to nothing but its moral basis. If it takes root, the settlement argument will end up justifying not only the old accusation by Zionism's greatest enemies, but will also undermine the security of the Israelis themselves in the context of the Jewish national movement.
The people who will cause this are those who say that any Jewish presence within the boundaries of the historic Land of Israel derives its right to existence from the same principle. If indeed there is no difference between the territories that were conquered by the end of the War of Independence and those that came into our hands in the Six-Day War, it is possible that Zionism really never was, as its opponents have always said, either national liberation movement or a movement to save Jews from physical and cultural extinction, but rather an imperialist movement that aims at constant expansion.
However, fortunately for us, the truth is otherwise. Zionism derived its legitimacy from being an answer to an existential danger that threatened the Jewish people during the first half of the 20th century. It was not a historical right, but rather the necessity to save life that was the moral basis for the conquest of the land. Therefore, the right of all people to ensure their existence by controlling their fate through establishing an independent political framework is what justified taking control of the territory that made it possible to establish the State of Israel. The land was not empty of people: The slogan "A land without a people for a people without a land" was nothing but a gimmick for purposes of internal conviction, for silencing the conscience and for maintaining good public relations. The bitter opposition over many years by the Arabs left no doubt in their consciousness as to the danger that threatens them.
Ultimately, after the Holocaust, which proved Zionism was justified, and with the end of the War of Independence, all the aims the Zionist movement had set for itself had been achieved. Therefore, there is an essential difference between our right to Petah Tikva and Ofakim and the theft of the hills in the West Bank from their owners. Anyone who denies this essential difference will end up casting the entire Jewish national movement, and not just the settlements of the last generation, in the light of a colonial movement. Kfar Giladi, Hanita and Merhavya had a crucial role in our national revival, whereas Beit El, Tappuah and Netzarim call into question not only the moral image of the State of Israel but also our very future.
Indeed, this fanatical nationalism, which is brutal not out of necessity but out of deliberate choice and rational decision, is already beginning to sprout noxious weeds that arouse disgust. I am referring to the settler mentality in its latest manifestation in the form of letters that students at schools in the territories wrote to fighters in Operation Defensive Shield. These children did not ask the soldiers to wipe out terror and strike at the terrorists, but "to kill as many Arabs as possible." One asked: "For me, kill at least 10"; another made an even simpler suggestion: "Ignore the laws and spray them."
What is interesting is not only these children's, and apparently their teachers', attitude toward human life, but rather the brief that was offered in their defense. Writing in the daily newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth (May 5), Emunah Elon, a spokeswoman for the settlers, does not apologize and does not see these letters as "an educational failure." No one is going to catch her in any admission of having lost the way: She praises these manifestations as "healthy hatred" (no less!) and also sees the suggestion to ignore the laws of the state as a healthy, practical and mature approach. There were times when in Europe, too, inspired people like Emunah Elon thought that observing the rules of war, that is, maintaining humanity, was dangerous, superfluous and even indicative of weakness of character. To this pass we - the people that was itself the victim of the values that are being preached at the educational institutions in the settlements - have come because of the abysmal scorn for human rights and because of the blind belief in our absolute right to rule this entire land and its inhabitants. Even the barbaric Palestinian terror cannot justify such bestiality.
By Ze'ev Sternhell
|
. . . I am referring to the settler mentality in its latest manifestation in the form of letters that students at schools in the territories wrote to fighters in Operation Defensive Shield. These children did not ask the soldiers to wipe out terror and strike at the terrorists, but "to kill as many Arabs as possible." One asked: "For me, kill at least 10"; another made an even simpler suggestion: "Ignore the laws and spray them." . . . She praises these manifestations as "healthy hatred" (no less!) and also sees the suggestion to ignore the laws of the state as a healthy, practical and mature approach. . . .
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.