r/bestof • u/hellomondays • 9d ago
[IsraelPalestine] u/Humble-Boss2296 shares their experiences teaching the history of the holocaust in Palestine.
/r/IsraelPalestine/comments/1x0cpyp/teaching_the_holocaust_in_the_west_bank/81
u/FeraldGord74 9d ago edited 9d ago
Boy, [r/Isra](r/IsrealPalestine)[e](r/IsrealPalestine)[lPalestine](r/IsrealPalestine) threads sure do have a pretty big imbalance of viewpoints. I wonder why.
121
u/Devario 9d ago
The only subreddit that doesn’t have a biased imbalance is r/askhistorians. Every other subreddit where the topic comes up often has pretty clearly chosen one side or the other.
57
u/Alaira314 8d ago
Let me try this again. I ran afoul of another one of reddit's processes, so gotta tweak the wording.
Unless you're in a community that's strictly managed(and askhistorians is a rare example of such, good people in charge there), the way reddit functions will inevitably lead to one viewpoint dominating. It starts off with a mild disbalance(things are never truly 50/50, more commonly they're 60/40), but over time people in the minority are discouraged(via the blue arrow) from speaking, making the majority more powerful and further discouraging the minority from speaking, and so on. It's a damn stubborn person who keeps speaking up only to get punished for it, and if it happens enough eventually they will be excluded through robo-processes(cr*wd c*ntr*l). This isn't some tin foil hat situation, it's just how reddit's reward/punishment system operates. You couldn't design a better system for creating communities that self-segregate based on opinion, with anyone who attempts to counter the effect being swiftly discouraged.
-10
u/SunChamberNoRules 8d ago edited 8d ago
Askhistorians is strictly moderated, not well moderated. They have their biases and mod abuses as well.
Edit because my comment is not visible to people.
There was a question regarding Kissinger in a post titled
>Henry Kissinger, turning 100 years old soon, has been said to be responsible via his policy decisions to have killed 3-4 million civilians worldwide. How much of Kissinger's role reflected his own personal view and calls, and how much was it shaped by the US government's own interests and agenda?
The moderator made numerous declarative comments about Kissinger being a war criminal.
Let me preface this by saying that Henry Kissinger is a war criminal. Even if he will die free, never having been charged for any of the many, many crimes committed under his supervision, he is a war criminal.
and
That’s not to say Henry Kissinger isn’t a war criminal, but rather, that he was not alone.
and
viewed foreign policy and the necessary evils of letting Kissinger (you know, the war criminal) act ipso facto.
and
solely, single-handedly responsible for engineering hundreds of massacres all over the globe, and a free war criminal (which, you know, he is).
and
be “how and why did the Cold War era United States society allow Henry Kissinger, you know, the war criminal, to commit his war crimes and then go free?”
Look, I don't particularly dispute that he was a vile man who committed horrific acts many of which may be war crimes. But not being an expert on the topic of Kissinger or of War Crimes, I would expect a post which is throwing that narrative around so much to at least explain it - yet when challenged on it in the comments, their response has been 'he did bad things, that makes him a war criminal'. I checked the rules, the rule is;
No political agendas or moralising
This subreddit is a place for learning and open-minded discussion. As such, answers should not be written in the interests of advancing a personal agenda, but should represent a sincere effort to make an argument from the historical record. They should be constructed in keeping with the principles of the historical method - that is to say, your evidence should not be chosen selectively to support an argument that you feel is right; your argument should instead demonstrably flow from your critical engagement with an appropriate range of evidence. This is not to say that answers can not or should not delve into controversial topics, or deal with political hot-button issues when necessary, but rather that we would expect the answerer to approach the issue earnestly and in good faith. History often is controversial, and we aren't shying away from that, but rather asking that users will show proper respect for the historical method in constructing their response and avoid approaches which might be viewed as polemical.
That top level comment, by a moderator, did not meet their own established rules.
16
u/IDontCondoneViolence 8d ago
Can you elaborate?
7
0
-1
u/SunChamberNoRules 8d ago
There was a question regarding Kissinger in a post titled
Henry Kissinger, turning 100 years old soon, has been said to be responsible via his policy decisions to have killed 3-4 million civilians worldwide. How much of Kissinger's role reflected his own personal view and calls, and how much was it shaped by the US government's own interests and agenda?
The moderator made numerous declarative comments about Kissinger being a war criminal.
Let me preface this by saying that Henry Kissinger is a war criminal. Even if he will die free, never having been charged for any of the many, many crimes committed under his supervision, he is a war criminal.
and
That’s not to say Henry Kissinger isn’t a war criminal, but rather, that he was not alone.
and
viewed foreign policy and the necessary evils of letting Kissinger (you know, the war criminal) act ipso facto.
and
solely, single-handedly responsible for engineering hundreds of massacres all over the globe, and a free war criminal (which, you know, he is).
and
be “how and why did the Cold War era United States society allow Henry Kissinger, you know, the war criminal, to commit his war crimes and then go free?”
Look, I don't particularly dispute that he was a vile man who committed horrific acts many of which may be war crimes. But not being an expert on the topic of Kissinger or of War Crimes, I would expect a post which is throwing that narrative around so much to at least explain it - yet when challenged on it in the comments, their response has been 'he did bad things, that makes him a war criminal'. I checked the rules, the rule is;
No political agendas or moralising
This subreddit is a place for learning and open-minded discussion. As such, answers should not be written in the interests of advancing a personal agenda, but should represent a sincere effort to make an argument from the historical record. They should be constructed in keeping with the principles of the historical method - that is to say, your evidence should not be chosen selectively to support an argument that you feel is right; your argument should instead demonstrably flow from your critical engagement with an appropriate range of evidence. This is not to say that answers can not or should not delve into controversial topics, or deal with political hot-button issues when necessary, but rather that we would expect the answerer to approach the issue earnestly and in good faith. History often is controversial, and we aren't shying away from that, but rather asking that users will show proper respect for the historical method in constructing their response and avoid approaches which might be viewed as polemical.
That top level comment, by a moderator, did not meet their own established rules.
5
u/Godot_12 8d ago
The case for Henry Kissinger being a war criminal is really overwhelming, so I'm not sure why you are citing it as an example of bias. The fact that there's a person or even a small group of people arguing for the other side of a position doesn't mean it's a reasonably contested issue or that it's biased to agree with the majority viewpoint. The alternative to being biased in that way is to be brainless. You can deny climate change or evolution and claim people who believe it are biased, but I think we lose all meaning of the word or at least all importance of it.
- Cambodia and Laos bombing - carried out without congressional authorization against a neutral country killing tens of thousands of civilians at a minimum destablizing Cambodia which led to the rise of the Khmer Rouge. Unexploded ordinace continues to kill people in Laos to this day.
- Prolonged the Vietnam War with Nixon - I'm not sure if it's a war crime for private individuals to conduct foreign policy to prolong a war and kill tens of thousands of Americans let alone the number of Vietnamese killed, but it's certainly high treason.
- Death Squads in Chile - Kissinger supported the coup that installed Ponchet and supported his regime as it carried out torture and killings. Families were still trying to sue Kissinger up until his death as far as I know for his involvement there.
- East Timor - 100,000 to 200,000 dead.
- Bangladesh - Kissinger supported the Pakistani military as they carried out atrocities in East Pakistan.
- Argentina 1976
Honestly there's plenty more, but those are the main highlights, I think. It's not /r/AskHistorians quality, but there's enough there for any reasonable person. Maybe comparing it to OJ would be a better case. Henry Kissinger was never convicted or indeed tried for war crimes, but I think not believing he was a war criminal is akin to believing OJ wasn't a murderer.
1
u/SunChamberNoRules 8d ago
Yeah, and I don’t really disagree with any of that. It’s the case the moderator should have made in their comment.
2
13
u/Zouden 8d ago
Sorry if you think askhistorians biased, you might be the biased one.
-10
u/SunChamberNoRules 8d ago
Clarify.
12
u/Zouden 8d ago
My comment is clear enough, but you're welcome to share your side.
-4
u/SunChamberNoRules 8d ago
I did further up, feel free to read it.
9
u/Zouden 8d ago
Maybe you deleted your comment, because I can't see where you explained why you think askhistorians is biased.
-1
u/SunChamberNoRules 8d ago
Maybe it was caught in subreddit rule and not visible for that reason. You should be able to see it if you open my profile.
→ More replies (0)2
u/WobblierTube733 8d ago
I’m sorry what the fuck are you trying to say? You think that Kissinger was a war criminal but also that it’s biased for people to describe him as such?
2
u/SunChamberNoRules 7d ago
Did you not read through to the end?
2
u/WobblierTube733 7d ago
It’s not the most gripping prose to be fair
0
26
6
u/zanderkerbal 7d ago
Surprisingly enough, I'm seeing positive-karma comments making aggressive radical statements on *both* sides. On one side there's a bunch of hardcore anti-Israel commenters going "Israelis will never see you as human, it's pathetic that you're trying to build bridges," on the other side there's a pretty significant minority of hardcore Zionist commenters going "Palestine is so antisemitic you're never going to accomplish anything."
-7
u/adminofreditt 7d ago
It promotes actual discussion, something that anti Jewish rights advocates are incapable of
-60
u/generalright 9d ago
Wait till you browse the conservative subreddit, literally all Zionists, Israelis
48
21
u/slfnflctd 8d ago
The obvious thing here is that Israel has increasingly been acting very much like their former oppressors.
Given the 'eye for an eye' mentality many people have, I definitely think understanding their history is absolutely crucial for young Palestinians. It doesn't excuse their behavior, but it humanizes them. Anyone approaching full knowledge of this conflict in good faith needs to recognize that there are actual human beings on either side who have more in common than differences, and that the current inhumane situation must be brought to an end with the most minimum harm possible.
Of course, Israeli kids should be taught about what's been happening to Palestinian kids lately as well, but that's a whole other conversation.
22
u/PhoenixKingMalekith 8d ago
Jews are basically a traumatised people.
Their history for the last 2.5 thousand years is basically a constant flow of oppression, massacre and genocides.
It s the same in israel. They see the holocaust, how they were almost wiped out in 48, and the many different wars after that.
Add to that a healthy amount of terrorist attacks and permanent stress for air attacks, and you got a population that is always stressed, ready to fight or flight.
You will say that israeli do the same or worst to Palestinian. That is true. Yet it does not change the experience of your average israeli.
He has not killed a Palestinian, yet had to run for his life several time and probably lost someone in a war or an attack.
And
The exact same is true for the average palestinian
-12
u/HummusSwipper 7d ago
Your comment is the epitome of false equivalence wrapped around in pretty words.
Jews are traumizied by the world we live in that has cultivated bigotry and racism against them for the last 2,000 years. Yet to argue this is the reason for them defending themselves or prioritizing their own safety over others is absurd.
In contrast, Palestinians, while being used as pawns by stronger forces, are treated with care to the point of infantilization. Their lives are not difficult because Israel but because their culture and education force them to be ignorant and radical, constantly choosing violence and death over peace and prosperity.
23
u/NeedleBallista 7d ago
I think the lives of the people getting bombed and tortured are actually difficult because of the people bombing and torturing them
-9
u/HummusSwipper 7d ago
I'm going to assume this is some cynical comment blaming Israel for the plight of the Palestinians? Becuase no one was bombing anyone in Hebron in 1929, yet the Arabs still chose to massacre, rape and behead their Jewish neighbors that lived side-by-side with them for centuries.
7
u/Maxcharged 7d ago
This BS just doesn't work anymore dude.
Israel is a racist, apartheid state no matter what "justification" you come up with, genocide has no excuse and Israel is committing one against the Palestinian people.
"One day, everyone will have always been against this"
And that day keeps getting closer and closer.
-4
u/HummusSwipper 7d ago
That's a lot of buzzwords to say nothing at all. Did it feel good to shout nonsense?
4
u/NeedleBallista 7d ago
You are on the wrong side of history. Read ta nehisi coates the message. Beautiful book and such an easy read
2
u/HummusSwipper 7d ago
I strongly suggest you recognize you don't know this history you speak of. Please read Righteous Victims by Benny Morris before you try to educate others.
4
u/NeedleBallista 7d ago
I've read morris. I might as well recommend you to read pappé, who's just as shoddy in his historiography but conveniently on the right side.
History doesn't give right to apartheid. I recommended Coates because it's easy reading that brings a good lens to Palestine. But if you love morris, have you read his critiques?
If you have the patience and curiosity, Nur Masalha - expulsion of the Palestinians is a great read. Hundred Years' War on Palestine is another great work.
→ More replies (0)3
3
6d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
-1
u/veilosa 6d ago
the Al Asqa Mosque is built upon the ruins of the Temple Mount for the exact same reason the conquestadors built catholic churches upon the ruins of native American sacred sites: as a display of dominance, an attempt to erase the indigenous people's history and culture. The Palestinans make their lives difficult by not recognizing this. The west makes the Palestinians lives difficult by not demanding of them to recognize it the same we demand white people to at the very least do empty land acknowledgements in the West.
2
6d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
-2
u/veilosa 6d ago
it may come as a surprise, but historically Palestinians recognized themselves to not be the original people of the land. Hamas in their founding charter goes even so far as to state that they themselves are the conquerers/colonizers.
https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hamas.asp
Article 11
The law governing the land of Palestine is the Islamic Sharia (law) and the same goes for any land the Moslems have conquered by force, because during the times of (Islamic) conquests, the Moslems consecrated these lands to Moslem generations till the Day of Judgement.
there is a reason Palestinian activists are trying to refrain the conflict as Israel being the colonizers, because they are trying to get out in front of their own indefensible perpetuation of the conflict as the actual colonizers.
-2
6d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator 5d ago
this post has been automatically removed due to reports made by other redditors. Mods are currently checking the post and if it doesn’t break any rules, it will be restored shortly.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
19
u/HummusSwipper 7d ago
The obvious thing here is that Israel has increasingly been acting very much like their former
oppressors.I don't recalll the Nazis vaccinating all the Jewish children in the Ghettos. I don't recall seeing Palestinians loaded up on trains. I don't recall Israeli-Arabs being stripped of rights like the Nazis stripped German Jews of theirs. What an ignorant way to start a conversation.
-2
6d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
4
4
1
6d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
4
6d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
-1
6d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
0
6d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
2
4
u/Bayou-Maharaja 6d ago
This is such a deeply stupid thing to say. I can only imagine people say this shit because they think the parallelism is poetic or something because it just does not map onto reality at all if you have ever read a book.
2
6d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/slfnflctd 6d ago
Why not both??! Your bias is showing.
2
6d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
0
u/slfnflctd 6d ago
I never said they did. But if you're arguing that literal children should not be taught to see other children as human beings (or worse, that they should be taught to hate them), you are part of what's wrong with the human species right now.
4
6d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/Bayou-Maharaja 6d ago
It would help if Palestinians stopped launching rockets into residential areas on a constant basis
6
6d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/Bayou-Maharaja 6d ago
“Free” as in kill all the Jews and have an Islamist theocracy control the area
What a stupid movement
2
9
1
0
-10
u/Godot_12 8d ago edited 5d ago
It's very good that she's teaching them about the Holocaust because it's 100% applicable to the situation they're now facing. A slow moving beaucratic extermination that nobody is accountable for. I can't blame anyone living in Palestine for being anti-semitic; Israel works so hard to muddle the difference between Israel and Jewish identity and I'm not sure how much I'd care about nuance when my family and friends are being blown to bits and starved if not shot in the head or groin by laughing IOF soliders. When upwards of 80% of a population supports the genocide and puts their religion at the front and center of the campaign, it's hard not to view Jews as the problem, but it's colonialism that's the problem. Free Palestine. Dismantle the Apartheid state.
To answer your question /u/Bayou-Maharaja, yes. This is what Gaza looks like. It's a genocide, but that has always been the goal of Zionism
3
u/Bayou-Maharaja 6d ago
Does this really look like what’s happening in Gaza?: https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/s/Sxp3IU5ZZQ
-21
u/Opossum_mypossum 8d ago
Fuck me the perpetual victims in that sub
-8
u/Fearless-Feature-830 8d ago
Thank god I didn’t bother to read the comments. Gotta be a fake post lol. Excuse me but idgaf about the holocaust in this scenario
-22
u/Character_Cap5095 8d ago
Idk how to fix it, but the title is kinda misleading. I first read it as "the holocaust in Palestine" meaning, the "holocaust that is occuring in Palestine" instead of "teaching the Holocaust (capital H) to people in Palestine".
34
u/CapoExplains 8d ago
That's not what the word "misleading" means. You mean to say you found it confusing.
11
7
u/ChallengeOk1685 8d ago
The holocaust in Palestine, sure buddy. Worldwide Jewish population still hasn't recovered from the holocaust, 15.8 million compared to the 16.6 million alive before.
The population of gaza has continued to increase over the last 3 years of this 'holocaust'.
In short, you're deluded.
-5
-27
u/rooftopgoblin 8d ago
Seems like a waste of time to teach kids that their oppressors are actually the victims while they are actively being killed by the Israelis
20
u/apophis-pegasus 8d ago
Politicizing historical facts on the basis of propriety, especially when it's relevant to the current situation is never really a good thing.
-13
u/rooftopgoblin 8d ago
Maybe once they reach the peace phase of things it is relevant but when you leave your school and Jewish settlers have raped your mom and burned down your house you don’t really care or need to care that they are actually the victims
11
u/apophis-pegasus 8d ago
Its always relevant. The view that one should not learn of history especially if its about a population one considers "enemies" is foolhardy.
The alternative is creating ahistorical narratives.
2
u/Bayou-Maharaja 6d ago
Idk if it takes some historical context for them to understand why shooting rockets into cities brings backlash and that they should stop doing it then I’m all for it
320
u/wakarimasensei 9d ago
Man, I really wish people would stop using AI to clean up their prose. Comparing this person's comments with this post specifically, and noting the em dashes, rule of three, turns of phrase, etc. it's pretty clear this was rewritten by AI. Which sucks, because it's interesting to read but I can't concentrate on it through the vague artificial plasticky feeling.