What Are They Teaching? How Sad

I don't intend to get involved a another debate about the Israeli/Palestinian problems, etc. However this link to the San Francisco Chronicle caught my eye and it may give a little insight into just how extreme some of the teachings in the Arab world are, yes, even to kindergarteners. The problems runs deep, especially (and somewhat differently) in Saudi Arabia too, where children are taught a virulently anti-Western form of Islamic Fundamentalism. These are complex issues with no easy answers, but when I read this, all I could think was, Wow, and How Sad.


http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2002/04/25/MN53534.DTL


The link should work by clicking on it, but if not, then it should work if you cut and paste it into your browser window.

if we allow massive islamic immigration (emigration?) into this country, then its a definite problem.


brad

Awful stuff, I agree. It’s reprehensible that anyone would want to exacerbate the hatred and misunderstanding that plagues this conflict.


OTOH, I’ve read dozens if not hundreds of accounts since 9/11 about the prevalence of racist, anti-semtic propaganda being taught and broadcast in the Arab world. I would therefore think that the most newsworthy fact of the article you cite was the one in the seventh paragraph: “Such schools represent about 10 percent of Gaza kindergarten classes and are the only ones to teach such vitriol.” The article could have just as easily have been about the Gaza schools that teach children about Israel’s perspective, and about the need to live in peace, as described toward the end of the article.


But that’s not the real point, is it? The point of the article is to reinforce the image of Palestinians or Arabs generally as brainwashed with hatred from childhood, by implication difficult if not impossible to redeem, and therefore unworthy of the political rights enjoyed by their oppressors. Note how it lumps together the glorification of terrorist with “children playing in sandbag barricades,” certainly a bizarre practice by children growing up under foreign military occupation, explainable only by racist indoctrination. In the most general sense, articles like these serve to dehumanize Palestinians and reinforce the notion that actors beyond the control of the U.S. and Israel bear primary responsibility for the turmoil in the Middle East.


On a darker side they tend to legitimate arguments like this one, by Emanual A. Winston, in USA Today, 2/22/02, p. 14A:


"Arafat's Palestine Liberation Organization, like Syria and Iran, has taught the children of several generations to hate Israel so much that when they grow up they will commit ritual suicide for Islam and kill Jews. Arafat has thus programmed the ongoing genocide of his own young people as well as those of Israel.


Regrettably, there is no ready solution for deprogramming the Arab culture that has taught its youth to hate and kill with such ferocity that nothing, including a state of their own, will change their minds or cure their murderous behavior."


Winston therefore advocates the forced expulsion of all Palestinians from Palestine, mass ethnic cleansing. Another alternative, proposed by "conservative" columnist Robert W. Tracinski, is permanent dictatorship: “Israel needs to replace the Palestinian Authority with a permanent occupation, an Israeli colonial administration charged with the task of civilizing a people made barbarous by decades of terrorist leadership. This occupation should remove terror indoctrination from Palestinian schools . . . .” (http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0402/tracinski.html).


Note how I could just as easily spin an argument about ingrained racism by Israelis by citing the remarks of Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, “the founder and spiritual leader of Shas, the third largest political party in Israel,” pictures of whom “appear in stores and Sephardic schools around [Israel], and whose “eager disciples listen attentively to his weekly sermons, which are also broadcast by satellite to followers around the world.” Israel Insider, 4/12/01. “In his weekly sermon prior to the start of Passover, Yosef said, "It is forbidden to be merciful to [the Arabs], you must give them missiles, with relish - annihilate them. Evil ones, damnable ones. May the Holy Name visit retribution on the Arabs' heads, and cause their seed to be lost, and annihilate them, and cause them to be vanquished and cause them to be cast from the world." Id. You could also cite the hero-worship by lunatic racists accorded Dr. Baruch Goldstein, the cold-blooded murderer of 19 Palestinian worshipers, and many other examples from the Arab-hating fringe that serve as fodder for the propaganda you condemn.


But if I made such an argument without pointing out the prevalence of racist hatred on both sides, I’d only be destructively reinforcing it on one side, and therefore spreading disinformation and propaganda instead of making a contribution toward understanding. These are the basic differences between a propganda system and a vigorously free press.

I thought the article was rather objective and somewhat balanced. It did state that only 10% of the area schools taught such stuff, and it also described teachings to better ends in other Palestinian schools: constructive encouragement for Jewish and Palestinian children to play together, etc. I did't get the sense the article was trying to depict Palestinians unfairly or with bias; rather, I think it portrayed what is actually occurring in these Palestinian areas.


I do happen to think that there is more fanatical extremism amongst Palestinians than amongst Israelis (although it certainly exists in Israel too, as the example you provided shows). I suspect this is because the Islamic world tends to view things as being more in black or white terms than does the West/democracies. Islam does not embrace pluralism or democracy and is perhaps the only major religion in the world which is so deeply entwined with its governments. Agreed, Israel is strong in its own religion too; but in Israel there are the moderating influences of democracy, and greater/more modern educations.


Of course there is hate-mongering propaganda in existence somewht on both sides (but I seriously doubt that anywhere in Israel are schoolchildren being taught the equivalent of what 10% of their Palestinian counterparts are being taught). I'm not saying this to blame the Palestinians because they certainly appear sincere. Rather it strikes me as sad to the point of tragic: a deeply complex issue with no easy solutions, being exacerbated for the future by such unfortunate misguided teachings. I call attention to the fact that extremism seems more part and parcel of the Islamic world simply because I view it as fact...and I believe the Islamic world desperately needs to come into the 21st century as quickly as possible--in their thinking, in their ways, in their governments, and in their schools. Teachings and living according to 14th century beliefs just isn't going to cut it in the 21st century world economy, or in world relations, or in scientific/technological development, or in anything else for that matter, no matter how much oil they possess. The Islamic world as a whole has a lot of catching up to do, and the Israeli/Palestinian issues are special as well, but if there is an Allah, I would pray to him to help modernize the thinking of the Islamic world ASAP, because the rest of the world isn't going to wait around for them. A great deal of the humiliation or powerlessness the Arab world may feel (not referring to the Palestians here per se) stems from the fact that their systems are antiquated and therefore produce inferior results, including an inferior economy which relies almost entirely upon production and export of one single natural resource. Unfortunately their religion as is commonly interpreted seems to foster adherence to antiquated and extremely rigid views. Fortunately with the increased globalization of eveything from news to communications, etc., etc., the Arab world cannot be as insular as they might prefer, and so modernization will be staring them in the face at every turn. Hopefully they will respond positively for the most part, and the more modern world will encourage Islamic efforts towards modernization. Much remains to be seen.

"I thought the article was rather objective and somewhat balanced."


"Somewhat" would be accurrate, but in the context of all the media attention toward Arabic/Palestinian/Islamic fanatacism, the gist and tone of the article makes it propaganda. Alternatively, one could argue that the decision to write about the racist indoctrination of Palestinian children, as opposed to all other children that are taught to hate, coming at the same time that others favor denying the political aims of Palestinians because of their hatred and fanatacism, is just a coincidence.


"It did state that only 10% of the area schools taught such stuff ..."


In the seventh paragraph.


"and it also described teachings to better ends in other Palestinian schools: constructive encouragement for Jewish and Palestinian children to play together, etc."


But only at the end of the article, which led with the ugly stuff.


"I did't get the sense the article was trying to depict Palestinians unfairly or with bias; rather, I think it portrayed what is actually occurring in these Palestinian areas."


Again, given the general media context, one doesn't have to try very hard to depict Palestinian culture negatively. I think, though, that most readers were suppposed to get the same impression you did: "how sad."


"I do happen to think that there is more fanatical extremism amongst Palestinians than amongst Israelis."


I'm not sure that fanaticsim is worse than the casual calls for ethnic cleansing that you see in letters sections of newspapars in this country. And the fanatacism of Gush Emanim is just as racist as Islamic Jihad's, both virtually neo-nazi, and I don't know how much more extreme fanatacism gets than that.


But I suspect in a sense you're right, and for reasons other than it being a common response of the extremely oppressed. To me the more important question is: why bother? It's a violent conflict of two nations fighting for the same land. Every such conflict I'm aware of has had fanatics and extremists of varying degrees on both sides. How much difference would it make if one side was 20% or 80% "more fanatical" about their cause than the other?


The differences are these: (1) if inherent fanaticism and racism by one side makes accomdation by the other impossible, the logical solution for the other side is to continue or even redouble its efforts toward conquest; (2) if the people of either side beleive this about the other, they'll adopt a fatalistic attitude toward war and won't agitate for peace. Articles that highlight the ugliness of one side are the propaganda tools of those trying to foster the second attitude. It's a point worth considering when encountering this stuff.


The more intesting question is why so many Americans believe that the "other" side is more fanatic, more extremist, uglier, etc. than the ones we support. We obtain these impressions from a free press, but obviously not at random. Isn't it naive to hold that the press's tendency to project images that foster a sense of fatalism and bitterness toward official enemies (or official enemies of our clients) reflects an objective reality rather than the interests of power?


The only thing I'll say about the lack of modernization in the Islamic world is that (1) you're being overbroad, as Saudi midevalism doesn't represent the rest of Islam, and (2) it's just an excuse of being fatalistic about near-term prospects, and proposal that little can or should be done right now, because nobody thinks that these cultures can "modernize" much more than what's projected to happen within the next few decades, to say nothing of the next few years.

I don't really feel that articles like this one are a form of propaganda--and I think it is newsworthy because kindergarteners being taught such things is shocking. It is a super-extreme, and I think super-extremes are even more newsworthy items than extremes. My guess is that these are probably the only kindergarteners in the entire world being taught like this. I think fanatacism and teaching of hatred to very young children is very destructive, no matter who does it, and I don't see a bias in reporting the most extreme examples of it, even if it does occur within a larger context. I agree with you that it may foster fatalistic attitudes in many, but on the brighter side, it may also cause some to see even more strongly the need for dialogue and negotiation and an executable plan which can lead to two states living side by side.


Certainly the media is at times biased in their reporting or choice of stories. However the typical American and I both have enough information at this point to be pretty sure that there is more widespread severe fanatacism in Islamic nations than in other nations, on average. This does not have to result in a fatalistic attitude--I think it shows the need for greater involvement, exchange and dialogue with these countries.


In regards to Islamic lack of modernization, I was indeed being overbroad, primarily in the interests of space and simpicity. Of course Saudi mediaevalism is an exceptional example, but the fact is that practically the entire Islamic world needs to come more into the 21st century. It would be nice if someone could just tell them: "Hey, you guys need to get with the program," and have them listen--but unfortunately it isn't quite that simple. However just maybe after the Palestinians get their homeland, "W" will tell the Saudis and others just that;-) On the positive side, the world's increasing tendency towards globalization will keep increasing their exposure, which is a good thing if they are ever to have a chance of becoming first instead of second or third world countries.

are you saying politics is all above board? now thats mental illness.


brad

I never said or implied anything like that.

youre the one calling people names when its well known that politics if full of corruption.


brad

"My guess is that these are probably the only kindergarteners in the entire world being taught like this."


I couldn't find anything specific with reagrd to kindergarten instruction, but the suggestion that Arab and Palestinian children are more likely to be taught racist ideology is way off base.


Shas, whose leader I quoted above, operates schools all over Israel, including nearly 500 kindergarten classrooms. Gush Emanim runs schools throughout the settlements in the occupied territories. Their message to students has been described as follows:


"All of the [Israeli nationalist-fundamentalist] groups demand racial discrimination and an 'iron-fist' policy vis-à-vis the Palestinians. In their numerous Torah and Talmud schools they spread not only their religious but also their ideological-racist opinions, and students undergo a form of brainwashing that totally contradicts Western values and the norms of Israeli society. Joseph Algazy found a similar phenomenon in the schools for the Ultra Orthodox as he describes in Le Monde diplomatique of 18 February 1998: 'In the schools of the Ultra Orthodox the youth - and through them also their parents - literally undergo a brainwashing, but they also receive help with regard to the overcoming of their problems.' The journalist Stefanie Christmann writes in the weekly newspaper Freitag of 6 June 1997 the following: 'After 30 years of occupation, racist thinking in Israel is being displayed frankly, proudly, and boldly.' The State of Israel partly finances these establishments and has shown great indulgence vis-à-vis such extremist groupings.


... According to Joseph Algazy, 'All in all, the religious parties use the same recruitment techniques for new members as the Islamic movement in Israel or Hamas in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.'"


Ludwig Watzeal, Peace Enemies, 1999 ("the most comprehensive and well based study about Palestinian-Arab-Israeli relations that has appeared in Germany," The Jerusalem Times, January 2000) (link to full text below).


Indeed, racist instruction by the Israeli religious right played a major role in the thinking that motivated Yitshak Rabin's assassin, a student of the religious right, as well as numerous other terror attacks by settlers against Palestinian civilians.


So one could just as easily right an article about instruction by Israelis and make it all the more "shocking" by tying it to terrorism and pointing out that U.S. taxpayers indirectly subsidize it. Instead, we tend to see far more articles in the U.S. Press about the racism directed toward Arab and Palestinian children, as well as arguments for brutality against Palestinians based on the widespread perception of racist indoctrination. That's why it's propaganda, regardless of how interesting or shocking it is.

Well I couldn't get the link to work.


I don't dispute that racist teachings may exist in extremist Israeli groups either, although I was not aware of the examples you provided. However racist the teachers might be, though, I somehow doubt they are teaching kindergarteners to believe that they should "Kill Them!"


Perhaps you and I view the term "propaganda" differently: I don't associate it with mere reporting of facts, and "propaganda" has a misinformation connotation in my mind--perhaps the true definition is actually more along your lines, but I don't feel the article was written with a view towards bias or propaganda in a larger sense: I just feel it was a reporting of sad and shocking facts.


Whatever the factual aspects of comparisons between Palestinian and Israeli teachings to their schoolchildren in these matters might be, I think it's shocking, sad and destructive and should be reported. I don't feel that it shouldn't be reported, for instance, because there already exists a public perception that Islamic countries are too fanatical. Failing to report something like this would, in my mind, be negligence---regardless of the political or social climate. Perhaps there should be more reporting of Israeli teachings--I don't know--and perhaps there is negligence in this area--again, I don't know. If anything, I would think that would be the focus of what you should have a problem with: the lack, if any, of corresponding exposure of destructive teachings on the other side--not with the factual reporting of Hamas-funded school teachings which are way off base and highly destructive.

"If anything, I would think that would be the focus of what you should (make the preceding "would" instead of "should"--I'm not trying to tell you what you should have a problem with) have a problem with: the lack, if any, of corresponding exposure of destructive teachings on the other side--not with the factual reporting of Hamas-funded school teachings which are way off base and highly destructive."

"If anything, I would think that would be the focus of what you should have a problem with: the lack, if any, of corresponding exposure of destructive teachings on the other side"


That is precisely the point Chris was making in his first post.

"However racist the teachers might be, though, I somehow doubt they are teaching kindergarteners to believe that they should 'Kill Them!'"


You're hair-splitting, distinguishing between "however racist" -- hypothetical maximal racism, in other words, -- and calls for murder according to race. I can't tell which is worse: exhortations by one side for children to "kill" the other and by the other side to show no mercy, wipe out their seed, transfer Palestinians (presumably) at gunpoint to another country until all of them are removed. It all sounds equally awful to me.


We shouldn't have to draw such fine distinctions in order to adopt an elementary moral stance of zero tolerance for racism, or perhaps extreme racism. But we, as a nation, don't do this. We continue to subsidize extremists on one side, and respectfully consider those advocating transfer or conquest according to race. At the same time, we're "shocked" by reports of abberant racist teachings by Palestinians. 100 years from now our descendants will be shocked by our hypocrisy, just as we are shocked by the outrage of the pro-Jim Crow press about law-breaking by civil rights advocates 30 and 40 years ago. Since our best defense will be: "we were conditioned to think a certain way by all the propaganda," you might want to reconsider the implications of your position.

But he was also criticizing the objective exposure of Hamas-funded horribly destructive school teachings to kindergarteners--and this is precisely the point I was making, along with suggesting that his emphasis on the latter may be misplaced: if he feels the reporting is lopsided, the answer is NOT, IMO, to squelch certain reports to suggest that such factual reports are propaganda. In other words if "balance" is to be achieved (assuming it doesn't already exist), the way to do it is NOT by reducing or discounting reports exposing one side, but rather to increase factual exposure of the other.


Also, if there is a public perception that Islamic countries are more fanatical and rigid in their thinking on average, and if it's TRUE, then it's a GOOD perception because it is ACCURATE.

Chris, I'm not defending extremist positions on either side. But I do think that report belonged squarely in the mainstream news media. Perhaps, as you say, there are other reports which should belong there too.