• Sun. Sep 25th, 2022
skærmdump-fra-httpshistorie.alinea.dk_

Analysis by Dan Harder

Published by Med Israel for fred Danmark

  • Download the full report as a PDF

Want to help Infinitum News make this report known to schoolchildren and teachers above all of Denmark?
Click here to become a member of Infinitum News or give a gift via Mobile Pay 49739 or Bank Account 5290 9020945009

Also read the report: High school book from the publisher Systime politicizes and indoctrinates, is unsuitable for educational use

Selected statements from the conclusion

The many mistakes are
consistently angled in such a way that they predominantly put Israel in a negative light
and / or acquit the Palestinians and the Palestinian Authority of theirs
responsibility in the conflict.

The material has been clinically cleared of any criticism of the current Palestinian Authority under totalitarian President Mahmoud Abbas, who clings to power, even though his democratic mandate expired many years ago.

It will require one
thorough review before the material can be characterized as historically accurate,
objective and balanced. As it stands now, Alinea’s online course about it
Israeli-Palestinian conflict, with its cornucopia of fake
allegations, best described as massive falsification of history and anti-Israel
propaganda.

The material is thus completely unsuitable for teaching, and it must therefore be recommended that the use be discontinued in any teaching context and replaced with material based on real historical facts.

Analysis of Alinea’s online teaching material about it
Israeli-Palestinian conflict

URL: http://ny-historie.alinea.dk/course/AA8A-israel-palaestina-konflikten

By Dan Harder, editor of the websites Israel-Online.dk and IsraelsHistorie.dk

Content:

1. Introduction and background

2. General objections

3. Systematic review of the material

4. Conclusion

1st Introduction and background

I stayed in February
2018 contacted by the publisher Alinea, who wanted to use an article I had written in their history teaching material. I gladly accepted, but at the same time asked for permission
to read the total material. Here I discovered to my dismay, that
the material was encumbered with quite a few factual errors, and moreover suffered from
decisive and meaningful omissions. In addition, the material was
organized with a violent political slant, with excessive criticism of Israel
and a corresponding underplay
Palestinian responsibility for the conflict, seen objectively in relation to the
historical realities.

The editorial staff at Alinea
showed positive interest in my critique, which is why I prepared a review
of defects in the material. Alinea has subsequently corrected many of them
specific factual errors, for which the publisher should be commended.

But unfortunately you have
– now with open eyes – chosen to retain a range of information that is decidedly factual
Wrong. In addition, several places in the material have chosen to retain some
angles on the narrative, which also do not contribute to a true picture
of historical reality. It should under no circumstances be accepted in
historical teaching material. School children have the right to learn the historical ones
facts, not fiction.

According to
the publisher himself (as of 12. December 2019) been approx. 4,000 unique logins on
the online course (teaching material) over a period of just over a year. Elapsed
was then in a 10th place over the most used courses on Alineas
“history portal”
for the schooling. The publisher expects a significant increase in use towards the summer
2020 – here the course is in the annual plan for 8th grade, and Alinea can see that
teachers follow the publisher’s annual plans when using the portal in history.

The (expected)
widespread use of the material obviously makes it only so much the worse that it
is both misleading and full of errors.

2nd overall
grievances

Before
systematic review of the material (below) I will present my superiors
objections so that the reader has the context in mind during the review.

  1. The
    historical background around the First World War is tied up in a central – but incorrect
    – allegation that Britain promised both Jews and “Palestinians”
    an independent state in Palestine, and then chose to cheat both groups for
    to keep the area to yourself. Although some of the factual errors have now been corrected, have
    one insisted on retaining this fictitious “idea,” whereby
    the background of the conflict is given a politically manipulated representation.
  2. The
    international legal anchoring of a “Jewish homeland” in
    Palestine, cf. the League of Nations adoption of the British mandate in Palestine in
    1922, is omitted and replaced by the above fiction.
  3. The Arabic
    population in the British-controlled Mandate Territory, Palestine (1922-1948),
    is systematically described as “the Palestinians”. It’s historic
    incorrect as all the inhabitants of the mandate (including the Jews) were then designated
    as Palestinians. The correct terms for the two population groups are
    “Palestinian Jews” and “Palestinian Arabs”. By
    to put the “Jews” and against the “Palestinians” indicates
    one that the Arabs were more Palestinians than the Jews, which is a political one
    statement. The term “Palestinians” used neutrally, alone
    the Arabs, only makes sense after 1948, when the Palestinian Jews came into being
    Israelis. The idea of ​​a Palestinian (Arab) people is thus a function of
    Israel’s creation in 1948. Alinea’s misuse of the terms is therefore manipulation adapted
    a modern political context.
  4. They
    Palestinian Arabs’ systematic use of violence against civilian Jews as a whole
    political means of pressure in the years 1920-1948 does not appear at all in the material,
    like the violent Arab uprising (1936-1939) that led to the British
    Peel Commission’s division plan, omitted.
  5. “Palestinians”
    produced systematically (both before and after the term makes sense), as far
    more accommodating and compromising to the Jews than the historical ones
    realities justify. For example, the PLO’s original struggle to
    destroy Israel as a battle “… with the sole purpose of creating one
    Palestinian state. “
    It’s pure misinformation.
  6. There
    is an excessive focus on the importance of Israel’s religious Jews to the conflict. IN
    chapter on the Six Day War, the claims about the significance of religion are decided
    incorrect. Religious Jews are systematically portrayed as opponents of peace while
    religious Arabs are not portrayed similarly negatively, though religion
    means far more (and is a major obstacle to peace) in the Palestinian
    society than in the Israeli.
  7. There
    in general, a lot of energy is spent describing Israeli society
    (religion, the military, the parliament …), while we get pretty much nothing to know
    about the Palestinian. It must be understood implicitly that the Palestinian
    social structure has no particular significance for the conflict. In reality
    is the opposite case. Many will even argue that
    Palestinian dysfunction today is the primary obstacle to
    a peace settlement.
  8. Two
    places in the material have chosen to highlight criticisms of Israel’s current
    government, even in both examples on a very thin basis (abuse of
    Holocaust and the suppression of freedom of speech – two largely
    non-existent problems in Israel). The criticism seems both unmotivated in
    relative to the historical context and fiercely politicizing, and should thus
    does notavailable in history teaching materials.
  9. Conversely
    there is no criticism of the Palestinian in the material
    self-government, which, however, is both corrupt and totalitarian, denies the historical of the Jews
    relation to the area, promotes anti-Semitism and supports terrorism against Jews
    civilians. The material is also chemically purified for traces of the Palestinian
    self-governing many refusals to engage in substantive negotiations about
    the creation of a Palestinian state alongside the Jewish state,
    Israel.
  10. A
    few myths that line up with the classic anti-Semitism that existed in it
    first edition of the material, is fortunately deleted from the final edition.
  11. More
    places where students have to answer specific questions, these are formulated
    such that students are hand-fed with Israel-critical views. Asked what
    which stands in the way of peace, students can, for example, choose between criticism of it
    democratic Israel and Islamist Hamas. Criticism of the Palestinian
    autonomy, which will not come to the negotiating table, is not an option.

3rd Systematic
review of the material

Below are comments
for my second review of the material (from February 2019).

Of course it is
a mitigating circumstance that Alinea’s editorial staff has made a number of corrections
as a result of my objections to the first edition.

Some places I have though
chosen to keep the comments for the first edition (from January 2018), even though several serious errors since then are
been corrected. The purpose is to illustrate to the reader the extent to which the whole
the material is based on the authors’ personal gut feelings, prejudices and (misconceptions),
instead of solid historical facts.

Although some things are
corrected from the first to the second edition, the material still suffers from many problems,
which is primarily divided into two categories:

  1. factual
    errors (predominantly with political bias against Israel)
  2. editorial
    elections with political bias against Israel

For the overview
For this reason, I review the material systematically from one end.

Quotes from Alineas
material in italics , my comments in normal font.

Chapter 1 – Religion and Jerusalem

The chapter is a good one
start on the material, with an excellent (albeit brief) presentation of the religions
significance for the conflict.

Chapter 2 – Zionism

Chapter 2 is also general
true and fair. However, from the section on “Immigration” there is one
series of small errors that could indicate that the text was written without the information subsequently
has been fact-checked. I also allow myself to point out some editorials
choices that arouse my wonder.

In the “Immigration” section:

Original text,
first edition (January 2018):

“In 1882 constituted
Jews no more than three percent of the population and lived largely only in
major cities such as Jerusalem and Hebron. But due to persecution [in Europe] and
Zionism grew the Jewish community from 24,000 in 1882 to 85,000 in
1914th “

That the Jewish part of
the population should only make up three percent in 1882 is blatantly wrong. It is
correct that the Jews made up about 24,000 people. But if they were to respond
to three percent, 800,000 people had to live in the area in 1882.
It did not. A more accurate total population is approx. 250,000.
This corresponds to a Jewish population share of approx. 10%.

Update, February
2019:

After my objection
the three percent is targeted at “a very small portion” .

There is also
added a new section:

“There is a lot
great disagreement about the size of the population of Palestine at the end of
19th century among researchers. Some point to 800,000 people, while others say
300,000. The big difference is interesting since the Jews’ share of the total
population was somewhat larger if there were few people in the area. The example
also shows that the conflict is surrounded by so much different information that
it can be hard to figure out. “

For more information
scrutiny, I must agree with the authors that there are major discrepancies between them
available sources regarding population for the area in the 19th century. According to
The Jewish Virtual Library had 24,000 Jews (8%) out of a total of 300,000 in 1882.
According to Wikipedia, there were 43,000 Jews (8%) out of a total population of
532,000 in 1890.

The number 800,000, which
now included in Alinea’s teaching material, appears nowhere in
literature, and must be assumed to be due to a misunderstanding of my past
comment. That number should be deleted from the material and possibly replaced by those
listed above.

In the same section:

First Edition (January
2018):

“Some of
the families were direct descendants of the Muslims who participated in the conquest in the 630s
of Jerusalem. “

It’s after my
perception a strange – and factually unsubstantiated – statement with a clear political
agenda. The purpose is clearly to anchor the history of the Palestinians in the country.
But what about the approx. 24,000 Jews who lived in Jerusalem and other cities in 1880?
Are you sure they can not trace their ancestry back to the years of David and
Solomon’s time, ca. year 1000 BC? Why this particular focus on the
ancestry of Palestinian Arabs?

Update, February
2019:

The text is now corrected
to the more reasonable “Some of the families had lived there in
centuries. “
That is of course true. But you know that the approx.
24,000 Jews had not lived there for millennia? The special focus on the
“Palestinian Muslims” (some of whom were actually Christians) and
their historical roots must clearly draw the Jews as foreign elements.
But that did not apply to the 24,000 who lived there in 1880? The question of
historical grounding is a controversial political issue that should not
politicized in a factual background outline.

Again, in the same section, “Immigration”: Here is a graph above
Arab and Jewish population growth, respectively. There is no problem
Med.

But it’s remarkable,
that the accompanying teacher’s guide calls for a special effort to safeguard
students against the potential misconception that the Arabic
population growth should also be due to immigration. It is obviously considered crucial
for the understanding of the conflict to emphasize that the Palestinians
– unlike the Jews – are mainly “natives” – which
of course, one of the main arguments of the Palestinians is that the country in
the reality is theirs.

I welcome that man
here, quite contrary to custom, have chosen to mention the Arabic at all
immigration that took place during the term of office as a result of the increased growth, which
was a consequence of both British and Jewish economic activity. But why put
a number of when everyone knows that it is both controversial and completely impossible to
assess? And why require the teacher to specifically emphasize that immigration
played a minor role? It then puts the teacher in a compromising situation
to have to act as a lawyer for the Palestinians. Why not just write in
the text that there was also Arab immigration, but that a large part of the growth
estimated to stem from natural growth?

The special focus on
Palestinian “native” in both examples above occurs
politically motivated. Especially when, as we will see below, many opt out
aother essential information that could potentially weaken
Palestinian cause.

The conflict is just that
complicated by the fact that both Jews and Arabs feel a sense of belonging
the country.

In the “Tel Aviv Founded” section:

First Edition (January
2018):

“Since the Jewish
immigration really increased in the decades after the rise of Zionism, they struck
immigrant Jews settle down at Jaffa out to the Mediterranean coast. Palestinian
persecutions, however, forced them to flee further north. Here the Jews founded
soon the first real Jewish city, Tel Aviv.

In Tel Aviv could
Jewish language, culture and way of life thrive in reasonable security. That meant, though
not that from now on they were secured against persecution and confrontations with
Palestinians. The Palestinians remained strongly opposed to the rising Jewish population
immigration from Europe. There were attacks from both sides during this period
each other’s areas. “

This short passage
actually contains a number of errors, although they do not necessarily change the whole
picture of the conflict. But that’s why the text should be accurate anyway.

When Jews immigrated
from Europe in the 1880s, they settled in many places in Palestine. The first
Jewish “modern” city was not Tel Aviv, but Petah Tikva (founded)
1878), located inland 15 km east of Jaffa / Tel Aviv. Next was the city
Rishon Le’Zion (meaning “first to Zion”) founded in 1882. In the
next year, a number of other cities were founded in present-day central Israel.
Modern Tel Aviv was not founded until 1909 near the ancient city of Jaffa.

“Palestinian
persecution “(with the exception of ordinary criminals, looting
gangs) did not take place at this time, but did not begin in earnest until 1920,
which was also the year in which the Arab political opposition to Zionism for
seriously materialized. Thus, there were no “attacks from either
pages “
in the time of Tel Aviv
founding.

Must be
pernittengrynet one could add the word “modern” to “it
first, real Jewish city “
(as
that is, not Tel Aviv). For the four ancient cities that are sacred to Jews:
Jerusalem, Hebron, Tiberias and Safed are probably also – or have probably been –
“real Jewish cities.”

Update, February
2019:

The four Jews
ancient cities have been added and so have the two modern cities of Petah
Tikva and Rishon Le’Zion. The statement with “attacks from both sides” has also been removed, and that’s fine. But
the section is unfortunately still plagued with significant errors. The Jews fought
not specifically down by Jaffa, was not expelled from here, and the Arab
political violence had not yet begun when Tel Aviv was founded in 1909. I
amazes me that one accepts factually incorrect information in
story material. Why not just stick to the facts?

That found
“Palestinian persecution” place, is casually mentioned as if it
had no particular significance for the conflict. Unfortunately on a chronological
wrong time, and then incidentally only sporadically in the rest of the material – though
the Palestinian violence against Jewish civilians has defined the conflict in almost
100 years, and does so today.

Chapter 3 – England’s Unfortunate Role

Chapter 3 begins
the serious mistakes to show up that can contribute to fundamental misunderstandings
around the conflict.

Chapter title (first edition, January 2018):

One should ask oneself
even if the headline “England’s unfortunate role” is true and
balanced. For whom was England’s role unfortunate? Maybe for England itself. But
if one is happy that Israel was created in 1948, it might not be so
uhfiery even. Conversely, if one is sad about the existence of Israel, it certainly must
considered unfortunate that England became involved in the Middle East
mess. A more neutral headline could be something along the lines of
“England’s crucial role.”

Update, February
2019:

The politically charged
heading has been changed to the more neutral “England crucial
role “.

Under the heading of
intro page of the chapter:

First Edition (January
2018):

“Israel-Palestine
the conflict stems i.a. in the guarantees given by the British before and during World War I.
gave both parties. Both the Jews and the Palestinians believe that the British promised them
area.

And in the section
The “Balfour Declaration” as well:

“I 1916
the British guaranteed the Palestinians their own state if they in turn would
help Britain in World War I against the Ottomans. “

These two statements are
in fact completely wrong, in fact an expression of pure falsification of history, i.a.
because the term “Palestinians,” as a term for an Arab people,
did not exist at all at that time.

What was entered into
in 1916, was the secret “Sykes-Picot Agreement” between England and
France, during which they divided the Middle East into the respective powers of the two great powers
spheres of interest. No Arabs were involved here.

The British pledge,
which was surrendered to Arabs during the war (in 1915, not 1916), referred to at all
not Arabs residing in Palestine, but was a deliberately vaguely worded promise from
the British High Commissioner McMahon in Egypt to Emir Hussein in Mecca on it
Arabian Peninsula, that the latter should be allowed to rule over most of
Middle East (though under British supremacy), in return for supporting
the British during the war against the Ottomans (Turks). From Hussein’s potential caliphate
or monarchy, McMahon further excused in his letter to the emir a not
particularly precisely defined area of ​​the Mediterranean coast (there is disagreement as to
whether the territory includes Israel / Palestine or only Lebanon).

It is true that pro-Palestinian
actors have later used the “Hussein-McMahon correspondence” as
“proof” that the British have promised Palestine to the Arabs. But the Palestinians
Arabs, whose national revival had not yet taken place, played no part
role at the time, which is why a Palestinian state, of course, does not exist at all
was not in question. The non-existent Palestinian people could, of course
nor “ help Britain in World War I against
the Ottomans. “
The information must therefore be considered radical
rewriting of history, which is clearly not acceptable in
history teaching materials.

Update, February
2019:

The text has now changed,
so it is “the Arabs,” and not (those at that time
non-existent) “Palestinians,” who are promised something by
England. “Guarantees” have also been changed to what the Arabs “got
impression “of a guarantee. It is better. The unskilled reader (as a
school student must be expected to be) however, can not figure out that England’s guard
worded promise was made to Emir Hussein of Mecca in the Arabian Peninsula,
and not to Arabs residing in Palestine. Neither Palestine nor Jerusalem
was part of the negotiations with Hussein, which was primarily aimed at the area
capital city, Damascus. The authors thus maintain the fictional story of
Britain’s guarantees to both parties to the conflict.

Below the image of Balfour and his letter to Lord Rothschild:

In the first edition (January
2018) it says:

“Arthur Balfour
was British Foreign Secretary in 1917 and the man behind the secret guarantee for one
Jewish home in Palestine. “

Balfour Declaration
was neither secret nor a guarantee. It was a public declaration (hence
the name) of Britain’s support for a Jewish homeland in Palestine.

Update, February
2019:

Aimed at “it
British support for a Jewish home in Palestine. “

Further down in the “Balfour Declaration” section:

First Edition (January
2018):

“The British saw
also an opportunity to gain support among the United States’ large Jewish population – and
through the support, push the US government into World War I on the side of the British. “

I’ve heard DR journalist
Hanne Foighel put forward the same point of view in the radio’s P1 Orientering (2 / 11-2017,
100th anniversary of the declaration). I have never come across sources that substantiate
the claim, but would very much like to see them if they exist. The fact is that the United States
had already declared war on Germany six months before the Balfour Declaration
issue. England’s motivation for issuing the declaration was rather twofold
things: Partly a desire to mobilize Jews in the fight against the Ottoman Empire, and partly
the British government, including Prime Minister Lloyd Georges, personal
sympathy for Zionism. To put forward the little-documented US-Jewish theory like that of Britain
only motivation – besides Jewish pressure from the Zionist leader Chaim Weizmann – is
a bit unfortunate as it breathes into the anti-Semitic notion of (not least American)
exaggerated influence of Jews on the policies of great powers. There is already enough
people with such delusions; there is no need to feed
elementary school students with them. References to anti-Semitic myths should
contextualized so that they are not confused with reality.

Update, February
2019:

Aimed at fairness
description, i.a. see above. The reference to the Jews of the United States removed.

And immediately below:

First Edition (January
2018):

“The Balfour Declaration
is still today a very central document in the conflict. Jews refer to the declaration,
as proof that the great powers have guaranteed them a home. “

Not quite. Balfour Declaration
was an expression of Britain’s position. But that which gives the declaration
legitimacy in relation to international law, its verbatim inclusion in
The League of Nations adopted the Palestine Mandate in 1922. Since all
The decisions of the League of Nations after World War II were transferred to
the successor, the UN, constitutes the mandate of 1922 the international validation of
The creation of Israel. If one perceives the UN decisions as essential for
conflict, it must be reasonable also to mention the first and absolutely decisive
from the League of Nations in 1922. The League of Nations simultaneously established the British and
French mandate areas, which is also crucial for understanding, and therefore
should be included.

Update, February
2019:

League
adoption of the Palestine Mandate (by which England was obliged to work)
for the establishment of a Jewish homeland) is now mentioned as “of the League of Nations
agreement from 1922 “.
But without further explanation, there is not a single one
school student who understands that it is an international, binding
decision. It is a pity that one maintains the fiction that the Jewish state became
promised by the British, when in fact it is the international community
represented by the League of Nations, which gave the Jews a “national
home “in view.

And again below:

First Edition (January
2018):

“The Palestinians
does not, however, perceive the word “domicile” as meaning state. The Palestinians perceive
home, as the opportunity for the Jews to be allowed to have onedomicile in a
Palestinian state. “

It’s a lot
strange statements that may serve to portray the Palestinians
more compromise-seeking than was the case. But that is historically completely wrong. The Palestinians
does not attribute the Balfour Declaration, or for that matter its inclusion in
The Palestine mandate, any son prefers legitimacy, and therefore does not hang in the semantics
in the text. I do not know where the author got that idea from, but it is pure
imagination.

Palestinian
view today is that England could not give away anything that was not theirs
(which they may be right in, although the document must be seen in the light of its time,
where empires quite naturally barked and tumbled with lands everywhere).
The concept of “homeland” covered that Jews should have special
rights in Palestine as a result of their historical affiliation. The Palestinians
has just never accepted any kind of “Jewish homeland” in
Palestine, and denies, as you know, even to this day, through a massive
misinformation campaign, any Jewish historical affiliation with the area.

Update, February
2019:

Pure fiction is
now happily dropped, and replaced by the more truthful text: “They
Arab Palestinians, on the other hand, did not believe that the British could promise the area away
to the Jews when Arabs lived in the area. “

In the following tasks, questions
1:

First Edition (January
2018):

“Why promised
England Palestinians their own state?

  • Because
    the Zionist movement had great influence in England.
  • Because
    the Palestinians helped the English during World War I.
  • Because
    the English were given the right to all the natural resources of the area. “

As described above
the British did not promise the Palestinians their own state. They issued a guard and
loosely defined promise to the Emir of Mecca to rule over most of it
Arab Middle East with the exception of a strip of land on the shores of the Mediterranean.
The Palestinians did not exist as a people and had no part in any negotiations
during World War I. If the question is to be included, it must necessarily be
reformulated to address Hussein’s desire to dominate most of the Middle East,
and possibly on Arab nationalism centered on Damascus. But it is not
directly related to Palestine. It must be the editor’s choice how many
keys you want out of.

Update, February
2019:

Although the authors now
has changed the word “Palestinians” to “Arabs”, holds
one remains stuck in a fiction that England should have promised independence to
both Arabs and Jews in Palestine. It’s a nice robbery story, but not
in accordance with the truth. The Jews were made a “homeland”
in view, while the Palestinian Arabs did not figure in the political at all
agenda during or immediately after World War I.

Same task set, question 3:

First Edition (January
2018):

“Why promised
the British that the Jews could have their own home?

  • Because
    the area was uninhabited.
  • For
    to gain support among the United States’ large Jewish population and through the support press
    The United States Government enters World War I on the side of the British.
  • Because
    the Jews had a covenant with their god. “

The middle answer
must clearly be understood as the right thing to do. But that’s wrong. England
motivation to issue the declaration was rather two things: Partly a desire
to mobilize Jews in the struggle against the Ottoman Empire, and partly the British
governments, including Prime Minister Lloyd Georges, personal sympathy for
Zionism.

The deep
anti-Semitic delusion that Jews can pressure the United States or other powers
to go to war should be treated with great care so that students do not inadvertently
think it’s right. See also above.

Update, February
2019:

The middle (and
completely wrong) answer has now been changed to the more accurate “Britain’s
Prime Minister David Lloyd George had sympathy with Zionism, and the British
would like to have as much influence in the area as possible. “

Task, after
The Balfour Declaration in English and Danish:

First Edition (January
2018):

“The source
credibility

Examine what is
especially for a source like this – is it eg credible / unreliable? Justify it
answer. “

That’s a strange thing to do
questions. After all, there are no more “credible” sources than historical ones
documents. If people knew the wording of historical documents better,
for example, the Palestine League’s Palestine mandate from 1922 or the UN Security Council
Resolution 242 of 1967, there would generally be a better understanding of
conflict. Historical documents can by definition not be “unreliable.”
It can newspaper articles, debate articles – and history teaching material, for it
for that matter. But not historical documents.

Update, February
2019:

The strange thing
questions have been replaced by some more relevant ones. However, the question is still: “Is
the source of what it claims to be – a 1917 declaration? “
Much
strange.

In the same set of tasks:

First Edition (January
2018):

“Source Consequences

What consequences
got it for the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians that the British
apparently both peoples gave the impression that they would have their own state
after the end of World War I? “

Again the same fiction. The British
did not give the Palestinians the impression that they would have their own state, cf.
the above. There is also no evidence to claim that the Arabs in Palestine got
national aspirations as a result of the Hussein-McMahon correspondence.
The latter was for the sole purpose of securing Emir Hussein’s Bedouin army (as
the English greatly overestimated) on the British side at the invasion of
Ottoman Empire. The plan was to install the emir’s son, Faisal, as leader of
Damascus. The geographical area of ​​Palestine was not part of the plan at all. It is thus not professional
fair to read a promise to the Palestinian Arabs into England’s promises
during World War I.

I’m sorry I did
thus, the concept of the editorial staff in this chapter contradicts, but one can now even
do not base history teaching on a clever idea of ​​a false symmetry.
The Palestinians did not exist as a people during World War I, and did not become
promised something. The only ones that England promised anything were the Emir of Mecca (1915),
the French (1916) and the Zionists (1917).

Update, February
2019:

The reference to the robbery story
whether the symmetrical promises have been removed from here.

“The British take over” section:

First Edition (January
2018):

“Da 1.
World War I ended in 1918 both Jews and Palestinians expected to get theirs
own state of Palestine. “

As mentioned several times
above, a Palestinian state was not on the agenda at all during World War I.
The same was true immediately after the war. Nor under San
The Remo Conference of 1920 was some form of Palestinian independence on the agenda.
It was Prins Faisal, son of Emir Hussein of Mecca, who negotiated with
the great powers, and the Arab claim to independence concerned the Middle East
generally with a specific focus on Damascus in Syria. In an Arabic optics became
Palestine perceived as part of Greater Syria, and then not even the Arabs in
Palestine itself perceived as a separate people, there was no requirement for an independent
state of Palestine. The statement is therefore pure fiction.

Update, February
2019:

Here it’s fake
postulate on British promises of both Arab and Jewish independence in
Palestine retained. However, an explanatory phrase has been added: “The Jews
in the form of a national home as referred to in the Balfour Declaration and the Arabs in
a form of Greater Syria that included Palestine. “

However, it still is
fiction. No one was promised independence at all. No independent Jew
state of Palestine, and no independent Greater Syria. England did not cheat
the Jews or the Arabs. They tried to cheat France for Syria, but that
failed, and the Sykes-Picot agreement of 1916 was largely implemented in
life. The editors’ fixation on this false story should be abandoned
benefit of real historical information.

Immediately below:

“But the British
did something quite third, which they already had during the war in secret
decided. They took over the area themselves. “

It’s not quite
true and fair. It is true that England had secretly agreed to a division
of the Middle East with France (Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1916). But the final one
division into mandate areas was adopted by the great powers in 1920 (in San Remo) and
then by the League of Nations in 1922 (where the text of the Balfour Declaration on a
Jewish homeland was incorporated into the Palestine Mandate, which also included it
current Jordan). So even though it’s a good robbery story that the English cheated
all the others, it is not true (it is true that they tried to deceive
France Damascus, but did not succeed).

Update, February
2019:

The robbery story is sad
retained. See also above.

And then:

“In the period from
1918 to 1939, when World War II broke out, tensions between Jews and
Palestinians. Both sides attacked not only each other but also British
soldiers and buildings. “

First a little semantics:

It’s deep
ahistorical, bordering on falsification of history to use the term “Jews
and Palestinians “
on the two parties during the British term of office. It
is a unfortunately very common way of pretending that at that time there was one
Palestinian people. But it did not (even if it is)
the Palestinians want to lay it out today). The correct designations must
necessarily be “Jews and Arabs” – two ethnic groups that
both beode in Palestine. Calling the Arabs of the mandate “Palestinians”
is as wrong as calling its Jews “Israelis.” The reason is,
that the people we today call the Palestinians first got that designation when they
Palestinian Jews became Israelis at the creation of Israel in 1948. Until then
the term “Palestinians” included all residents of the area who in
by the way, everyone had official Palestinian identification papers (my own
Jewish father was one of them, but that is the story irrelevant). In international
diplomatic circles, the term was even ironically mainly used about the
Palestinian Jews. It is simply professionally dishonest to deprive them
Palestinian Jews their Palestinian identity in favor of the Arabs, and
in support of a modern political agenda.

I understand well wanted
about making the material easily accessible to the target audience. But then I honestly think
spoken, it is better to simply explain what I have described above, in
instead of drawing a false picture of the historical realityed.

Then to the statement
substance:

This is one
so vague description that understanding is lost. Talking about “tensions”
and mutual attacks are violently disruptive, all the while that far
predominantly were Palestinian Arabs attacking Palestinian civilians
Jews (and Englishmen). The Jews therefore received the support of England to establish one
guards against the Arab attacks. During the great Arab revolt (not mentioned in Alinea’s text), the Jew worked
militia along with the English to defeat the Arab gangs. There was no one
Jewish attacks on Arab civilians at this time (there is controversy over the issue
in the years 1945-49, but not before World War II). Jews did not attack English either
goals before after the war. The interpretation is thus decidedly misleading.

Maybe you should
instead clearly explain that during the period 1920-1939, the Palestinian Arabs increasingly used attacks on civilian Jews as
political means of pressure. It would create a better understanding of the conflict
history, and at the same time strike a stake in the widespread myth that it
Palestinian terror we know today is a consequence of Israel’s occupation
of Gaza and the West Bank in 1967. The fact is that attacks on civilian Jews in almost
hundred years has been the favorite of the Palestinian Arabs / Palestinians
political weapons. I know this is not the usual (politically correct?) Interpretation
here in Denmark, but that is historically correct.

A brief description
of the Arab uprising, 1936-39, would also put the section on the Peel Commission in perspective. It was a direct consequence of
the Arab wave of violence.

Update, February
2019:

Sorry, nothing has changed
from the previous edition. The result is falsification of history and propaganda.

And immediately afterwards:

First Edition (January
2018):

“… Jewish
immigrants, who in the same period purchased nearly 100,000 hectares of land in it
northern Palestine. They could do that with the help of Jewish moneylenders in
Europe. “

I do not know about 100
acres makes no sense to a schoolboy who hardly knows how many acres
The Palestine food made up (I do not know myself). But it must be. Mine
criticism of the statement above goes on the pre-selection on “Jewish
moneymen. “Here again one runs the risk of breathing into anti – Semitic
prejudice.

It’s true that
some Jewish wealthy people funded specific projects in Palestine,
especially in the late 1800s (e.g. Baron Edmond de Rothschild).
But in the said period (1920s) the vast majority of those collected came
money from ordinary Jews in Europe and the United States. The blue collection box from “Jewish
The National Fund “was simply an institution in the lives of many diaspora Jews.
In addition, individual Jews’ acquisition of land in Palestine, which probably in
reality constituted a larger area than the Western-funded (here must
there is more research to if I have to say something authoritative about the case). But
the main point is that the Zionist movement was precisely a popular movement.
Nothing controlled by “Jewish moneylenders.”

Update, February
2019:

The reference to
“Jewish moneylenders” have fortunately been changed to the more equitable “… with the help of money raised from Jews in Europe. “ One could add “and the United States”.

At the end of
Chapter 3, in addition, has been added some questions dealing with the fictional British
promises to the Jews and the “Palestinians, respectively.”

Chapter
4 – A dream for some, a disaster for others

In the “UN” section
takes over “:

“The Palestinians
rejected the split. They did not want toe accept a Jewish state that got half of
the area, as the Jews at this time amounted to only approx. 1/3 of
population. “

It’s pure manipulation
to let the students believe that it was the discrepancy between 1/3 and 1/2 that got
the Arabs to reject the plan. Just like during the discussion on the Peel Plan, the Palestinian Arabs (who were not named)
Palestinians yet) do not accept any Jewish state at all, regardless
size. (Unfortunately, something could indicate that this is still the case today
Such a).

In addition, by
the author probably well that about half of it Jewish-designated
area, the Negev desert, was almost uninhabitable, and at least not to
cultivate. In the section on the Peel Plan (1937) it has been chosen to mention that it
fifth of the mandate which was to accrue to the Jews was “some of the most
fruitful “
. It is doubtful whether that was the case. But it is the opposite
a fact that in 1947 the Jewish state proposed by the UN consisted largely of desert. Why include the question
on the fertility of rural areas in the section on. The peel plan, and not here where
it had actually contributed to the understanding?

Update, February
2019:

The fictional and
violently misleading representation is retained. It’s pure history falsification,
which nowhere belongs in history teaching. It seems politicizing,
that one is trying to explain away the Arabs’ rejection of the creation of one
Palestinian Arab State next to the Jewish. We are talking here about the core of
conflict, which is why it is particularly sad that it is drowned in misinformation.

In the “Israel Founded” section:

First Edition (January
2018):

“More
Hundreds of thousands of Palestinians were displaced from their homes. “

I think most people
know that there are several interpretations of why approx. 700,000 Palestinians
Arabs ended up as refugees during the war of 1948-49. Several have been made
thorough analyzes of the subject (e.g. Benny Morris’ “The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem”). The overall picture is that by far the majority
fled prior to the Israeli invasion of their territories (approximately 175,000 even
before the outbreak of war, cf. Morris), partly spurred on by the invading Arab armies,
while only a small proportion, presumably less than 100,000, were directly displaced by
Israeli forces. The latter was done primarily for military strategic reasons,
for example in the central cities of Ramle and Lod on the road between Tel Aviv and
Jerusalem.

For completeness
guilt it should be mentioned that all areas of the mandate which were occupied by the Arabs
countries (East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza), were ethnically cleansed of Jews. Does not
one was left, neither in the old city of Jerusalem nor in Hebron, where Jews
had lived for millennia.

Then the topic understandable
enough is too extensive to go deep into Alinea’s material, I would suggest one
less controversial wording, such as Hundreds of thousands of
Palestinians fled or were displaced from their homes. “ I
would also dare to use the number 700,000, as it is now wide
consensus on it. In that case, it would also be reasonable later to mention that one
corresponding number of Jews (between 600,000 and 800,000) fled or remained
expelled from Arab countries after the creation of Israel. These people lost
also their home.

Update, February
2019:

The section is
corrected according to my suggestions above. The ethnic cleansing of Jews
from the Arab-occupied territories (Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem) are mentioned, however
not, although it must be said to be an essential piece of information when assessing
the morale of the warring parties or compliance with the laws of war. Knowledge
Jordan’s destruction of Jewish villages in the West Bank in 1948-49 has also
significance for the understanding of Israel’s re – establishment of some of these (now called
settlements) after 1967.

And immediately after:

First Edition (January
2018):

“They had to now
living in refugee camps in Lebanon or Jordan that took control of
East Jerusalem and the West Bank. “

Here it would be
more accurate to write: “… in the West Bank, in Gaza, Lebanon, Jordan
or Syria, “which are the primary places for Palestinians to this day
– 70 years later – still held in refugee camps, either because the host countries do not
will know of them, or as political pressure on Israel.

Update, February
2019:

The section is
corrected according to my proposal.

In the “al-Nakba” section:

First Edition (January
2018):

“For some years
since then, the word nakba – disaster – about the events of 1948, was banned in
Israeli textbooks. Some talk about nakba denial. The ban is a sign that
that Israel is trying to turn the narrative of the 1948-49 war away from it
Palestinian perception of the war as a trauma to a more positive,
Israel-friendly focus.

Sit down in pairs
and discuss the questions on the following pages.

Why call
the Palestinians war in 1948 for nakba, while the Israelis call it for
War of Liberation?

Why it banned
Israeli government the word nakba from school books? What was the purpose of it?

What do you think about that
history books only tell the story from one side? [Sorry, but it is
after all, exactly what Alinea herself is guilty of here, DH]

Do you mean a ban
against referring to the events of 1948 as the catastrophe helps to exacerbate
or improve the conflict? “

Here takes the material
a shift from being a storyteller (albeit with unacceptably many mistakes,
which predominantly supports the Palestinian narrative) to decided
politicizing. After dealing immensely with the conflict,
one suddenly chooses to crack down on a tiny case, which, however, puts Israel in
a very negative light. The mere use of the term “nakba denial,”
which, after all, completely unmistakably refers to Holocaust denial, is extremely politicizing.
Israelis are just as bad as Holocaust deniers, one can almost read
between the lines.

The case is about,
that the creation of Israel was at one time portrayed as a “nakba,”
that is, “disaster,” in books for the Arab minority itself
Israel, which fell on the chest of some Israeli politicians. I’m not going
make me a judge of the views of the Israeli government. But I think, right
few countries would accept the use of the word
“disaster” in his textbooks about the very creation of their own
country. So maybe the problem is not as big as Alinea inflates it to. I
furthermore, does not consider there to be any evidence to conclude that Israeli “history books
only tells the story from one side, “
as one more than insinuates
in question 3 – an otherwise leading question to which the students can only answer,
that Israel is exacerbating the conflict. Of course, there is also no “ban
against mentioning “
anything in a free democracy like Israel. That is the fabrication
of Israel’s creation as a “disaster,” it is about. And it
it should be added that views from the Palestinian side are in fact
included in Israeli textbooks, just as the word “nakba” is still to be found in it
.

But the worst thing about Alineas
inclusion of this small case (which one angles as if censorship was a general
Israeli problem, which it is not) is that propaganda, misinformation and
repression of free speech is many, many times worse under it
Palestinismnensic self-government and society in general, than in the Israeli. Though
Israeli textbooks tend to view the conflict from an Israeli
point of view (the same applies to virtually all other countries’ history books, incl.
Danish), Israeli textbooks stand out precisely by also including
views from the Palestinian side. It is also worth noting that
many Israelis understand the suffering of the Palestinians, which
unfortunately can not be said to apply the other way around.

So Alineas at most
politicizing criticism of Israel here helps to create a diametrically opposite image
of which party to the conflict is most guilty of propaganda and repression
of free information and who has the most understanding for the other.

Alineas political
frontal attacks on the Israeli government would make sense if need be
was offset by criticism of the totalitarian Palestinian regime brainwashing its children into killing civilian Jews (it is therefore Palestinian teens in recent years attack random civilians
Jews
in Jerusalem and surroundings),
and where freedom of speech is a city in Russia. But you choose not to do that.

On the contrary, brought
later in the material another example of an alleged Israeli attempt to
abuse history for political gain. Again, an interesting topic, maybe too
for primary school students. But it is completely unacceptable to massively manufacture it
predominantly free Israeli societies where opinions are broken and harsh public criticism
of the government is everyday food, as an oppressor of free speech, while one
in Ramallah can go to jail for comparing on his Facebook page
the president with a villain from a TV series (it really happened). However, get just a little bit of proportions into things!

I have to urge
call for the removal of such one-sided propaganda from the historical
educational material. Or at least find a similar example from
Palestinian side. It could appropriately be self-governing
systematic falsification of history
and denial of the Jews’ attachment to the land. That
does not lack examples.

Update, February
2019:

The specific concept
“nakba denial” – the alleged Israeli counterpart to
Holocaust denial – has thankfully been removed from the material. The example with
the use of the word nakba (in Israeli textbooks targeting Israeli citizens
of Arab ethnicity) is still included, although it is totally misleading
for free, Israeli democracy – an overt attempt to portray Israel
negative, beyond all reasonableness.

To offset
unreasonableness has now been included in the updated version as an example of it
Islamist terrorist group, Hamas’, violent propaganda. So you choose to
equate free and well-functioning Israeli democracy with an Islamist one
terrorist group. The more secular Palestinian self-government under Mahmoud Abbas
goes free, as always, even though here one engages in massive, daily brainwashing of the citizens in the direction of hatred and violence against Jews. The section gives a skewed and highly manipulative image
of reality – not exactly what one should expect from history teaching.

“Military” section:

“Israel will be
in addition, massively supported by the United States, where more Jews live than the 6.5 million who
lives in Israel. This means that the Israeli military is most often their opponents
superior. It is also one of the explanations for the victories that Israel has since its
creation has been waged in war against the Palestinians and neighboring Arab states. “

It’s coming again
American-Jewish angle on the court. But the 6.5 million Jews out of a population of
325 million is not the United States’ primary reason for supporting Israel. Instead, they are the two
countries’ common values ​​of freedom and democracy.

US military supporttea
to Israel is also not the primary explanation for Israel’s victories, all that time
that the United States maintained an arms embargo against the entire Middle East until after
The Six Day War in 1967. That war was won with predominantly French, British
and Israeli weapons. US military support for Israel prior to the Six Day War
is a persistent myth with no team in reality.

The right one
explanation for Israel’s victories is partly that Israeli society has always been
better organized than its Arab enemies, and partly that the Israelis stood by
back against the wall and were far more motivated than the attacking Arab armies,
who, after all, did not fight for their own homes. As a final comment to
the notion of the importance of American aid, I would just point out that it
Soviet support for Israel’s Arab neighbors was far greater than that of the West
support for Israel. Israel, for example, fought in 1973 against enemies that on
the paper was about twice as strong. Maybe some information that should be included in Alineas
manufacturing?

Update, February
2019:

The American
jew angle is retained, my objections and my history lesson about the American
arms embargo notwithstanding. The United States’ massive military support for Israel, which first took off
speed in the 1970s, can impossibly be the explanation for the Israeli victories, which
took place until June 1967. Too bad the authors insist on holding
life in this myth. If it should finally be relevant to involve the United States
support, it should then at least be set against the massive Soviet military support
to the Arabs during the Cold War.

“Religious vs. secular” section:

First Edition (January
2018):

On religious Jews: “The Rise
due in part to immigration from Eastern Europe after the Cold War. “

No. The many
immigrants from the former Soviet bloc were (perhaps not so surprising)
far predominantly secular. The increase in the number of Orthodox Jews is due
probably closer to their much higher birth rates. To a lesser extent perhaps also immigration
from the United States (I have not thoroughly investigated the case).

Update, February
2019:

The error has been corrected
according to my suggestion.

Below the photo from Mea Shearim:

First Edition (January
2018):

“… i
fully consistent with the response of the Torah, the Jews’ response to the Bible,
rules. “

The Torah is not a counterpart
to the Bible, it is the Bible (Old Testament), although the understanding of
the designation may vary slightly in scope.

Update, February
2019:

The error has been corrected.

General about the “Religious vs. Secular” section:

The subject is, after all
interesting enough. But I can not help but wonder about it
editorial choices to include it here. However interesting it may be, have a discussion
about the demographics of Israel, and the friction between religious and secular, no
particularly much to do with the conflict with the Palestinians.

Would not give
far more meaningful to deal with the division into the Palestinian
communities, first and foremost between supporters of Fatah and Hamas, who, after all, have
given rise to violent struggles as well as a division of the physical self-government
area in two separate boards? That conflict poses a huge challenge
the peace process with Israel, and is therefore far more relevant. Again it is
Israel, which is criticized (unjustly) while the Palestinians go free.

Chapter 5 – The Six Day War

Section: “One
short war “:

First Edition (January
2018):

“One of the most
Decisive wars between Israelis and Palestinians took place in June
1967th “

Six Day War
was not fought between Israelis and Palestinians, but between Israel on it
one side and Egypt, Syria and Jordan on the other (with a bit of support from
Iraq and Lebanon).

Update, February
2019:

Aimed at “One
of the most crucial wars in the Israel-Palestine conflict “
. Still not
quite true but better. It should probably say “… in the Arabic-Israeli
conflict … “.

Here you are now inserted
a new section, unfortunately with new misinformation.

“The war got it
meaning that the Palestinians no longer believed in the Arab neighbors
could help them in the fight for a Palestinian state. PLO that already was
was created in 1964, worked with the sole purpose of creating one
Palestinian state. This was to be done, among other things, by means of terror,
guerrilla warfare and, possibly, negotiations with Israel. “

It’s misleading to
claim that the PLO fought “… for the sole purpose of creating one
Palestinian state. “
The PLO’s basic charter calls for
the “liberation of Palestine” through violent struggle – ie. the destruction of
Israel. Alinea’s wording can easily be interpreted as wanting a state next door
of Israel. It should be clearly stated what the goal was. The claim that the PLO in
The 60s were set on negotiations with Israel is vertically wrong.

“History (mis) use” section:

“After
During the Six-Day War, Israel began to more actively use the memory of the Holocaust to
justify the occupation of the Palestinian territories in Gaza and on
West Bank. Israel’s security now became a matter of avoiding a new one
Holocaust.

It came i.a. to
expression when Israel’s current Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, declared that
if the Palestinians got the West Bank back, Israel would get
“Auschwitz-limit”.

Auspwitz was the one
worst of the Nazi extermination camps. The West Bank became part of one
Palestinian state, the Jews, according to Netanyahu, would be exterminated. “

This is one
completely absurd editorial choice! The subject is the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict, but still omits e.g. PLO’s founding in 1964, there
aimed at destroying Israel, even before the occupation of Gaza and
West Bank. Today where everyone is talking about the occupation as the big issue, it is
then absolutely crucial to understanding the conflict, knowing that the Palestinians
and the Arab countries also tried to destroy Israel before 1967. Man
could – or rather should – also mention Palestinian attacks
the border with Israel and the military and rhetorical escalation that first to
Six Day War.

Instead, choose
to focus on some relatively insignificant quotes about the Holocaust. And to do
the confusion total, quotes Israel’s current prime minister, Benjamin
Netanyahu, although the subject is the Six Day War in 1967. I doubt that quite a few of the students know that
Netanyahu here, 50 years later, quotes former Israeli Foreign Minister Abba Eban.
But regardless of the originator of the quote, it is insignificant in the major
context.

Israel was after
The Six Day War willing to negotiate peace with the Arabs. It must be included in
any honest description of the Six Day War. That is why Israel participated
the wording of UN Security Council Resolution 242, which established the concept of “country for peace,” as
all subsequent peace talks are based on. The total rejection of the Arabs by
peace negotiations and peace (expressed, among other things, through the famous “three no’s”) must also be included. Otherwise you do not understand the story. To
focus on the peripheral Holocaust quote, thus pretending that Israel does not
showed will for peaceducklings according to the motto “land for peace,” is
decidedly fraudulent. I am also surprised that the UN Security Council
Resolution 242 is not located where it belongs. However, it is off
, 1967.

This is the second time in
this material that focuses on a small insignificant detail that sets
Israel’s current government in a negative light, instead of the essential
historic. This time, it’s allegations of history abuse, based on that
thinnest possible basis, although the Palestinians are many,
many times worse
when
it’s going to falsify history.

Update, February
2019:

It completely
unreasonable and unsubstantiated claim that the Israelis after 1967 began abusing
Unfortunately, the Holocaust is preserved. The danger prior to the Six Day War was great
real, and the country had just been on the brink of total extinction. There was thus
no need to fumble for excuses to hold on to the recent
occupied territories.

In addition, that
Israel’s right to occupy the territories (until a peace agreement is reached) is
enshrined in UN Security Council Resolution 242, on which the entire peace process is based.

Accused of
Holocaust abuse is inferior and hateful. The location of a contemporary
The Netanyahu quote in the chapter on the Six Day War does not serve to raise
students’ understanding, it’s just embarrassing anti-Netahyahu propaganda, like no one
places belong in factual history material.

Instead of
insult Israel and Netanyahu, the material should reflect the facts:
that Israel was willing to negotiate under the motto “land for peace”,
but that the Arabs (including the PLO and the Palestinians) continued to wage war.

Same section, “History (abuse)”:

First Edition (January
2018):

“As it appears
of the maps, As can be seen, the land of the Palestinians [sic] has been markedly diminished since
the end of World War II. “

It is ironic that
you do just that under the “history abuse” section.

Here you have been involved
a set of cards used intensely in anti-Israel propaganda campaigns. Short Kit
has the title “Palestinian Loss of Land” and consists of four cards that
must imagine showing Palestinian lands in 1946, 1947, 1967 and 2010.
The purpose is to demonstrate how Israel has gradually taken the country from
the Palestinians.

But the first card
has been manipulated in such a way that all areas not specifically owned by Jews
appear Palestinian. That is not the case. The vast majority of
the country belonged to the British mandate. The entire Negev desert was owned by
Palestinian Arabs? Of course not. So the first card is total
misleading.

The second map shows
in return correct UN division under the 1947 proposal (UN General Assembly resolution 181 of 29 November 1947). It is the largest land area they
Palestinian Arabs have ever been offered (unless included
The Peel Plan, where the Arab state was to be allied with Jordan). They had
accepted it, this year they could celebrate the 70th anniversary of their Palestinian state. But
they rejected and insisted on war.

The third card
shows, despite the inscription “1967,” the result in 1949 of
the attack of the Arabs (including the Palestinian Arabs) on what has just been proclaimed
Israel.

The missing card –
the right 1967 map – would have shown the entire territory as Israeli
controlled, after the Arabs’ attempt to destroy Israel in 1967.

Had you had it
with, one would from the last map be able to see how Israel during the Oslo process
in the 1990s handed over control of Gaza and the most densely populated areas
The West Bank to the newly created palaceinensic self-government in a wholehearted
attempts to reach a peace settlement. That dream killed the Palestinian leader
Yassir Arafat, however, when he in response to the offer of a Palestinian state
extensive Gaza and the West Bank left the negotiations in Camp David in the summer of 2000. But that does not include Alinea
strangely short sections about the Oslo process, where one instead chooses to
focus on – surprise, surprise – a Jewish outrage, namely the murder of Yitzhak
Rabin. Ak, ak.

To include one
pro-Palestinian propaganda card in a historical material is – yes, pure propaganda.

Update, February
2019:

The notorious
manipulative maps have been moved down under the “Holocaust” section and
is now used as an example of the information war that is being fought. It’s fine that
which now states that it is controversial and has been removed from a textbook. The
associated explanation, however, is so messy and confusing that the information value
can be discussed. It would probably help if you threw in the real 1967 map where Israel controlled the Sinai Peninsula, and saw one
few more maps where one can see how Israel handed over land for peace, first to
Egypt and then to Jordan and the Palestinian Authority.

“Holocaust” section:

“Sit down
in pairs and answer the questions on the following pages.

What is the Holocaust?

What could be
the benefits or arguments of the Israeli government by using
the memory of the Holocaust to justify its policies today?

What do you think about that
Israel brings the Holocaust into a contemporary context?

2003 was the 60th anniversary of
the collapse of Danish co – operation policy during World War II. In a speech
Denmark’s then Prime Minister Anders Fogh criticized the politicians who
collaborated with the Nazis during the occupation. According to him, the politicians chose to
serve evil rather than good by cooperating. Many believed that Fogh used
its critique of cooperation policy to justify Denmark’s participation in
The Iraq war in 2003, where Denmark – in Anders Fogh’s eyes – together with the United States chose
to fight for the good against the evil Iraqi regime led by Saddam Hussein.
If so, one could argue that Anders Fogh used a historical one
event to highlight its own cause.

Is the example with
Anders Fogh more / less / just as legal as the Israelis’ use of a past
event, the Holocaust, to justify the occupation of the West Bank in
today? “

Again, we have the leading questions that force students to reflect
negative over Israel’s current government, which is inevitably put in one
negative light. Israel’s alleged abuse of the Holocaust is, by and large, one
irrelevant detail. In addition to the Netanyahu quote with the “Auschwitz border” above
(which is originally an Abba Eban quote), I do not encounter the phenomenon, though
I read Israeli newspapers every single day. It is an air castle inflated to
the apartment. Maybe the purpose is really to criticize Anders Fogh? There is
clearly generally a coincidence between people who feel antipathy towards
both Fogh and Israel, so the political slant in the material here is crystal clear.

Again, the phenomenon
abuse – or even misrepresentation – of history is far more prevalent in
the Palestinian dictatorship than in Israeli democracy. You correct bakers
for blacksmith. But it is clearly Israel and Netanyahu (and Fogh) who are responsible
shot here.

Update, February
2019:

The unmotivated
attacks on Israel, Netahyahu and Anders Fogh are maintained. The bottom line,
totalitarian, anti-Semitic Palestinian self-government is not criticized at all. That
pro-Palestinian propaganda cards have no sender and thus do not offset
the clear political slant of the chapter.

“Settlements” section:

“Before the Six Day War
religion had not played any significant role in most Jewish
the lives of Israelis. With the conquest of the Wailing Wall, that attitude changed for many
Jews and for the state of Israel in general. The land that God had
promised Abraham, was now to become seriously Jewish.

Israel began
therefore to build settlements in the West Bank and in Gaza, which were part of it
territory that God in the Old Testament had promised the Jews. “

This is not correct.
Until 1977, Israel was led by shifting left-wing governments. They were
strictly secular and had no messianic dispositions as alleged. But i
recognition that both the Palestinians and the Arab neighbors refused to negotiate peace with Israel (one of the super-essential information, Alinea
has chosen to omit) Israel chose to fortify the newly occupied territories. And
even though we here in Denmark are daily told that Israeli settlements are
evil of evil, one may well realize that it is difficult for one
Israeli government to deny Jews to settle in biblical Israel when it
is now under Jewish control. That some of the Jewish communities were re-established,
from which Jews during the war in 1948 had been ethnically cleansed also belongs
to the story.

Update, February
2019:

The incorrect one
description of the allegedly religious reasons for building settlements is
retained. It’s pure history falsification.

And still:

First Edition (January
2018):

“In 2005,
the settlements in Gaza, however, escaped again as they were too difficult to defend against
Palestinian attacks. “

Again completely wrong. Above mentioned
theory is similar to Hamas’ propaganda interpretation of the case. Israel could easily
defend the settlements in Gaza. But the Israeli government under the prime minister
Ariel Sharon chose to meet the international pressure for the escape of
settlements by “sacrificing” Gaza. Then the Palestinians could show that they
be able to manage the area peacefully and sensibly. Both Sharon and his
successor, Ehud Olmert, had put the Israelis in the position that one, if
The Gaza plan went well, in the absence of a peace agreement with the Palestinians would
make further unilateral closures of isolated settlements on
West Bank.

But instead of
to make Gaza’s beautiful Mediterranean coast a mecca for European tourists,
the Palestinians chose to intensify the already ongoing rocket attacks on
Israeli residential areas. The following year, in 2006, Hamas won first
Palestinian elections for 10 years (the second in the history of self-government; there are not
held parliamentary elections since). But then Mahmoud Abbas and Fatah would not accept
a peaceful transfer of power, there were clashes between Hamas and Fatah,
after which Hamas took control of Gaza in 2007. That is the real story,
which even has relevance to the overall topic. It should Alinea consider whether there
could accommodate.

Update, February
2019:

The section has been corrected
for a more accurate description of the situation in Gaza.

And still:

First Edition (January
2018):

“The settlements
has been built at an incredible pace since with the acceptance of the Israeli government
Israel took control of the Palestinian territories in 1967 … “

Now it is
different what different people are able to believe. The fact is, though,
that Israel, due to the fierce international pressure, is not building
settlements at near the pace that would clearly otherwise be the case. Then one
“incredible pace” it is hardly. Israel’s settler organizations utter
at least continuously great frustration over it, in their uptik, too
slow pace of building permit approval.

Update, February
2019:

The word “incredible”
is now replaced with “loud”. But in relation to what? I would argue that
this, due to international pressure, is happening at a very low pace compared to
the wishes of the settler movement and the practical possibilities.

And continue:

“Therefore called
the 1967 war by an Israeli researcher for “a damned blessing”. A blessing
because one again gained control of the Wailing Wall, but a curse because it
led to the occupation of the Palestinian territories. “

Yep, let’s just get it
the name of an unnamed, but presumably left-wing, Israeli researcher
with, now that we’re in the process of politicizing.

Update, February
2019:

Strange with one
unconditional political point of view of an unnamed researcher. At least as well
legitimate point of view could be that the West Bank gave it to tiny Israel
“strategic depth” that the country needed to withstand
further attacks. The Yom Kippur War is an excellent example. When it
Egyptian-Syrian surprise attacks were to be repulsed, the occupied functioned
areas to the north and south as crucial buffer zones.

And continue:

“The Israeli
settlements make impossible for many the idea that the West Bank may one day become one
part of a future Palestine. To remove 500,000 Jewish settlers by force
seems unrealistic in most people’s eyes. “

At least it is
the prevailing view here in Denmark. But is that right now? My assessment is
no. No new regular settlements have been established on the West Bank since
Has Homa near Jerusalem in 1996, which is why the growth in population is happening within
existing settlements. Thus, it has not changed much
the map, which is why Bill Clinton’s soon 20-year-old vision for a two-state solution can still be put into practice.
The Prime Minister of Israel, Ehud Olmert, presented a similar statement in 2008-09
proposal for Mahmoud Abbas, who, however, refused to negotiate.

Studies show in
moreover, that the vast majority of the settlers (who are far from all are religious
fanatics as they are made in Denmark) would escape their home in favor
one in Israel itself if the government asked them to. So 500,000 settlers would
should never be removed by force that the author politicizes.

In addition, that
the majority of the settler population lives in settlements quite close to “it
green line, “the 1949 ceasefire line, which is international
consensus on must be the starting point for negotiations. The future limit
will, according to all relevant peace plans, be an adjustment of the Green Line,
such that the largest settlements are incorporated into Israel itself (while
the Palestinians are compensated with similarly sized areas elsewhere). So
the settlements are thus not necessarily an obstacle to a peace settlement.
On the contrary, it is the reluctance of the Palestinians over the last two decades to
to get to the negotiating table at all, because without negotiation it comes in
at least not a peace agreement. But you can not count on that Alinea
could decide to include?

Update, February
2019:

The simplified and
misleading criticism of the settlements has been retained.

“Select a task” section:

“Da Israelis
gained control of the Wailing Wall led to an increasing focus on religion. “

The claim is
unsubstantiated. From Israel took over the Wailing Wall it took 10 years before Israel in 1977 got
its first bourgeois government, and also it was strictly secular. In 1993 – 26 years after the Six Day War – Yitzhak was included
Rabin from the Labor Party in negotiations with arch-enemynden PLO. There is simply
do not substantiate the authors’ claim.

“Discuss two and
two, how it is related and why that development is likely to work
negative for a future peace between Israelis and Palestinians. “

Re-fed by hand
the students with the political attitude that something on the Israeli side is negative
for peace – in this case even explicitly ( “probably works
negative “
). That the Palestinians are much more religious than the Israelis,
and at least as uncompromising when it comes to shrines is obvious
not a problem that students need to know about.

However, let the controversy
lie and focus on history teaching!

Update, February
2019:

The claim of increased religiosity
in Israel immediately after the Six Day War is maintained despite the fact that it is
completely wrong. The section has even been expanded with more misinformation about that
“even the most secular” Israelis should have said the prayer
“Next year in Jerusalem”. That’s not true. The term is taken from
19th century (religious) Jewish communities in Europe. Israel is still today
distinctly secular, and the rising religiosity we see today first gained momentum
decades after the Six Day War. The whole premise of the section is therefore incorrect.

You have in return
followed my call and mentioned that on the Palestinian side there has been an increased religious
“Efflorescence”:

“At the same time has
the Palestinian side has also seen a religious boom in recent times
decades, which Hamas´ greater support testifies to, as they – in the vast majority
eyes – is an Islamic movement with roots in the Muslim Brotherhood. “

It’s far more relevant, all the while that
the religious grouping, Hamas, has decisive power in the Palestinian
community. In the 2006 election, the organization received more than half of the votes cast
votes. The religious parties in Israel make up maybe 10%, which is why it is misleading
to let the two developments reflect each other.

Incidentally, Hamas is per
definition “an Islamic movement with roots in the Muslim
Brotherhood “
, so that one can safely dispense with the addition ” in far de
most people’s eyes “.
Another attempt to smooth out, one must suppose, then
the Palestinians do not appear quite as extreme as they are.

“Intifadas” section:

“I 1987 tog
the Palestinians resistance – or the terror as Israel called and calls it –
to new heights. “

No, you can
not say. Almost the opposite. The first intifada, unlike the second, did not consist primarily of
the very deadly terrorist attacks that the Palestinians had also committed
60s and 70s.

I do not think so either
it is appropriate to reduce the use of the word “terror” to one
questions of semantics. Terror is when you deliberately attack civilians in order to
promote a political cause. The Palestinians have done a great deal of this soon
100 years (since April 1920, to be exact). But the first intifada separated
itself precisely from the usual Palestinian use of terrorist attacks by primarily that
be characterized by young people throwing stones at the Israeli military. It was
less organized, more spontaneous. But it still put Israel under pressure.

Continued:

“The 1st Intifada
ended in 1992. The 2nd intifada broke out in 2000 when the Israeli politician
Ariel Sharon in 2000 chose to go up the Temple Mount in connection with
the presidential election in Israel. “

It’s a shame to cause
to “the second intifada” must be reduced to Ariel Sharon’s visit to
Temple Mount. Had his visit not been the pretext, one would have been found
other things. There is broad agreement among historians. The Palestinian
society vscar at the boiling point after Arafat withdrew from the negotiations and said no to a Palestinian state. It’s in it
context, the second intifada must be seen. Arafat had, when it came down to it,
not the courage or the will to make peace with Israel, but seized instead
relayed and incited to further attacks on Israel. Shortly
he financed as many as three different Fatah affiliated terrorist groups with many
the lives of Israeli civilians on the conscience based on the self-government budget. Of same
for this reason he was isolated, not just by Israel, but by the international
community. Maybe interesting to include?

Update, February
2019:

The text is slightly soft
up so it was not just Sharon’s fault. Now it is also described that the “peace talks
between the PLO and Israel had broken down. “
That Arafat had just rejected
an offer to create a Palestinian state – that’s it
material claims is the desire of the Palestinians – may students then learn elsewhere.
That Arafat, even during the intifada, incited and financed
terrorist attacks in Israel are also not clear.

Continue

“A consequence
of the intifadas was that the PLO was driven out on a siding as it was not happiness [de] s
them to create better conditions for the Palestinians and establish a state. IN
instead, more radical groups like Hamas took over the role of the Palestinians
defenders. “

There’s a little cock in it
the chronology here. The above fits with the first intifada where the PLO leadership was
in exile in Tunis. The two intifadas were completely different and took place under hero
different circumstances. I think it would be more relevant to tell
the story chronologically, instead of jumping around in things and blurring or distorting
their significance.

Since the second intifada
went on the rampage, the PLO was not driven out on a siding. Yassir did, however
Arafat when it became clear to the international community that he was personal
responsible for terror, including many suicide bombings inside itself
Israel. Arafat died in 2004 when the intifada ebbed out, but his successor as
leader of the PLO and the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas, then controls
still the West Bank.

The description of
the intifadas are thus a mess that hardly makes much sense
students.

Update, February
2019:

The
disturbing confusion of the two intifadas is regrettable
retained.

The rift between Fatah
and Hamas has now been added, which is good.

“Resolution 242” section:

I think it is
really nice to let students read two different interpretations of the same
text (of which one of the undersigned, the reason I became aware of the project). I
could however wish me to move the section to its proper place right after
Six Day War. Then one can explain that Israel accepted the resolution while
the Arabs rejected it.

The interesting thing is,
that both the Palestinians and the Arab countries today claim to have joined
the resolution. But as is quite clear from the included article of
Birgitte Rabek ( “But before that, the Israelis had declared that they did not
intended to withdraw from the occupied territories before there were
concluded peace agreements
with the Arab countries “
, my emphasis) refuses
the Arabs and (their comrades-in-arms here in Denmark) still to recognize resolution
242’s link between withdrawal and peace agreements, ie the basic principle of
the whole peace process: land for peace. Interesting and super-relevant!

Chapter 6: Is there a solution?

I will refrain from
quote the text here as it (almost) does not in itself contain any errors. But
unfortunately, the choice of information draws an incompleteigt picture where it
Palestinian Authority is totally absolved of responsibility for the lack of peace.

In the “Hard” section
against hard “describes the situation with Hamas in Gaza. No problems here.

But in the next section,
“Many challenges on the road to peace,” lists a number of potentials
obstacles to a peace agreement. We understand that Netanyahus, ie. Israel,
government is an obstacle to peace as one does not want to share Jerusalem
(although both Prime Ministers Ehud Barak and his namesake Ehud Olmert have previously offered it but were refused).

Also the President of the United States
Trump’s recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital is considered a problem.
Here, however, an unfortunate error sneaks into the phrase “By doing so
The United States and Trump recognized that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, and not
the Palestinians
(my emphasis). The last part” not
Palestinians’ is wrong. Trump actually said explicitly in his
speaking of Jerusalem’s recognition as the capital of Israel, that his decision did not preclude a division of the city if the parties could agree on it. It is rather
no coincidence that Trump in his carefully worded speech avoided saying
neither “West Jerusalem”, “all of Jerusalem” or
“undivided capital”. The purpose was quite clear to leave the door open
squeeze for the Palestinians to one day have their capital in East Jerusalem.
(Update 2019: the latter bug has now been fixed).

The Israeli
settlements are also mentioned as an obstacle, perhaps even the greatest. Mean it
now right? I refer to my comments above.

And then it is mentioned that
Israel’s current government is unlikely to evacuate the entire West Bank, which is also considered
as an obstacle.

The summary understands
apart from the problem of Hamas in Gaza, all the obstacles lie with Israel
(or Trumps) side. But there is an important player, which according to Alineas
manufacturing bears no responsibility for the lack of progress in
peace process. It is, of course, the Palestinian Authority. IN
the self-government has only the following requirements for a peace agreement:

“For
Palestinians, peace will only be an option if they can get East Jerusalem, as
their future capital. “

and

“Just
However, the West Bank (and Gaza) are considered by the Palestinians and most countries as
the territory that will one day in the future constitute a Palestinian state. “

And that sounds like it
fair enough. But there are no challenges associated with it at all
Palestinian Authority? Yes, there is.

For example
conditions that the self-government under Mahmoud Abbas has systematically refused to enter into
negotiations with Israel, regardless of whether even the skeptic Netanyahu consistently has
said he is ready to meet at any time. Abbas has found on everyone
possible apologies as well as a number of preconditions that Israel had to meet before he was ready
to sit at the negotiating table at all. Even when Netahyahu’s government in
2009 agreed to release convicted terrorists and stop construction in settlements in the West Bank for 10
months
, Abbas denied
to negotiate the peace that the Palestinians claim they want.

Another question
is whether the Palestinians want peace with Israel at all. If you listen to the Palestinian media, and the Israelis do, of course, then you understand that
self-government still fights for a
“liberation” of the entire former mandate area,
ie. including all of Israel. Self-government continues to
promote a vision where there is no room for a Jewish state. And self-governing
refuses to recognize Israel as a Jewish state – which was otherwise the very purpose of the UN partition plan for the area in 1947.

And finally, there is self-government
moral, political and, not least, economic support for terrorism against Israeli civilians, understandably from Israel
side is considered an obstacle to peace. Violence and martyrdom are cultivated and promoted in every nook and cranny of it
Palestinian communities. Every Palestinian who attacks an Israeli is praised
of self-government as a hero, after which a hatch is triggered
cash prize to the terrorist
or his family, money paid from the general government
budget, which, as you know, is largely funded by Western donors, including
Denmark. According to the self – government’s own budget for 2017, around DKK 2.4 billion was spent on support for terrorism that year.

As long as Paragraph
insists on keeping secret the serious problems of self-government, and
while exempting it from its share of responsibility, the students at least do not get
a true and fair view of the conflict.

Update, February
2019:

I have to consider it
my biggest success that I have managed to get the editors to just lay
a tiny part of the responsibility for the unresolved Palestinian conflict
self-government with the following “final” addition:

“In conclusion
it is – especially in the eyes of most Israelis and the West – a major obstacle
peace that the Palestinian Authority is unable to meet the Israelis in
negotiations. This is partly due to the great division in the Palestinian
population between Hamas and Fatah.

For Israelis and
In the West, it is also a problem that the Palestinian leaders either pay homage
or do not clearly distance themselves from terrorist acts committed by Palestinians.
Both Fatah and Hamas financially support the bereaved families of martyrs in the struggle
against Israel. “

It’s good that
the self-government must now also take on a small part of the responsibility. But it is not
suffice it to mention the division between the Palestinian groups and the lack thereof
distancing oneself from terror. The Palestinian problem goes deeper. It turns
about the total rejection of the right of the Jewish state to exist, and it
continued struggle to bring Israel to life. And those aspects are not apparent from that
available material.

“The biggest obstacle” section:

“Discuss what
which poses the greatest obstacle to peace: Israel’s blockade of Gaza or Hamas´
rockets into Israel?

Elaborate yours
answer. “

As I have explained
above, it is unreasonable to insist that only Israel and Hamas have a responsibility
for the lack of peace. The self-government that has systematically obstructed everyone
peace efforts since the year 2000 also carry a responsibility.

Update, February
2019:

Students now have,
in addition to the Israeli blockade and Hamas’ rockets, given another opportunity when they should
identify the biggest obstacle to peace, namely “Or something completely
third? “

There must be one
student with very special abilities to choose the “completely third” option,
and then explain the problem that most Israelis (and the undersigned)
considers the largest, but which the material largely does not get into, namely
Palestinian fundamentalist rejection
of Israel’s right to exist
.

“The Assassination of Yitzhak Rabin” section:

The assassination of Rabin was certainly a significant event in the conflict
history, and a traumatic moment for the Israelis. But it was not that stick in
the wheel of the peace process, as some want to make it. Even Netahyahu, there
came to power shortly after the assassination, continued (albeit without enthusiasm) the transfer of territories in the West Bank to the Palestinian Authority. And the murder prevented
nor Eskin Barak in coming to power in Israel and offering Yassir Arafat
a Palestinian state at the Camp David negotiations in 2000. It is and
Arafat’s exit from the negotiations – which is not mentioned in the material in one word (!) – will be there
put an end to the Oslo process.

“It revealed
a huge division between the religiously minded Jews and the Jews who are
supporters of a peace agreement with the Palestinians. “

It is also
unreasonable to portray all religious Jews as opponents of a peace treaty
with the Palestinians. It is not only secular Jews who want peace.

Update, February
2019 – new sections added:

When one (in the section
about the murder of Rabin) click on the word “West Bank”, there comes one
explanatory text forward:

“The West Bank is
a 5,860-square-kilometer Palestinian territory occupied by Israel
in 1967. “

To call the West Bank
for a “Palestinian territory” is to anticipate the events
time, even though the area is often described as such in the media. The area was taken
from Jordan, not from the Palestinians, in 1967. It is thus “controversial”,
and currently has no rightful owner. Who is going to check which parts
of the West Bank must be decided through negotiation in accordance with the principles of the peace process (based on UN Security Council Resolution 242).

New section “PLO”:

“PLO works
to establish an independent Palestinian state. “

It’s technically
correct but not adequate. It sounds quite reasonable that you like
want a state. But, as with the mention of the PLO’s creation in the section on the Six Day War,
it is also omitted here that the PLO originally fought for a Palestine instead
for
Israel. And although in 1988 the PLO officially recognized the existence of Israel,
the establishment of a Palestinian state alongside the Jewish one has been systematically rejected.

New section “Palestinian Authority”:

“The
Palestinian Authority is an organization that leads the Palestinians
West Bank and Gaza. “

It’s unfortunate
that a few prepositions are missing here, so that there would be more fairness
stated “ Palestinian Territories in the West Bank and in Gaza.”
This is how one could avoid the misconception that the entire West Bank by definition
should belong to the Palestinians, which is unlikely to happen no matter what
peace settlement one ends up with.

In the section, “The Oslo Accords,” , religious Jews are generally referred to
supporters of politically motivated murders:

“For some Jews
– especially the religious – Rabin’s killer, Yigal Amir, is considered a hero who
punished Rabin for his treason in the Oslo agreement of 1993. For others – especially
supporters of a peace deal – Yigal Amir is seen as a traitor. They feel that he
betrayed the chance of the Jewish people for a lasting peace with the Palestinians. “

I think you have to
Recognize that very, very few Israelis see the killer of the country’s prime minister
as a hero. It was, as mentioned above, not the assassination of Rabin in 1995, but Arafat’s
exit from the peace negotiations in 2000, has put an end to the Oslo peace process.

Update, February
2019:

The extreme
The misleading – and discriminatory – claim above continues to be found in the material. Alinea
general description of religious Jews as opponents of peace is unreasonable and
unacceptable.

The “Destiny of Descendants” section:

First Edition (January
2018):

“Another
challenge is what to do with the descendants of the millions of
Palestinians who were displaced from their homes under Israeli-Arab rule
war in 1948-49, the Six Day War in 1967 and other wars and crises. “

This is not correct. For
first, there are no millions. Second, only a small part became
displaced by them.

In 1948 fled
about 700,000 Arabs from the war. Of those, probably fewer than 100,000 were displaced
from their homes by force (see also my comments above under the section
“Israel Founded”). In 1967, approx. 300,000 from the West Bank, Gaza
and the Golan Heights to Jordan, Egypt and Syria, respectively. Of these, approx.
half had already fled the area that in 1948 became Israel.

The total number of refugees
is thus in the vicinity of 850,000. Of these, perhaps 150,000 were displaced .
The figures are subject to some uncertainty, but are probably correct
magnitude. In other words, there are less than 1 million real refugees. Long
the majority of the millions currently considered Palestinian refugees are
are in fact descendants of refugees .

UN special only
Organization of Palestinian Refugees, UNRWA, allows
refugee status can be inherited through generations. All other refugees on
the globe is being helped through the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, UNHCR. The latter
task is to reduce the number of refugees. Conversely, UNRWA has carefully
made sure to increase the number of Palestinian refugees. Many believe that
the purpose of keeping these millions of people in refugee camps is to
use them as political pressure against Israel.

Update, February
2019:

The word
“millions” is directed to “hundreds of thousands.”

Same section:

First Edition (January
2018):

“The Israeli
government will not accept the return of Palestinian refugees
back to a possible Palestinian state. Conversely, it is the other party’s claim for
peace. “

This is incorrect. That
Palestinian – completely unrealistic – demands are that descendants of the refugees
must “return” to Israel. And that is the claim made by Israel
rejects, although there has been an opening for Israel to receive one
symbolic, smaller number in connection with a peace agreement. That the refugees and
their descendants must be able to settle in a possible future Palestinian
state, is perfectly fine on the part of Israel. It was also exactly the vision that it was
former US President George Bush (Jr.) delivered in a speech and
coordinated correspondence with Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in 2004.

Update, February
2019:

“and possible,
Palestinian State “
‘s
addressed to “what is now Israel” . Fine, though it would be
well with an elaboration. Why do the Palestinians demand millions
descendants of refugees must return to precisely Israel, and not a future one
Palestinian state? Is it because the goal is not really a state by
side of
Israel, but instead of Israel? A very important one
questions that are not even raised in Alinea’s teaching materials.

“Between the Walls” section:

“The over 700
However, kilometers of walls have significantly improved security in Israel. “

However, let’s just hit
fixed that the vast majority of the barrier consists of a fence and not a wall.

Update, February
2019:

You maintain it
factually incorrect and propaganda-like language about a 700 km long
“wall” (which evokes memories of the Berlin Wall, which, however, held people
imprisoned – not terrorists out). In reality, only surrounds existg 5% of
the barrier of wall, primarily places where it is necessary to secure against that
can be shot through the barrier.

“One Unified State” section:

Presented here
Israel’s alleged “dilemma,” which is to choose between
to be Jewish or democratic, as long as one chooses to incorporate the West Bank
and Gaza in Israel. It will not be relevant if the Palestinians accept
a state next to Israel, which they have not yet wanted. The latter problem – perhaps the real core of the conflict –
is, however, omitted from the material.

***

4th Conclusion:

The material is packed
with factual errors. And not only that, the many flaws are consistently angled
such that they predominantly put Israel in a negative light and / or acquit
the Palestinians and the Palestinian Authority for their responsibility in the conflict.
In any case, the majority of the factual errors “weaken the Israeli
case “and strengthens the Palestinian. Similarly, the material suffers from
significant omissions that, if included, would weaken the Palestinian
case.

I do not add
necessarily the authors of the material some covert motive. But the text bears
clearly marked by the fact that the authors do not have much sense of the subject they are
set to write about. Both the clear political line and the bulk of
the errors are more or less in line with the production found among Danes
media and opinion makers, for example in the program Orientering on DR P1, where
largely only left-wing (government-critical) Israelis speak out,
while crucial information that could compromise the Palestinian cause, so
good that never occurs. It can therefore not be ruled out that Alinea’s authors
have been in good faith when they wrote the material. But then it is
history teaching – and neither debate nor (bad) journalism – must be there
necessarily strive for a correct and balanced reproduction.

That’s why
deeply problematic that the material contains very much the politician. It is laid
excessive emphasis on criticizing the various of Israel’s current government
– in the big picture very marginal – bills and opinions that even
has got its very own sections in the material with accompanying leading questions, so
one ensures that the students end up thinking the “right thing” (which is real
has no basis in reality).

The reverse is the material
chemically purged of any criticism of the current Palestinian Authority
under the totalitarian president Mahmoud Abbas, who clings to power,
even though his democratic mandate expired many years ago.

His predecessor,
Yassir Arafats, responsible for running the Oslo process (which, by the way, is enormous
superficially covered) in sink missing.

The same goes for self-government
responsibility for refusing to enter into substantive peace talks with Israel since the year 2000.

The massive Palestinian falsification of history with the aim of denying
any Jewish historical affiliation
to the area, could also be relevant to include, like
self-governing promotion of the idea
about Israel finally
. And
not least the continued support of self-government (including massive
financial support
)
to terror against Israeli civilians.

All these things must
necessarily be more relevant to an understanding of the conflict than, for example
Israel’s alleged (and poorly documented) Holocaust abuse.

You can do it all
taken wonder that the material, with all the relatively irrelevant criticism of
Israel, is clinically cleansed of mention of all the – much bigger – problems on
the Palestinian side. Do not let students know that the Palestinian community
(or two communities, in fact) are severely dysfunctional due to sine
totalitarian, incompetent, corrupt and irreconcilable leaders? Everyone else agrees
that those problems stand in the way of progress in the peace process
with Israel.

When it comes to
the description of the internal challenges facing Israel and
the Palestinians, Alinea has chosen to draw a 180-degree inverted image of
reality.

It will require one
thorough revision before the material can be characterized as historical
fair, objective and balanced. As it stands now, Alinea’s online course can
about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, with its cornucopia of fake
allegations, best described as massive falsification of history and anti-Israel
propaganda.

It’s creepy to
find that one lets people without understanding on the subject write
history teaching material for Danish school students. It is, moreover
thoughtful that it was purely coincidental that I stumbled across the material and
thus got the editors to correct a lot (albeit far from all)
serious error. Without my random interference, the situation would have been marked
worse.

Finally, it’s worth it
to consider the significance of that history material for the use of the teaching of
Danish children are now apparently being drafted, not on the basis of solid history
knowledge, but from the image produced in the media. It will be
quickly a vicious circle if the media coverage reflects what one has learned in
school, while what you learn in school is based on what you hear and read in
the media – without anyone in the circle really bothering to study
history.

The material is thus completely unsuitable for teaching, and it must therefore be recommended that its use be discontinued in any teaching context and replaced with material based on real historical facts.

Dan Harder

Editor of the websites Israel-Online.dk and IsraelsHistorie.dk

Email: dh@israel-online.dk

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.