Monday, August 6, 2012

Zionising the Draft Modern History Curriculum 3

Here is the Australian Curriculum, Assessment & Reporting Authority's third dot point:

*The nature and consequences of Palestinian reactions to Israel, including the Intifada (1987-94) and the 2nd Intifada (2000-2006).

And here's the response of ECAJ's Peter Wertheim:

"The third dot point refers to 'the nature and consequences of Palestinian reactions to Israel, including the Intifada 1987-94 and the 2nd Intifada 2000-2006'. This implies, incorrectly, that the predominant Palestinian reactions to Israel have been the two intifada's [sic]. We would suggest that the dot point be amended to read: 'the nature and consequences of Palestinian reactions to Israel from 1947, including rejectionism, pan-Arabism and armed conflict, the PLO and its Charter, terrorism, the phases strategy, Intifada 1 (1987-93), the PLO-Hamas split, boycotts and political campaigns against Israel's legitimacy.'"

My critique of Wertheim is as follows:

1) 1947? The implication being that the Palestinian leadership and people, who, at the time, constituted the majority of Palestine's population, should have thrown their kuffiyehs into the air, danced in the streets and otherwise joyfully welcomed the decision of the White Man's club, as the UN then was, to partition their homeland, without in any way consulting them or even referring the matter the International Court of Justice (ICJ), and hand over 56% of it to a recently arrived colon community which had purchased only around 6% of the land. And that's construed by Wertheim and friends as 'rejectionism'.

2) Pan-Arabism? How typically narcissistic! As if pan-Arabist ideas were a mere consequence of Zionist colonization.

3) Armed conflict? The historically correct term here should be 'armed struggle'. Armed conflict is what the British-backed Zionist project in Palestine was bound to lead to, indigenes, including our own, never having been known for taking kindly to being steamrolled by blow-ins. (Funny that!) Furthermore, armed conflict is what Israel routinely engages in to achieve the Zionist movement's historic goal of Eretz Israel, lock, stock and barrel (plus any additional bits of land it can get away with such as Syria's Golan Heights). Armed struggle, on the other hand, is a means sanctioned by international law by which colonized peoples may regain their trampled rights. For example, UNGA Resolution 33/44 of 23 November 1979 reads in part: "[The General Assembly] Reaffirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial and alien domination and foreign occupation by all available means, including armed struggle" (para 2), and "Strongly condemns all Governments which do not recognize the right of self-determination and independence of all peoples still under colonial and foreign domination and alien subjugation, notably the peoples of Africa and the Palestinian people." (para 12)

4) Terrorism? The movement which gave us the Irgun, the Stern Gang, Plan Dalet, the ethnic cleansing of Palestine, countless massacres, aggressions, invasions, occupations, and the quaintly-named Israel Defence Force dares to throw around the 't' word?

5) The phases strategy? You mean those dweadful people (who don't exist according to Golda Meir and Newt Gingrich) have plotted to regain their homeland bit by bit? OMG, such wickedness! They must've taken a leaf out of Ben-Gurion's book when he said in 1938: "[I am] satisfied with part of the country, but on the basis of the assumption that after we build up a strong force following the establishment of the state we will abolish the partition of the country and expand to the whole Land of Israel." (One Palestine Complete, Tom Segev, p 403)

6) PLO-Hamas split? Hello? Hamas was never a part of the PLO.

7) BDS? Absolutely - the more our students learn about BDS the better. Bring it on. Well done, Peter.

To be continued...

No comments: