[danholo]

The lady claims that 'Palestinian' is avoided by Israeli textbooks and replaced with Arab and this man presents all the cases where 'Palestinian' is mentioned in Israeli textbooks and the only cases presented as cited by him are within a negative context:

No evidence. You mean in pictures? Oh, and negative, according to what? I'm missing it.

[redcarpet]

Many Israelis I've met have had opinions that any Western educated person would find, well, unsavory.

Are these the fundamentalist religious kind, or the sort of outright anti-Arab racist kind?

[noemon]

No evidence. You mean in pictures? Oh, and negative, according to what? I'm missing it.

He cites everything like for example book X page Y, he does not cite that one you quoted as evidence against her.

The only instances of "Palestinian" on its own within Israeli textbooks is in a negative context sitting right next to words like 'Palestinian nationalism' and the instances are very few and limited to the negative contexts only, when the context is neutral like public, then the word Arab is added, these instances are mentioned too by the author, so by the process of elimination I can only assume that wherever the need to describe the concept Palestinian 'settlement', or 'village' or 'farm' is required in the textbooks, the word used to describe these items would be 'Arab' on its own.

So there is a very clear process here.

[danholo]

The only instances of "Palestinian" on its own within Israeli textbooks is in a negative context sitting right next to words like 'Palestinian nationalism' and the instances are very few and limited to the negative contexts only, when the context is neutral like public, then the word Arab is added, these instances are mentioned too by the author, so by the process of elimination I can only assume that wherever the need to describe the concept Palestinian 'settlement', or 'village' or 'farm' is required in the textbooks, the word used to describe these items would be 'Arab' on its own.

I'm sorry but I don't see how it's negative. The claim was that Palestinians are called Arab and this is not the case. Then again, I've been up for almost 24h...

So there is a very clear process here.

Assumptions aren't evidence. I don't find your arguments clear at all. I'll sleep on it.

Are these the fundamentalist religious kind, or the sort of outright anti-Arab racist kind?

The ignorant human kind - permeates the religious and non-religious.

[Fasces]

You sound like someone who has actually met a Palestinian under occupation.

I have, actually. Don't get me wrong - I think either Israel in an ideal world should annex the land and get it over with or recognize authentic Palestinean sovereignty and the security risks that entails.

But Israeli's have as much right and claim to the land they currently inhabit as Americans do to theirs, or Anglo-Saxons to theirs, etc.

The whole right of return nonsense is just that. Palestine have as much right to Israeli territory as any surviving Celts have to Britain or Ainu to Hokkaido or Serbs to Kosovo - none at all because they no longer live there and the majority of the population that survives today has never lived there.

Their rights are to the lands they inhabit. An ideal Palestinean state would be fully sovereign and be a piecework of enclaves across the West Bank, Gaza, and the assorted Arab-controlled refugee concentration camps spread from Kuwait to Egypt that no one seems to have any criticism for whatsoever even as they criticize Europe's unwillingness to welcome a flood of Syrian refugees. Of course, that makes sense - brown people shouldn't be held to the same moral standards of white Europeans or Jews, as they are in no way responsible for their decisions and have absolutely no agency or capacity for agency.

[Pisa]

This is a pretty good video by an Israeli Professor who talks about what Israeli children get in their textbooks, as far as indoctrination against Palestinians goes.

That's a lot of crap.

She says that israeli children don't have any other source of information except textbooks, which is even more than a lot of crap. What about news on tv, or talking to parents, or even listening to adults talk about current events? Does she really think that children live in pink bubbles outside school?

She's talking about schoolbooks, but the images are from newspapers (which also makes her previous point moot, since she claims those newspapers images have a negative impact on children).

She's talking about maps, but she doesn't say that the map with the blank area represents the percentage of arab population inside Israel, which makes any mention of populations outside Israel irrelevant.

After she's done thundering against the racism behind the white color supposedly used to dehumanize the palestinians, she tries to score some more points showing a totally blank map of - wait for it - the state of Israel. Well, you have to give it to those zionists, so keen to dehumanize that they don't even spare themselves! Here goes another of Peled's arguments down the drain...

Kept watching until the quite expected logical fallacy called reductio ad hitlerum, right after the "stores are not allowed to sell it" shit. Stores didn't have the book she wanted because it didn't sell anymore. Tough, that. No, really, why shouldn't stores keep lots and lots of stuff nobody needs and nobody buys anymore? Cruel racist world...

Breaking news: arabs, including West Bank residents, are everywhere in Israel, schools included. They simply can't be ignored.

It is an interesting video but I'll take her expertise with a grain of salt.

Try the Dead Sea, though I doubt there's enough salt there.

[skinster]

Fighting for the moral high ground in the Arab-Israeli conflict is absolutely pointless. The main difference between the two sides seems to be that Israel has better weaponry. After all, most of the pro-"Palestine" whining is about how difficult it is for Hamas to kill as many Jews as they'd like to, and why this means that Israel is bad for being able to kill the people they would like to..

Considering Hamas' armed wing didn't exist until the 90s, your understanding of the conflict is kind of short-sighted. That the group also is a resistance organization, could clue you into some of the history as well.

[Heisenberg]

I'm aware that the conflict has been going on longer than 25 years. I use the example of Hamas because that is the current incarnation of the "resistance" to Israel. Of course the original "resistance" was a coordinated invasion by the armies of all of Israel's Arab neighbours, all of whom were and are significantly larger than Israel. They got thoroughly licked in the process, and have been sore about it ever since.

It wasn't really until the 1970s that "Palestine" became considered a nation, because it was a handy way of turning a surrounded nation (Israel) into a Big Bad Bully. This is also why the surrounding Arab nations have done precisely nothing to help the "Palestinian" refugees over the years: Israel being seen as the bad guy is more important to them than actually helping the people who need to be helped.

Like I said, I don't really care about the conflict at all. Whichever side has the upper hand will ultimately treat the other very badly. Arab and Muslim antipathy towards Jews goes back well before the creation of Israel, or the 1967 war, as I'm sure you know perfectly well. This isn't to say that Israel is perfect. Simply that they are not the only "guilty" party in this conflict. My position on Israel is pretty much the same as Fasces'.

Another thing: that the group is a "resistance organisation" does not make it automatically good. The IRA is also a "resistance organisation", as are the Al Nusra Front, Hezbollah, the Taliban and the Unified Communist Party of Nepal. None of those groups really have anything else in common with each other.

[noemon]

was a coordinated invasion by the armies of all of Israel's Arab neighbours, all of whom were and are significantly larger than Israel. They got thoroughly licked in the process, and have been sore about it ever since.
It wasn't really until the 1970s that "Palestine" became considered a nation, because it was a handy way of turning a surrounded nation (Israel) into a Big Bad Bully.

This is something that only an Israeli nationalist would find relevant in a discussion on whether Israelis are indoctrinated to hate Palestinians, I didn't have you cut you for zionist before.

I have asked you a question though:

If it were shown that the British showed Ireland as an empty lot in the map, would they not be totally ridiculed & scorned?

[Heisenberg]

I was responding to skinster, noemon.

If you want to call me a Zionist (which I assume you intend as a pejorative), then you're welcome to. I did say quite explicitly in my last post what my position is on the conflict, and it's quite obviously not one of undying love for Israel. It's one of undying cynicism about both sides.

You can't look at one side of the Arab-Israeli conflict without taking the other into account. Is Israeli irredentism "OK"? It's no more or less "OK" than the fanatical hatred of Israel on display in neighbouring countries. If Israel were to go back to the 1967 borders tomorrow, we all know that would not be the end of the conflict. Nor would a retreat to the 1948 borders. Similarly, Israel expelling Arabs from the West Bank and Gaza, and simply declaring it all Israeli land, would not end the conflict either. Why pretend otherwise?

If it were shown that the British showed Ireland as an empty lot in the map, would they not be totally ridiculed & scorned?

I'm honestly not sure what this is supposed to mean.

[noemon]

I do not find it pejorative, I find it as exactly as it means, perhaps you find it pejorative but regardless, are you or are you not?

It doesn't look like you were replying to something in particular just ranting that the Palestinians are a faux-nation and the Israelis the heroes of the Middle-East.

Why would a non-zionist find that narrative relevant as anything other than distraction from the topic of the thread?

You do not have to look at any side other than the relevant topic in the thread, regarding which I am still waiting for your reply.

I'm honestly not sure what this is supposed to mean.

What is incomprehensible to you?

[Heisenberg]

Noemon, if you took from my post that "the Israelis the heroes of the Middle-East", then you can't read. I have said repeatedly, to both you and skinster, that I take no side in the conflict. I am simply not going to watch criticism of one side, which is not applied to the other, go unchallenged. How many different ways would you like me to say this?

What is incomprehensible to you?

The fact that the question is a strawman with no relation to the topic, despite your self-righteous insistence that it is on-topic. The Israeli government is accused of publishing textbooks with a pro-Israel, and specifically a conservative Jewish, bias. It is not accused of pretending a large chunk of land, and its population, literally does not exist. Not recognising a state is not the same as pretending people aren't there.

[noemon]

It is not accused of pretending a large chunk of land, and its population, literally does not exist.

It is accused of exactly that by an Israeli professor and it is shown as well. So do you find this reprehensible or not?

Noemon, if you took from my post that "the Israelis the heroes of the Middle-East", then you can't read.

I took from your post that you are a zionist:

They got thoroughly licked in the process, and have been sore about it ever since.
It wasn't really until the 1970s that "Palestine" became considered a nation, because it was a handy way of turning a surrounded nation (Israel) into a Big Bad Bully.

This is ridiculous and irrelevant to the topic, which makes it doubly ridiculous.

Are you or not? Don't need to be shy about it, have you ever known me to be shy about my beliefs?

[Heisenberg]

I have told you twice now that I am not a "Zionist". Let's see if the third time gets through. Of course it's hard to get a point across to someone who simply assumes you're lying, but there we are. I suppose the more I say exactly what my position is, the more it proves that my position is the opposite of what I say it is.

It is accused of exactly that by an Israeli professor and it is shown as well. So do you find this reprehensible or not?

Does it stand accused of pretending that the land does not exist, or that the land is effectively a part of Israel? There is a key difference there, since if it is the latter, that is simply a reflection of the government's refusal to recognise the state of Palestine. In which case, I do not find it reprehensible. If Britain did the same today regarding Ireland, it would be fantastically stupid, since Britain does recognise the Irish republic and has no power to enforce its jurisdiction over that country.

[noemon]

I have told you twice now that I am not a "Zionist". Let's see if the third time gets through.

I double-checked and you did not, this is the first time.

I can only assume from what you write Heisenberg and you did provide us with this irrelevant tidbit which has what point exactly?

They got thoroughly licked in the process, and have been sore about it ever since.
It wasn't really until the 1970s that "Palestine" became considered a nation, because it was a handy way of turning a surrounded nation (Israel) into a Big Bad Bully.

To do exactly what Israel is accused to be doing to consider the nation non-existant, the nation and also the people.

Does it stand accused of pretending that the land does not exist, or that the land is effectively a part of Israel?

It stands accused of showing that people & their villages inside a land do not exist. And that is also the point of Palestinians not being a "real nation" as you said, which means that you are in fact propagating the same racist view and that is why you would not mind if England showed Ireland as a lot empty of villages and people? You would call it stupid but not malicious.

In which case, I do not find it reprehensible. If Britain did the same today regarding Ireland, it would be fantastically stupid

So you do not find it reprehensible for either country, stupid is not reprehensible necessarily. And I do not see what makes Israel exempt from being 'fantastically stupid'.

[Pisa]

It stands accused of showing that people & their villages inside a land do not exist. And that is also the point of Palestinians not being a "real nation" as you said, which means that you are in fact propagating the same racist view and that is why you would not mind if England showed Ireland as a lot empty of villages and people? You would call it stupid but not malicious.

If you watch the video past that "blank palestine" map, you'll notice that it also shows a blank map of Israel, with only the arab villages marked on it. According to Peled, this map shows that people & their villages in the blank area do not exist. Since the people and their villages in the blank area are, in this case, mostly jewish, we should conclude that the israeli schoolbooks purposely show that the jews and their villages do not exist.

Do you think that the israeli schoolbooks ignore jews and their presence in the land, as well? It seems logical that the intention of the map is to draw attention to the subject discussed, therefore leaving areas of no imediate interest blank.

As for the Perfidious Albion...well, knock yourself out:







Well...do english maps teach english kids that Scotland, Ireland, Wales, and France, are uninhabited areas, with no people & their villages inside those lands?

[noemon]

As for the Perfidious Albion...well, knock yourself out:

a) Where did you get this map from?
b) The white bits say Wales & Scotland, in the Israeli case they say nothing and are areas shown as belonging to Israel, NOT the same thing.

It seems logical that the intention of the map is to draw attention to the subject discussed, therefore leaving areas of no imediate interest blank.

See (B).

[Pisa]

a) Where did you get this map from?
b) The white bits say Wales & Scotland, in the Israeli case they say nothing and are areas shown as belonging to Israel, NOT the same thing.

a) Google search
b) The second map, representing the arab villages in Israel, also says nothing. As for "areas shown as belonging to Israel", you'll have to prove that.

You, as well as Peled, are ignoring a tiny itsy bitsy fact - kids are not expected to read and understand the maps on their own, there are teachers who explain and texts alongside maps. If you want to know what israeli kids are taught, you have to listen as well as read.

[noemon]

Peled is an Israeli professor. Like her I can understand the descriptive of wales & scotland the areas shown in Israeli maps as empty are shown as parts of Israel. Your parallel example is a figment of your imagination.

[wat0n]

So, was Peled's work published in a peer-reviewed academic journal? I assume it would accumulate a lot of citations if it had. Can anyone provide a citation so one can read it?