Leitartikel: Die Nakba-Ausstellung des Menschenrechtsmuseums ignoriert den wichtigen Kontext, den ich nicht hören möchte
Leitartikel: Die Nakba-Ausstellung des Menschenrechtsmuseums ignoriert den wichtigen Kontext, den ich nicht hören möchte
9 Kommentare
The Beaverton nails it
This doesn’t even seem to attempt humour, it’s just a screed.
I’m sure a lot of people will agree with this, but one of the few times Beaverton swings and misses. Most people don’t know the history of the Nakba and the Beaverton showed they don’t either.
The Nakba exhibit fails to include the reason why we use the word Nakba to describe the event. The word wasn’t chosen at random. Constantin Zureiq is a Syrian scholar wrote the book Ma’na al-Nakba immediately after the war in 1948. It was so popular, that it is the reason why it is referred to the Nakba.
In the book he writes about how The Catastrophe was that they, the Arab countries and the Palestinians, failed to destroy Israel in the 1948 war. That’s what the Nakba is and failing to mention that was done intentionally, to continue to paint Palestinians as the victims, rather than as the group trying to ethnically cleanse Israel.
It wasn’t an act done to the Palestinians, the Nakba happened because the Palestinians and the Arab countries didn’t want Israel and the Jews to have a state in the Middle East.
The irony of the article is the Beaverton talks about blindly supporting Israel, but by writing this piece they’re blindly supporting the Palestinians.
lol Beaverton always funny although maybe this time not intentionally?
“Nobody wants to hear about the Palestinians anymore”
yes, obviously
“Asking for historical context is merely a bad-faith attempt to erase Palestinian suffering”
lol okaaay
“Jewish refugee history is irrelevant whataboutism”
lol okaaaay
“Consulting Jewish Canadians means blaming Canadian Jews for Israel”
lol what
“Consulting Jewish Canadians means giving Israel veto power over the exhibit”
also no
“The only reason someone would ask for broader context is because they secretly want to ignore Palestinians”
very normal assumption
“The 1948 war, Arab invasion, Palestinian displacement, Jewish displacement from Arab countries, and later refugee politics are all just distractions from the one morally simple story”
lol sure, history famously works like that
“A federally funded human-rights museum can present a politically explosive exhibit, but asking about process, consultation, educational framing, or omissions is basically oppression”
okay
“The exhibit was either perfect or you hate Palestinians”
excellent binary, very useful
“People who have not seen the exhibit cannot criticize it, unless they are satirizing people who have not seen the exhibit, in which case that is fine”
lol
“The request for Jewish Canadian input is bad because it implies Jews are responsible for Israel, but also bad because apparently the only alternative is asking Israel itself”
this argument folded in half and ate itself
“The museum had no input at all, except for the input it did have, just not the input critics are talking about”
cool cool
“Wanting Palestinian suffering acknowledged and wanting the full historical context included are mutually exclusive positions”
they are not
Anyway, the actual issue is not whether Palestinians can have an exhibit about displacement. Of course they can. The issue is whether a national human-rights museum handled a contested, ongoing, identity-loaded subject with enough precision, context, and consultation.
The museum left out the horrors of the Russian revolution and the following Gulag system too for some odd reason.
> ‘Especially now, when discrimination against genocide defenders is at an all-time high’.
I know it’s supposed to be funny, but that line struck me wrong.
Attacks on Jewish-Canadians, who have nothing to do with the conflict, are way up; same thing against synagogues.
If I were Jewish, I’d be concerned about when and where I’d wear my yamaka.
Maybe I’m wrong, but if we had a really sharp increase of people beating-up women wearing niqabs, or attacking mosques, I don’t think the Beaverton would be writing: ‘when discrimination against terrorism supporters is at an all-time high’.
Everyone has a sob story from the 40s. Palestinians are the only ones who still launch terrorist attacks over it and play the victim, instead of being expected to agree to borders.
The beaverton misses yet again. So silly that this sub allows posts from there was disallowing so many other sources.
lol so now you’re citing an institution that has passed 187 condemnations against Israel in the past decade, more than every other country in the world combined, including Iran, North Korea, Russia, China, Syria, and Sudan? An institution that operates on majority voting where the Arab League bloc, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, and their allies form a permanent 50+ country automatic voting bloc against Israel. The same that UN passed a resolution in 1975 declaring Zionism a form of racism, which it later had to formally revoke in 1991 as an embarrassment? The UN’s own Human Rights Council chairman positions have been held by regimes actively brutalizing their own populations. And UNISPAL, the specific division you’re citing, is the “Division for Palestinian Rights,” an entity created explicitly to advocate one side of this conflict, not a neutral fact-finding body. Citing UNISPAL as an objective source on the Nakba is like citing the Iran-funded Al Mayadeen as an objective source on Hezbollah.
The UN and Wikipedia function as coordinated laundering mechanisms for the same set of narratives: Wikipedia gets edit-brigaded by activist networks, the UN gets voted on by an Arab-Islamic bloc, and both then get cited back and forth as if they represent independent verification. It’s the same content, filtered through different institutional stamps of approval, presented as consensus.
Will you be citing Al Jazeera next? Or should we just skip ahead to Iran’s Press TV and save some time?