“The question is not whether our enemies teach their children nuance. They don’t, and that is their problem, not ours.”
Not true.
Ask the families of generations of young Israelis who were forced to fight and who died because our enemies do not teach their children nuance. Ask the families of those bombed and killed at Seders and in pizza parlors.
If Israelis ever, which of course they don’t, targeted Ramadan or Eid gatherings, the world would go beyond savagely insane.
But when adherents of Islam teach their children there is no nuance, so phone your mother with pride regarding how many Jews you have murdered, we bear the unspeakable pain of the hideous problem of a pathological culture devoid of nuance, which is seeking our destruction.
Ask young children who have lost their IDF
parent if the lack of Muslim nuance created a problem in their young lives.
Respectfully, the Jewish people haven't come this far by caring about what other people do. We achieved the miracles of Jewish life and Jewish history by focusing more on what we do. What makes us unique. What allows us to rise about it all and make sure that we are staying on the right path. There's nothing new about antisemitism or people hating Jews (or using that hatred to try and kill us). But there is something new about the Jewish people today veering away from understand what makes us good, and trying to focus too much on what makes other people bad.
Bret Stephens just spoke about this in his address on the state of world Jewry today. He basically said screw it to fighting modern antisemitism, and let's instead focus on making ourselves great. He made four points:
1. The fight against antisemitism is largely ineffective: current strategies to combat Jew-hatred, such as education, advocacy, and monitoring, have yielded little result and are a "mostly wasted effort". He argued that antisemites are generally impervious to facts or appeals to tolerance.
2. Antisemitism is a perverse compliment rooted in envy: antisemitism is not based on misunderstandings or a lack of information, but rather a "psychological reflex" of envy and resentment aimed at Jewish success and distinctiveness. He claimed, "They do not hate us because of our faults and failures; they hate us because of our virtues and successes".
3. Stop trying to disprove hatred through performance: He argued that Jews should stop trying to win approval or prove their worth to the world through high-profile philanthropy, social justice activism, or other feats of altruism. Instead, Jews should "lean into our Jewishness" without caring about the approval of others.
4. Build independent institutions: He urged Jewish communities to stop seeking inclusion in broader, often hostile, coalitions and instead invest in building their own strong, independent institutions, such as schools, cultural centers, and media. He described this as focusing on "Jewish thriving" rather than merely Jewish survival.
That's what I mean when I say that I don't care what other people teach their kids. We just need to care about our own.
I can't think of a better way to teach about Israel to Christian Children then Jewish teachers. The Holy land is their homeland and as a community they are filled with stories, art and songs that draw a beautiful tapestry of the history of God's People.
This is why I encourage Churches' to join our program to team with Synagogues to teach the history of the Jews. Having children working on projects together that show the beauty of the Jewish people teach both religions the humanity of each other.
Want to end antisemitism; make the children friends!
Also, from young age, we need to explain the danger of Islam. We need to make clear that we do not hate the people; as we recognize the evil of Islam. Our goal should always be protecting the integrity of our faiths, but, we need to be a united front to turn people away from the danger of the Evil cult of Islam (ECI).
Time for Christians to remember that the most important Christian to walk to earth... was a Jew!
Time is short; Jews and Christians need to defend each other's families with their lives. If we, as Christians, do not stand with our Jewish brothers and sisters, the Jews no one will come to help us...
One of the most beautiful things I have seen is Jewish children teaching traditional dances to Christians kids...
I totally disagree with this article’s premise. The state of Israel was not built parallel to “ a tragedy of displacement”. No more than every war causes displacement. To enter the polluted narrative of the enemy is a huge mistake, which we make all the time. It is not the “ displacement “ that caused the greatest modern fraud of “Palestinianism” and the persistent Arab and Muslim hatred of Jews and Israel. Or the Soviet Union creation of the PLO. The dream of Zionism was normalcy for the Jewish People. Look around how other nations were born, fought, survived, or were defeated. Truth and reality. Not spinning.
A genocidal war unquestionably and unilaterally caused by a savage enemy , and any war that produces a population displacement , is unfortunately a normal occurrence. The double standard applied to Israel spells responsibility for the wrong party, the Jews, the immigrants. The “ displacement “ narrative gets us where the enemy wants us. If we are going to teach 1948, etc, let’s do so without guilt, placing all the responsibility on the Arabs, particularly as to how they behaved with their own people, using them to act their own hatred of Israel and refusing them a state. Which actually Israel did, many times, most spectacularly by unilaterally leaving Gaza. Jordan and Egypt didn’t. They annexed the territories. There was no “ Palestine” since 1947.
Teach by showing the abnormal character of “ Palestinianism “ and Islamism. Arab Jew-hatred. Mental illness. The tragedy of language. The defacement of History. How immense other historical war’s displacements have been. And why commemorating the “Nakba “should be outlawed in Israel.
The premise is wrong. The issue isn’t how Israel is taught — it’s that many too many diaspora Jews aren’t even teaching Jewish principles, traditions, history, or the memory of those who fought to keep Jewish life alive. Without that foundation, attachment to Israel won’t stick.
And if Israel is taught, it should be clear why it matters: for many Jews it’s the one place meant to ensure Jews are never again left defenseless and always have a refuge if history turns dark again.
The fact our enemies don’t teach nuance (or that Israel is a legitimate country) is OUR problem, because our enemies breed generation after generation of terrorists because children are taught to become martyrs in the Palestinians’ forever war against Israel.
"The question is not whether our enemies teach their children nuance. They don’t, and that is their problem, not ours." Couldn't read past this nonsense.
The author is likely correct that teaching one sided views of Israel to our children can lead to a brittle form of loyalty that breaks under pressure. But most of the cases I've seen where the children turn against Israel, they are amplifying doubts their parents had all along. It is reminiscent of the way most of the rebels and campus radicals of the 60s were from liberal families who had their own doubts about America, not from families that considered themselves patriotic or conservative.
Assimilation takes many forms, and one of these is still calling oneself Jewish, but see Jewish through an American (e.g. New York Times) lens, rather than America threw a Jewish lens. The whole lineage is on a long trajectory away from Judaism, though it may take a crisis like war to make it visible.
The one thing that I've seen reliably foster the kind of realistic, multidimensional loyalty to Israel the author rightly encourages is actual personal relationships with living Israelis. The tragedy, or great weakness, of Birthright is that those young American Jews in Israel interact almost exclusively with each other.
"this means teaching the 1948 Arab-Israel War as both a miracle of survival and a tragedy of displacement." ??
Kindly explain!!
"It means acknowledging that settlements are disputed territories, that Palestinian suffering is real and not invented by propagandists, even if it is largely the fault of their leaders"?? Kindly explain!!
"I'm suggesting we teach complexity because it is true, and because our children deserve truth".??
What is the truth??
"They understood that being defeated by the truth is the only kind of defeat that is also a victory." ??
Give us some contemporary examples to your theory.
"this means teaching the 1948 Arab-Israel War as both a miracle of survival and a tragedy of displacement."
The 1948 war was a miracle of survival. We had a small army against a huge Arab mob, and we won. I assume this isn't controversial. You probably don't like that I used the term "tragedy of displacement." But there was displacement. In Hasbara circles, we talk about the fact that there were three forms of Arab displacement: there were those who left on their own, thinking that they'd return when the Zionists loss, there were those who were encouraged to leave by THEIR leaders either because they were worried about what would happen if they stayed or, again, they were encouraged to leave and return when the Zionists loss, and, yes, there were those who were forcibly displaced by Israelis. To acknowledge that Israeli forced many Palestinians out of their homes in 1948 is not controversial - it happened. It usually happened when the Israelis came to an Arab village and said "Do you want to be a part of the new Israeli state, yes or no? If you say yes, you're welcome to stay and become citizens, but if you say no, we are going to remove you." And that happened. Is that controversial to acknowledge? There was also the tragedy of displacement of Jews from Arab lands. 800,000 Jews were displaced from their historic homes. This was a huge tragedy as so much of Jewish history over 2000 years took place in other areas of the Middle East, and vanished overnight, with the tragedy that Jews had to leave quickly, leaving their possessions and money in those countries. So all that displacement is what I'm referring to in this sentence.
"It means acknowledging that settlements are disputed territories, that Palestinian suffering is real and not invented by propagandists, even if it is largely the fault of their leaders"
Settlements are still on disputed territories. Of course Jews claim that the territory of the West Bank is Judea and Samaria, our Biblical homeland. I believe that too. But it is still disputed. There are many people who think that it's not the case, including many in the Israeli left, Israel government parties, etc. who laid the framework 30 years ago for much of that territory to at some point be handed over to the Palestinians. The fact that there are different positions on this by its very nature means its "disputed."
As for Palestinian suffering, yes, the Palestinians have difficult lives. But I believe it is largely the fault of their leaders that they lead such lives. For the entirety of "Palestinian history" (however such a term could be defined) their leaders have made bad decisions on their behalf, opting to choose NOTHING instead of choosing SOMETHING alongside a thriving Jewish state. They suffer in the sense that they're deprived of sovereignty. They have agency, it is on them, and they can't just blame the Jews for everything that goes wrong. But, is there something wrong with acknowledging that they live less-than-ideal lives?
"I'm suggesting we teach complexity because it is true, and because our children deserve truth".??
The truth is that history if complex and complicated. That though I believe Israelis have done more right than wrong, that they have also done some things wrong. That that is OK to acknowledge, and does not make our position weaker, but stronger. That our children deserve to know that the establishment of the state did not just involve supermen like David Ben Gurion, Chaim Weizmann, and Theodor Herzl swooping in and making all the right decisions. They deserve to know that those same men stressed about the decisions they would be making and how their decisions would impact not just their own people but the other people of the region as well. Our children deserve to know that truth too. Ben Gurion, for example, had to make serious concessions in order to achieve what he wanted. He wanted a socialist state (which he couldn't get because practically he knew he wanted to ally with America, so had to back away from the socialism), he wanted a secular state (but he had to make room for Orthodox Jews in Israeli society), and he wanted the entirety of the land from the River to the Sea (but he had to make concessions because he wanted to get something, and whatever he could get his hands on, and deal with the rest later). That is all the truth, and it means that concessions had to be made in order to get the state that we have and love today. But it involved difficult decisions, that our kids deserve to know about and understand.
"They understood that being defeated by the truth is the only kind of defeat that is also a victory."
There is nobility in understand what is "true" or something close to "objective truth." Hillel and Shammai debated, but only Hillel took into account other arguments to really understand their position, and the virtue of their arguments. Being defeated by truth means that we acknowledge that our position may not always be right, but if there is truth (or if there is even such thing as objective truth) then being defeated by it is a victory because we have attained that moral understanding, or a high ground of some kind, that gives us elevated status, so that we can hold our heads high and know that we are on the path to righteousness.
Again, all this goes to say is that there is a complicated history at play here, and we do ourselves no favours by either dumbing it down to Hasbara talking points, or only leaving it open to our kids to discover some of the difficult "truths" later on. We have the moral high ground already, and I believe, 10000%, "beemuna shlema - in full faith" in our cause, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't talk about it all honestly.
"Nothing epitomizes this international obsession better than a recent announcement from the European Union which dismissed the possibility of the EU ever supporting a TWO State solution for Cyprus. Here you have it in a nutshell. When it comes to Cyprus there is no way that a Turkish illegal occupation will ever be agreed to and any talk of “two states for two people living side by side in peace” is scuttled. However when Israel is involved then all of a sudden, past illegal Jordanian occupation of areas designated for Jewish settlement is conveniently ignored and instead a two-state solution with those who have continually rejected any sort of legitimacy of Jewish rights and who promote terror is “kosher lemehadrin.”
"They suffer in the sense that they're deprived of sovereignty."
Really?
A short list of peace rejections. The rest is detailed below:
“Israel has offered peace,” and correctly explain that Israel has offered statehood, independence, and the opportunity for the Palestinians to chart their own destiny multiple times. Yet Palestinian leaders have repeatedly turned those offers down, because they would have to give peace in exchange.
Those who fund and initiate wars of aggression or terror campaigns against their neighbors should be ready to pay for the consequences.
I do not dispute the facts that concessions had to be made. What else could we do after the Brits betrayed us, the nations rejected our appeals in 1936 and the Holocaust has devastated nearly 40% of our nation. We took any crumbs that the UN offered us on 29th of Nov. 1947 contrary to Article 80 of the UN Charter.
You did not mention Ze'ev Jabotinsky and the "Iron Wall".
Please read my reply in 2 comments for I cannot fit it all in 1:
I don't dispute the fact that there was displacement of Arabs from their villages. The only ones that were displaced were those who actively participated in the war against the nascent State of Israel together with the invading Arab armies in 1948. I also dispute your assumption that "many" were displaced. Roughly 5% of the Arabs were displaced.
You mention the Jews that were displaced from Arab lands but you ignore the fact that the Jordanian military led by British officers, conquered Judea, Samaria and the Old city of Jerusalem and in the process destroyed Israeli villages, the Jewish Quarter in Jerusalem, expelled our people and even killed prisoners of war.
The only ones who claim that the settlements are disputed, do not understand the contemporary historical events. I recommend that whoever wants to actually understand should read the following book:
The Legal Foundation and Borders of Israel Under International Law by Howard Grief.
The claim that Israeli “settlements” are illegal is based on a deeply politicized misreading of international law.
“Settlements” are not illegal. No matter how many times that is claimed, mere repetition does not make it true. The League of Nations’ Mandate for Palestine is quite clear on this. Article 6 of the Mandate tells the holder of the Mandate — Great Britain — to “encourage close settlement by Jews on the land.” What “land” is that? According to the League, all the land “from the river to the sea” was to be included in Mandatory Palestine. Jews were free to buy land, and they did. Before the 1948 war, every dunam of land — other than ‘state and waste lands” — was paid for by Jews to their Arab and Turkish landowners. According to Article 6 of the Mandate for Palestine, “state and waste lands” were to be made available for settlement by Jews as well.
Annexation of the disputed territories is not on the table and never was.
Since the signing of the Oslo Accords, 98% of the Palestinian Arabs are under the control of the Palestinian Authority rather than Israel. The Palestinian security forces patrol the streets of their cities. The schools are run by Palestinian principals and instructors. Palestinians serve as judges in the courts. The voters and the candidates in elections are always Palestinians, though it has been a while.
I agree on this point. Teaching young American Jews that Israel was created to be some kind of Jewish Disneyland is wrong and counter productive. What they should be taught is that whatever the complications the real world forces on our fantasies, Israel is the state of the Jewish people and it deserves our full and permanent support, not conditional.
Perhaps rather than making arguments about complexity, asking questions is a better way forward, with regard to everyone and anyone who has antipathy towards the existence of Israel. The most fundamental concern the deep-seated contempt that challenges the possibility of peaceful coexistence in pursuit of shared prosperity amongst Arabs and Jews. One might also usefully ask what sort of land would be Palestine without the presence of the accursed Jew. I doubt that many would have good answers. Just be ready to debunk the selective arguments about so-called context.
"Jewish history did not begin in 1967, that the conflict did not emerge from Israeli cruelty but from the collision of two peoples with claims to the same land, wherein one people was prepared to share, and the other people said no."
Statement begs several very uncomfortable questions which people on all sides of the equation fastidiously avoid.
If identity confers legitimacy of claim, and any group an use identity to pursue power, wealth, territory, what criteria should be used so that we do not have situation like the insurgent faction Al-Shabaab in Sudan fighting the government faction claiming its members constitute a national identity and therefore have a right to all the land they claim. If the world grants them that right, what is to stop the Sicilian Mafia claiming on the same ground the right to all of Sicily?
Anthropologically, identity of a people rests on shared culture, language, history, and traditions.
Palestinian culture is Arab. Their language is Arabic, their history as a people goes all the way back to 1964 when Yassir Arafat coined the term "Palestinian People" to go along with his invention of a pre-existing state he called "Palestine." Their identity is thus not an inherited nor a national or religious one, it is a political construct. And their claim rests on a principle of Dar al-Harb — land that once comes under the dominion of Islamic rule remains forever belonging to the Ummah.
The validity of claims cannot and should not be based on spurious grounds but must rest on fact, evidence, history, and especially on established principles of law, such as uti juris possidetis.
This is, in fact, the attitude with which most Freemasons approach the Great Architect: His Temple is yet to be completed. And so, what exists must be questioned, otherwise you won't deliver quality work.
“The question is not whether our enemies teach their children nuance. They don’t, and that is their problem, not ours.”
Not true.
Ask the families of generations of young Israelis who were forced to fight and who died because our enemies do not teach their children nuance. Ask the families of those bombed and killed at Seders and in pizza parlors.
If Israelis ever, which of course they don’t, targeted Ramadan or Eid gatherings, the world would go beyond savagely insane.
But when adherents of Islam teach their children there is no nuance, so phone your mother with pride regarding how many Jews you have murdered, we bear the unspeakable pain of the hideous problem of a pathological culture devoid of nuance, which is seeking our destruction.
Ask young children who have lost their IDF
parent if the lack of Muslim nuance created a problem in their young lives.
Respectfully, the Jewish people haven't come this far by caring about what other people do. We achieved the miracles of Jewish life and Jewish history by focusing more on what we do. What makes us unique. What allows us to rise about it all and make sure that we are staying on the right path. There's nothing new about antisemitism or people hating Jews (or using that hatred to try and kill us). But there is something new about the Jewish people today veering away from understand what makes us good, and trying to focus too much on what makes other people bad.
Bret Stephens just spoke about this in his address on the state of world Jewry today. He basically said screw it to fighting modern antisemitism, and let's instead focus on making ourselves great. He made four points:
1. The fight against antisemitism is largely ineffective: current strategies to combat Jew-hatred, such as education, advocacy, and monitoring, have yielded little result and are a "mostly wasted effort". He argued that antisemites are generally impervious to facts or appeals to tolerance.
2. Antisemitism is a perverse compliment rooted in envy: antisemitism is not based on misunderstandings or a lack of information, but rather a "psychological reflex" of envy and resentment aimed at Jewish success and distinctiveness. He claimed, "They do not hate us because of our faults and failures; they hate us because of our virtues and successes".
3. Stop trying to disprove hatred through performance: He argued that Jews should stop trying to win approval or prove their worth to the world through high-profile philanthropy, social justice activism, or other feats of altruism. Instead, Jews should "lean into our Jewishness" without caring about the approval of others.
4. Build independent institutions: He urged Jewish communities to stop seeking inclusion in broader, often hostile, coalitions and instead invest in building their own strong, independent institutions, such as schools, cultural centers, and media. He described this as focusing on "Jewish thriving" rather than merely Jewish survival.
That's what I mean when I say that I don't care what other people teach their kids. We just need to care about our own.
I can't think of a better way to teach about Israel to Christian Children then Jewish teachers. The Holy land is their homeland and as a community they are filled with stories, art and songs that draw a beautiful tapestry of the history of God's People.
This is why I encourage Churches' to join our program to team with Synagogues to teach the history of the Jews. Having children working on projects together that show the beauty of the Jewish people teach both religions the humanity of each other.
Want to end antisemitism; make the children friends!
Also, from young age, we need to explain the danger of Islam. We need to make clear that we do not hate the people; as we recognize the evil of Islam. Our goal should always be protecting the integrity of our faiths, but, we need to be a united front to turn people away from the danger of the Evil cult of Islam (ECI).
Time for Christians to remember that the most important Christian to walk to earth... was a Jew!
Time is short; Jews and Christians need to defend each other's families with their lives. If we, as Christians, do not stand with our Jewish brothers and sisters, the Jews no one will come to help us...
One of the most beautiful things I have seen is Jewish children teaching traditional dances to Christians kids...
We are Strong, We are Brave!
We are... Sword of God Militia!
I totally disagree with this article’s premise. The state of Israel was not built parallel to “ a tragedy of displacement”. No more than every war causes displacement. To enter the polluted narrative of the enemy is a huge mistake, which we make all the time. It is not the “ displacement “ that caused the greatest modern fraud of “Palestinianism” and the persistent Arab and Muslim hatred of Jews and Israel. Or the Soviet Union creation of the PLO. The dream of Zionism was normalcy for the Jewish People. Look around how other nations were born, fought, survived, or were defeated. Truth and reality. Not spinning.
A genocidal war unquestionably and unilaterally caused by a savage enemy , and any war that produces a population displacement , is unfortunately a normal occurrence. The double standard applied to Israel spells responsibility for the wrong party, the Jews, the immigrants. The “ displacement “ narrative gets us where the enemy wants us. If we are going to teach 1948, etc, let’s do so without guilt, placing all the responsibility on the Arabs, particularly as to how they behaved with their own people, using them to act their own hatred of Israel and refusing them a state. Which actually Israel did, many times, most spectacularly by unilaterally leaving Gaza. Jordan and Egypt didn’t. They annexed the territories. There was no “ Palestine” since 1947.
Teach by showing the abnormal character of “ Palestinianism “ and Islamism. Arab Jew-hatred. Mental illness. The tragedy of language. The defacement of History. How immense other historical war’s displacements have been. And why commemorating the “Nakba “should be outlawed in Israel.
The premise is wrong. The issue isn’t how Israel is taught — it’s that many too many diaspora Jews aren’t even teaching Jewish principles, traditions, history, or the memory of those who fought to keep Jewish life alive. Without that foundation, attachment to Israel won’t stick.
And if Israel is taught, it should be clear why it matters: for many Jews it’s the one place meant to ensure Jews are never again left defenseless and always have a refuge if history turns dark again.
The fact our enemies don’t teach nuance (or that Israel is a legitimate country) is OUR problem, because our enemies breed generation after generation of terrorists because children are taught to become martyrs in the Palestinians’ forever war against Israel.
"The question is not whether our enemies teach their children nuance. They don’t, and that is their problem, not ours." Couldn't read past this nonsense.
The author is likely correct that teaching one sided views of Israel to our children can lead to a brittle form of loyalty that breaks under pressure. But most of the cases I've seen where the children turn against Israel, they are amplifying doubts their parents had all along. It is reminiscent of the way most of the rebels and campus radicals of the 60s were from liberal families who had their own doubts about America, not from families that considered themselves patriotic or conservative.
Assimilation takes many forms, and one of these is still calling oneself Jewish, but see Jewish through an American (e.g. New York Times) lens, rather than America threw a Jewish lens. The whole lineage is on a long trajectory away from Judaism, though it may take a crisis like war to make it visible.
The one thing that I've seen reliably foster the kind of realistic, multidimensional loyalty to Israel the author rightly encourages is actual personal relationships with living Israelis. The tragedy, or great weakness, of Birthright is that those young American Jews in Israel interact almost exclusively with each other.
Interesting Adam Hummel.
You write:
"this means teaching the 1948 Arab-Israel War as both a miracle of survival and a tragedy of displacement." ??
Kindly explain!!
"It means acknowledging that settlements are disputed territories, that Palestinian suffering is real and not invented by propagandists, even if it is largely the fault of their leaders"?? Kindly explain!!
"I'm suggesting we teach complexity because it is true, and because our children deserve truth".??
What is the truth??
"They understood that being defeated by the truth is the only kind of defeat that is also a victory." ??
Give us some contemporary examples to your theory.
With pleasure:
"this means teaching the 1948 Arab-Israel War as both a miracle of survival and a tragedy of displacement."
The 1948 war was a miracle of survival. We had a small army against a huge Arab mob, and we won. I assume this isn't controversial. You probably don't like that I used the term "tragedy of displacement." But there was displacement. In Hasbara circles, we talk about the fact that there were three forms of Arab displacement: there were those who left on their own, thinking that they'd return when the Zionists loss, there were those who were encouraged to leave by THEIR leaders either because they were worried about what would happen if they stayed or, again, they were encouraged to leave and return when the Zionists loss, and, yes, there were those who were forcibly displaced by Israelis. To acknowledge that Israeli forced many Palestinians out of their homes in 1948 is not controversial - it happened. It usually happened when the Israelis came to an Arab village and said "Do you want to be a part of the new Israeli state, yes or no? If you say yes, you're welcome to stay and become citizens, but if you say no, we are going to remove you." And that happened. Is that controversial to acknowledge? There was also the tragedy of displacement of Jews from Arab lands. 800,000 Jews were displaced from their historic homes. This was a huge tragedy as so much of Jewish history over 2000 years took place in other areas of the Middle East, and vanished overnight, with the tragedy that Jews had to leave quickly, leaving their possessions and money in those countries. So all that displacement is what I'm referring to in this sentence.
"It means acknowledging that settlements are disputed territories, that Palestinian suffering is real and not invented by propagandists, even if it is largely the fault of their leaders"
Settlements are still on disputed territories. Of course Jews claim that the territory of the West Bank is Judea and Samaria, our Biblical homeland. I believe that too. But it is still disputed. There are many people who think that it's not the case, including many in the Israeli left, Israel government parties, etc. who laid the framework 30 years ago for much of that territory to at some point be handed over to the Palestinians. The fact that there are different positions on this by its very nature means its "disputed."
As for Palestinian suffering, yes, the Palestinians have difficult lives. But I believe it is largely the fault of their leaders that they lead such lives. For the entirety of "Palestinian history" (however such a term could be defined) their leaders have made bad decisions on their behalf, opting to choose NOTHING instead of choosing SOMETHING alongside a thriving Jewish state. They suffer in the sense that they're deprived of sovereignty. They have agency, it is on them, and they can't just blame the Jews for everything that goes wrong. But, is there something wrong with acknowledging that they live less-than-ideal lives?
"I'm suggesting we teach complexity because it is true, and because our children deserve truth".??
The truth is that history if complex and complicated. That though I believe Israelis have done more right than wrong, that they have also done some things wrong. That that is OK to acknowledge, and does not make our position weaker, but stronger. That our children deserve to know that the establishment of the state did not just involve supermen like David Ben Gurion, Chaim Weizmann, and Theodor Herzl swooping in and making all the right decisions. They deserve to know that those same men stressed about the decisions they would be making and how their decisions would impact not just their own people but the other people of the region as well. Our children deserve to know that truth too. Ben Gurion, for example, had to make serious concessions in order to achieve what he wanted. He wanted a socialist state (which he couldn't get because practically he knew he wanted to ally with America, so had to back away from the socialism), he wanted a secular state (but he had to make room for Orthodox Jews in Israeli society), and he wanted the entirety of the land from the River to the Sea (but he had to make concessions because he wanted to get something, and whatever he could get his hands on, and deal with the rest later). That is all the truth, and it means that concessions had to be made in order to get the state that we have and love today. But it involved difficult decisions, that our kids deserve to know about and understand.
"They understood that being defeated by the truth is the only kind of defeat that is also a victory."
There is nobility in understand what is "true" or something close to "objective truth." Hillel and Shammai debated, but only Hillel took into account other arguments to really understand their position, and the virtue of their arguments. Being defeated by truth means that we acknowledge that our position may not always be right, but if there is truth (or if there is even such thing as objective truth) then being defeated by it is a victory because we have attained that moral understanding, or a high ground of some kind, that gives us elevated status, so that we can hold our heads high and know that we are on the path to righteousness.
Again, all this goes to say is that there is a complicated history at play here, and we do ourselves no favours by either dumbing it down to Hasbara talking points, or only leaving it open to our kids to discover some of the difficult "truths" later on. We have the moral high ground already, and I believe, 10000%, "beemuna shlema - in full faith" in our cause, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't talk about it all honestly.
No. 2
Read the Oslo Accords.
"Nothing epitomizes this international obsession better than a recent announcement from the European Union which dismissed the possibility of the EU ever supporting a TWO State solution for Cyprus. Here you have it in a nutshell. When it comes to Cyprus there is no way that a Turkish illegal occupation will ever be agreed to and any talk of “two states for two people living side by side in peace” is scuttled. However when Israel is involved then all of a sudden, past illegal Jordanian occupation of areas designated for Jewish settlement is conveniently ignored and instead a two-state solution with those who have continually rejected any sort of legitimacy of Jewish rights and who promote terror is “kosher lemehadrin.”
https://israelbehindthenews.com/2021/07/31/boycotters-fiesta/?utm_source
"They suffer in the sense that they're deprived of sovereignty."
Really?
A short list of peace rejections. The rest is detailed below:
“Israel has offered peace,” and correctly explain that Israel has offered statehood, independence, and the opportunity for the Palestinians to chart their own destiny multiple times. Yet Palestinian leaders have repeatedly turned those offers down, because they would have to give peace in exchange.
https://www.algemeiner.com/2022/11/23/the-palestinians-reject-having-their-own-state-as-well-as-peace/
https://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/29/world/middleeast/Arab-Rejection-of-1947-Partition-Plan-Was-Error-Mahmoud-Abbas-Says.html
"Ehud Barak agreed to give up part of Temple Mount, Old City. The then-prime minister offered the concessions in 2000, Israel State Archives reveal."
https://www.jns.org/israel-palestinianconflict/jerusalem/23/6/19/296380/
Those who fund and initiate wars of aggression or terror campaigns against their neighbors should be ready to pay for the consequences.
I do not dispute the facts that concessions had to be made. What else could we do after the Brits betrayed us, the nations rejected our appeals in 1936 and the Holocaust has devastated nearly 40% of our nation. We took any crumbs that the UN offered us on 29th of Nov. 1947 contrary to Article 80 of the UN Charter.
You did not mention Ze'ev Jabotinsky and the "Iron Wall".
The rest of what you write, I do not dispute.
Thank you for your comments.
Please read my reply in 2 comments for I cannot fit it all in 1:
I don't dispute the fact that there was displacement of Arabs from their villages. The only ones that were displaced were those who actively participated in the war against the nascent State of Israel together with the invading Arab armies in 1948. I also dispute your assumption that "many" were displaced. Roughly 5% of the Arabs were displaced.
You mention the Jews that were displaced from Arab lands but you ignore the fact that the Jordanian military led by British officers, conquered Judea, Samaria and the Old city of Jerusalem and in the process destroyed Israeli villages, the Jewish Quarter in Jerusalem, expelled our people and even killed prisoners of war.
The only ones who claim that the settlements are disputed, do not understand the contemporary historical events. I recommend that whoever wants to actually understand should read the following book:
The Legal Foundation and Borders of Israel Under International Law by Howard Grief.
https://israelforever.org/interact/blog/legal_rights_jewish_people_land_of_israel/?utm_content=Link+479538&utm_campaign=Newsletter&utm_source
https://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/294359/israels-rights-in-the-west-bank-under-international-law
The claim that Israeli “settlements” are illegal is based on a deeply politicized misreading of international law.
“Settlements” are not illegal. No matter how many times that is claimed, mere repetition does not make it true. The League of Nations’ Mandate for Palestine is quite clear on this. Article 6 of the Mandate tells the holder of the Mandate — Great Britain — to “encourage close settlement by Jews on the land.” What “land” is that? According to the League, all the land “from the river to the sea” was to be included in Mandatory Palestine. Jews were free to buy land, and they did. Before the 1948 war, every dunam of land — other than ‘state and waste lands” — was paid for by Jews to their Arab and Turkish landowners. According to Article 6 of the Mandate for Palestine, “state and waste lands” were to be made available for settlement by Jews as well.
Annexation of the disputed territories is not on the table and never was.
Since the signing of the Oslo Accords, 98% of the Palestinian Arabs are under the control of the Palestinian Authority rather than Israel. The Palestinian security forces patrol the streets of their cities. The schools are run by Palestinian principals and instructors. Palestinians serve as judges in the courts. The voters and the candidates in elections are always Palestinians, though it has been a while.
I agree on this point. Teaching young American Jews that Israel was created to be some kind of Jewish Disneyland is wrong and counter productive. What they should be taught is that whatever the complications the real world forces on our fantasies, Israel is the state of the Jewish people and it deserves our full and permanent support, not conditional.
Perhaps rather than making arguments about complexity, asking questions is a better way forward, with regard to everyone and anyone who has antipathy towards the existence of Israel. The most fundamental concern the deep-seated contempt that challenges the possibility of peaceful coexistence in pursuit of shared prosperity amongst Arabs and Jews. One might also usefully ask what sort of land would be Palestine without the presence of the accursed Jew. I doubt that many would have good answers. Just be ready to debunk the selective arguments about so-called context.
"Jewish history did not begin in 1967, that the conflict did not emerge from Israeli cruelty but from the collision of two peoples with claims to the same land, wherein one people was prepared to share, and the other people said no."
Statement begs several very uncomfortable questions which people on all sides of the equation fastidiously avoid.
If identity confers legitimacy of claim, and any group an use identity to pursue power, wealth, territory, what criteria should be used so that we do not have situation like the insurgent faction Al-Shabaab in Sudan fighting the government faction claiming its members constitute a national identity and therefore have a right to all the land they claim. If the world grants them that right, what is to stop the Sicilian Mafia claiming on the same ground the right to all of Sicily?
Anthropologically, identity of a people rests on shared culture, language, history, and traditions.
Palestinian culture is Arab. Their language is Arabic, their history as a people goes all the way back to 1964 when Yassir Arafat coined the term "Palestinian People" to go along with his invention of a pre-existing state he called "Palestine." Their identity is thus not an inherited nor a national or religious one, it is a political construct. And their claim rests on a principle of Dar al-Harb — land that once comes under the dominion of Islamic rule remains forever belonging to the Ummah.
The validity of claims cannot and should not be based on spurious grounds but must rest on fact, evidence, history, and especially on established principles of law, such as uti juris possidetis.
This is, in fact, the attitude with which most Freemasons approach the Great Architect: His Temple is yet to be completed. And so, what exists must be questioned, otherwise you won't deliver quality work.