What prevents peace?
From Arab perspective, Jewish sovereignty, self-determination are anathema
Moshe Dann, Ynewnews.com September 7, 2009 excerpts
The real issue is Zionism and the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948 as a Jewish state.
No "peace plan" - even the most extreme which requires Israel to withdraw from all territory conquered in 1967 - will solve the Arab-Muslim problem of allowing a nominally Jewish state to exist in any form.
The struggle is not over dividing territory, but whether Israel deserves to exist at all.
The author, a former assistant professor of History (CUNY) is a journalist and writer living in Jerusalem
Monday, September 7, 2009
Ahmadinejad: discussion over Iran's nuclear issue is over
Ahmadinejad: Iran 'Will Never Negotiate' Over Nuclear 'Rights'
Monday , September 07, 2009 AP
TEHRAN, Iran — President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Monday Iran will neither halt uranium enrichment nor negotiate over its nuclear rights but is ready to sit and talk with world powers over "global challenges."
His statements came as the international nuclear watchdog warned of a "stalemate" over Iran's nuclear program. Members of the U.N.'s International Atomic Energy Agency began meetings in Vienna that could set the stage for a toughening of sanctions against Iran.
Ahmadinejad also said Iran will present a package of proposals for talks to the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council plus Germany but rejected any deadline for such talks.
He said the package would "identify challenges facing humanity ... and resolve global concerns."
But he said that "from our point of view, Iran's nuclear issue is over. We continue our work within the framework of global regulations and in close interaction with the International Atomic Energy Agency." But "we will never negotiate over obvious rights of the Iranian nation," he said.
He said the only two aspects of the nuclear file he was willing to discuss were "creating peaceful nuclear energy for all countries" and a mechanism to prevent proliferation of nuclear weapons and encourage global nuclear disarmament.
President Barack Obama and European allies have given Iran until the end of September to take up an offer of nuclear talks with six world powers and trade incentives should it suspend uranium enrichment activities. If not, Iran could face harsher punitive sanctions.
The U.S. and some of its allies accuse Iran of using its civilian nuclear program as a cover to develop nuclear weapons. Iran has denied the charges, saying its nuclear program is aimed at generating electricity, not a bomb.
Iran has repeatedly vowed it will never suspend enrichment work, saying it has every right under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty to enrich uranium and produce nuclear fuel. The enrichment process can produce either fuel for a reactor or the material for a warhead.
"It is very clear that this (deadline) is incompatible with the Iranian nation's needs and direction today," Ahmadinejad told a press conference Monday. "Resolving global issues requires constructive interaction on the basis of justice and respect."
Ahmadinejad said Iran will continue to cooperate with the IAEA over regulations on safeguards on its nuclear sites, "but we will resist if the agency is influenced by political pressures."
The agency's chief Mohamed ElBaradei, however, said Monday that the situation over Iran's nuclear program has reached a "stalemate."
He said Iran has not suspended uranium enrichment and not cleared up other lingering questions about possible military dimensions of its atomic activities, and he urged Tehran to "substantively re-engage" with the IAEA.
Iran says allegations of nuclear weapons studies by Tehran is based on forged documents but the U.S. and its European allies want to draw Iran back into negotiations over such concerns.
"The proposals we have prepared seeks to identify challenges facing humanity and basic directions for a durable solution to those challenges ... we are ready, within a logical and just framework, to sit and talk with all those ... who can make contribution to reform global affairs," Ahmadinejad told reporters.
The five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council — the U.S., France, Britain, Russia and China — plus Germany offered Iran a modified package of economic incentives June last year in return for suspending its uranium enrichment activities or face harsher sanctions.
Iran has said the incentives package has some "common ground" with Tehran's own proposals for a resolution to the standoff.
Germany and France — both important trade partners with Iran — have recently become far more forceful in their threats of possible sanctions.
Ahmadinejad did not directly address Obama's calls for a U.S.-Iran dialogue, and instead renewed an offer he has made in the past to hold a public debate with the U.S. president.
"Once again, I announce that I'm ready for debate and dialogue in front of global media on global issues," he said.
Monday , September 07, 2009 AP
TEHRAN, Iran — President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Monday Iran will neither halt uranium enrichment nor negotiate over its nuclear rights but is ready to sit and talk with world powers over "global challenges."
His statements came as the international nuclear watchdog warned of a "stalemate" over Iran's nuclear program. Members of the U.N.'s International Atomic Energy Agency began meetings in Vienna that could set the stage for a toughening of sanctions against Iran.
Ahmadinejad also said Iran will present a package of proposals for talks to the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council plus Germany but rejected any deadline for such talks.
He said the package would "identify challenges facing humanity ... and resolve global concerns."
But he said that "from our point of view, Iran's nuclear issue is over. We continue our work within the framework of global regulations and in close interaction with the International Atomic Energy Agency." But "we will never negotiate over obvious rights of the Iranian nation," he said.
He said the only two aspects of the nuclear file he was willing to discuss were "creating peaceful nuclear energy for all countries" and a mechanism to prevent proliferation of nuclear weapons and encourage global nuclear disarmament.
President Barack Obama and European allies have given Iran until the end of September to take up an offer of nuclear talks with six world powers and trade incentives should it suspend uranium enrichment activities. If not, Iran could face harsher punitive sanctions.
The U.S. and some of its allies accuse Iran of using its civilian nuclear program as a cover to develop nuclear weapons. Iran has denied the charges, saying its nuclear program is aimed at generating electricity, not a bomb.
Iran has repeatedly vowed it will never suspend enrichment work, saying it has every right under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty to enrich uranium and produce nuclear fuel. The enrichment process can produce either fuel for a reactor or the material for a warhead.
"It is very clear that this (deadline) is incompatible with the Iranian nation's needs and direction today," Ahmadinejad told a press conference Monday. "Resolving global issues requires constructive interaction on the basis of justice and respect."
Ahmadinejad said Iran will continue to cooperate with the IAEA over regulations on safeguards on its nuclear sites, "but we will resist if the agency is influenced by political pressures."
The agency's chief Mohamed ElBaradei, however, said Monday that the situation over Iran's nuclear program has reached a "stalemate."
He said Iran has not suspended uranium enrichment and not cleared up other lingering questions about possible military dimensions of its atomic activities, and he urged Tehran to "substantively re-engage" with the IAEA.
Iran says allegations of nuclear weapons studies by Tehran is based on forged documents but the U.S. and its European allies want to draw Iran back into negotiations over such concerns.
"The proposals we have prepared seeks to identify challenges facing humanity and basic directions for a durable solution to those challenges ... we are ready, within a logical and just framework, to sit and talk with all those ... who can make contribution to reform global affairs," Ahmadinejad told reporters.
The five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council — the U.S., France, Britain, Russia and China — plus Germany offered Iran a modified package of economic incentives June last year in return for suspending its uranium enrichment activities or face harsher sanctions.
Iran has said the incentives package has some "common ground" with Tehran's own proposals for a resolution to the standoff.
Germany and France — both important trade partners with Iran — have recently become far more forceful in their threats of possible sanctions.
Ahmadinejad did not directly address Obama's calls for a U.S.-Iran dialogue, and instead renewed an offer he has made in the past to hold a public debate with the U.S. president.
"Once again, I announce that I'm ready for debate and dialogue in front of global media on global issues," he said.
Sunday, September 6, 2009
What the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is really about (10)
Alex Grobman, an historian and author, has written an article entitled, Is Anyone Listening to What The Arabs Are Saying About Israel? Dated 9/07/2009, it is found online at www.hnn.us/articles/112782.html.
In it Grobman argues that the chief impediment to Israeli-Arab peace is the Arab refusal to accept Israel as a Jewish state. Why? Because, according to Grobman, "[T]he Arabs regard themselves as the only 'legitimate repository of national self-determination' in the Middle East."
In making his case, Grobman discusses the prevalence of pan-Arabism, which he asserts, "For historical, cultural and religious reasons, ... resonates among all segments of Arab society."
Although not cited specifically by Grobman, the following by Khalil Nakhleh, a Palestinian anthropologist, independent development and educational consultant and writer,[resident in Ramallah] exemplifies the mindset and perspective pertinent to Grobman's argument. Nakhleh's document, dated August 2008, is available online at www.kanaanonline.org/articles/01633.pdf, and is worth reading.
As Grobman asserts, the pan-Arabist considers Palestine (subsuming Israel)part of the whole Arab Homeland.
From Nakhleh ( page 2): The overall objectives of our collective national struggle, to which I am committed, seek to achieve the legitimate historical Palestinian rights, which, as used here, are the right of all Palestinians to live free and independent in their historical land, understood to be an integral part of the whole Arab Homeland (Watan)...
As Grobman asserts, "[T]he Arabs regard themselves as the only 'legitimate repository of national self-determination' in the Middle East."
From Nakhleh (page 5): If they [non-Zionist Jews] chose to live with us [in a single state], they will have the guaranteed right to exercise their cultural and religious values and customs,with freedom and respect, like any other minority with different religious beliefs and values. But they are not eligible to claim a “right of self determination”, as if they constitute a “national” group.
And also, on Nakhleh, page 5, the following -- a denial of Jewish history: Populations of Jewish faith existing in other parts of the world are an integral part of the countries in which they exist; they have no historical or religious claim over the land of Palestine, as if they were part of a “disbursed people”. The “historical disbursal” of the “Jews” from the land of Palestine is equally mythical; their “coerced” claim, so far, has been putative and fabricated. [end]
Grobman's is another voice in the collective and disparate body of voices now asserting that -- for the conflict to end in an honorable two state solution-- the Palestinian leadership ( and Arab governments ) must unambiguously and explicitly recognize Israel as the state of the Jews. Not to imply that Israel need not make important concessions for peace, but there is simply too much history of dogmatic Arab rejectionism and too much obvious verbal avoidance by Palestinian leadership of the specific words indicating recognition of the Jewish state of Israel to subordinate the demand.
-- Mark Finkelstein Send comments to jcrc@dmjfed.org
In it Grobman argues that the chief impediment to Israeli-Arab peace is the Arab refusal to accept Israel as a Jewish state. Why? Because, according to Grobman, "[T]he Arabs regard themselves as the only 'legitimate repository of national self-determination' in the Middle East."
In making his case, Grobman discusses the prevalence of pan-Arabism, which he asserts, "For historical, cultural and religious reasons, ... resonates among all segments of Arab society."
Although not cited specifically by Grobman, the following by Khalil Nakhleh, a Palestinian anthropologist, independent development and educational consultant and writer,[resident in Ramallah] exemplifies the mindset and perspective pertinent to Grobman's argument. Nakhleh's document, dated August 2008, is available online at www.kanaanonline.org/articles/01633.pdf, and is worth reading.
As Grobman asserts, the pan-Arabist considers Palestine (subsuming Israel)part of the whole Arab Homeland.
From Nakhleh ( page 2): The overall objectives of our collective national struggle, to which I am committed, seek to achieve the legitimate historical Palestinian rights, which, as used here, are the right of all Palestinians to live free and independent in their historical land, understood to be an integral part of the whole Arab Homeland (Watan)...
As Grobman asserts, "[T]he Arabs regard themselves as the only 'legitimate repository of national self-determination' in the Middle East."
From Nakhleh (page 5): If they [non-Zionist Jews] chose to live with us [in a single state], they will have the guaranteed right to exercise their cultural and religious values and customs,with freedom and respect, like any other minority with different religious beliefs and values. But they are not eligible to claim a “right of self determination”, as if they constitute a “national” group.
And also, on Nakhleh, page 5, the following -- a denial of Jewish history: Populations of Jewish faith existing in other parts of the world are an integral part of the countries in which they exist; they have no historical or religious claim over the land of Palestine, as if they were part of a “disbursed people”. The “historical disbursal” of the “Jews” from the land of Palestine is equally mythical; their “coerced” claim, so far, has been putative and fabricated. [end]
Grobman's is another voice in the collective and disparate body of voices now asserting that -- for the conflict to end in an honorable two state solution-- the Palestinian leadership ( and Arab governments ) must unambiguously and explicitly recognize Israel as the state of the Jews. Not to imply that Israel need not make important concessions for peace, but there is simply too much history of dogmatic Arab rejectionism and too much obvious verbal avoidance by Palestinian leadership of the specific words indicating recognition of the Jewish state of Israel to subordinate the demand.
-- Mark Finkelstein Send comments to jcrc@dmjfed.org
What the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is really about (9)
"[The core of the conflict is] the Arabs' total-denial approach to Israel... [The Palestinian leadership] are bothered by Jewish settlement in Israel in general.
It's enough to browse through the books of the "moderate" Palestinian Authority to see that Haifa, Jaffa and even Tel Aviv are considered Palestinian cities, while Hamas believes the Wakf land of all Palestine should be expropriated from the Jewish state, which doesn't have the right to land on either side of the Green Line."
-- Raphael Israeli The author is a professor of Islamic, Middle Eastern and Chinese history at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. September 6, 2009 Ha'aretz
It's enough to browse through the books of the "moderate" Palestinian Authority to see that Haifa, Jaffa and even Tel Aviv are considered Palestinian cities, while Hamas believes the Wakf land of all Palestine should be expropriated from the Jewish state, which doesn't have the right to land on either side of the Green Line."
-- Raphael Israeli The author is a professor of Islamic, Middle Eastern and Chinese history at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. September 6, 2009 Ha'aretz
Friday, September 4, 2009
What the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is really about (8)
If it is to be successful, a Palestinian-Israeli permanent status agreement will end all claims that each national group has on the other. If it is indeed to end all claims, once and for all, it will have to address not just issues raised by the 1967 war, but issues left unaddressed from the 1948 war.
The first and foremost is recognition of what the relevant UN resolutions repeatedly called "the Jewish state." Without an unambiguous statement of recognition [of Israel as 'the Jewish state,"] it is difficult to imagine that any agreement will indeed have ended all claims.
It is not surprising that an Israeli government has made this demand a sine qua non of a permanent status agreement. What is surprising is that no Israeli government has made this a sine qua non until now.
The U.S. voted for the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine 62 years ago. The U.S. should not be indifferent to Israel's request that endorsing its status as the Jewish state be enshrined in a permanent status agreement designed finally to end the conflict over Palestine, once and for all.
-- Robert Satloff, Executive Director of The Washington Institute for Near East Policy and member of MESH, Middle East Strategy at Harvard. Comments. August 30, 2009
Prior installments of this series are archived on the sidebar of jcommunitynews.blogspot.com
The first and foremost is recognition of what the relevant UN resolutions repeatedly called "the Jewish state." Without an unambiguous statement of recognition [of Israel as 'the Jewish state,"] it is difficult to imagine that any agreement will indeed have ended all claims.
It is not surprising that an Israeli government has made this demand a sine qua non of a permanent status agreement. What is surprising is that no Israeli government has made this a sine qua non until now.
The U.S. voted for the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine 62 years ago. The U.S. should not be indifferent to Israel's request that endorsing its status as the Jewish state be enshrined in a permanent status agreement designed finally to end the conflict over Palestine, once and for all.
-- Robert Satloff, Executive Director of The Washington Institute for Near East Policy and member of MESH, Middle East Strategy at Harvard. Comments. August 30, 2009
Prior installments of this series are archived on the sidebar of jcommunitynews.blogspot.com
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
The Israeli Left: its perspective and its current decline
Although the Israeli Left gets a lot of media and political attention in the U.S., its position within Israeli politics is not as pronounced as one would suppose. In the following opinion piece, Carlo Strenger empathetically takes on the topic, Why Israel's left has disappeared.
Following Strenger's piece is a retort penned by an Israeli, "Amichai." Amichai's explanation for why the Israeli Left is at present a non-factor is " because it has failed to understand that the conflict is based squarely on the Palestinian and Arab "[refusal] to accept Israel`s right to be, to exist as the nation-state of the Jewish people."
[In accord with the premise identified by Amichai, Why recognition of Israel as a Jewish state is a prime requirement for Israel-Palestinian peace is explained by Barry Rubin.] //Mark Finkelstein
Why Israel's left has disappeared
Ha'aretz August 17, 2009
By Carlo Strenger The writer teaches at the psychology department of Tel Aviv University and is a member of the Permanent Monitoring Panel on Terrorism of the World Federation of Scientists.
Israel's left has disappeared; it has nearly no parliamentary representation and remarkably little public presence. At first glance, this is a paradox, because the left's program has, in many ways, won, as Yossi Sarid said when he left the Knesset for good. The idea of a Palestinian state, anathema in Israeli society a few decades ago, is now accepted by the mainstream.
The left has dissipated because it has failed to provide a realistic picture of the conflict with the Palestinians. Its ideological foundation was based on a simple prediction: If we offer the Palestinians a state in the territories occupied in 1967, there will be "peace now."
Then things started to go wrong. After the Oslo process began, the newly formed Palestinian Authority educated its children with violently anti-Israeli and often straightforwardly anti-Semitic textbooks. The suicide bombings of 1996 were not prevented by Arafat (some say they were supported). What brought the left down completely were the failures of Camp David in 2000 and Taba in 2001, as well as the onset of the second intifada.
On the face of it, Israel's left should have said "we were wrong in our predictions. We underestimated the complexity of the situation. We didn't see that the Palestinians were not ready to renounce the right of return and we underestimated how much murderous rage there was against Israel. We still believe that we need to end the occupation as quickly as possible, but we need to face reality."
Instead of admitting that it had been partially wrong, the left tried to explain away all the facts that didn't square with its theory by putting the onus of responsibility for Palestinian actions exclusively on Israel's policies. The left argued that the bombings in 1996 happened because the Oslo process was too slow and the Palestinians wanted to avenge the targeted killing of Yihye Ayash; Camp David failed because prime minister Ehud Barak's offers were insufficient. The second intifada started because of Ariel Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount in September 2000. Hamas came to power because we turned Fatah into collaborators with the Zionists, and so on.
The Israeli left's thinking is governed by what I call SLES (Standard Left Explanatory System). This intellectual construct gained popularity in Europe and the United States in the 1960s after the demise of European colonialism. The basic principle of SLES is simple: Always support the underdog, particularly when non-Western, and always accuse Western powers, preferably the United States and its allies, for what the underdog does. Anything aggressive or destructive a non-Western group says or does must be explained by Western dominance or oppression. This ranges from the emergence of Al-Qaida, which is blamed on the United States' dropping of its support for the Mujahideen in Afghanistan after the Soviets were expelled, to corruption and violence in Africa, which is blamed on the aftereffects of European colonialism.
SLES is built on very questionable psychology: It assumes that if you are nice to people, all conflicts will disappear. It simply disregards the human desire for dominance, power and a belief system that gives them self-respect. As a result, SLES, under the guise of humanitarianism, assumes that non-Western groups don't have a will of their own; that all they do, feel or want is purely reactive to the West. It is also devoid of respect for non-Western groups: It assumes that they are not responsible for their deeds, and that all they do must be explained by victimization by the West.
If you listen to the left's explanations of Palestinian behavior, you might easily conclude that Israel is omnipotent and that Palestinians have no self will. In conversations with Palestinians I have heard more than once that they feel that the right wing respects them more than the left because the left always presumes to know what the Palestinians really want. [end of citation]
---------------------
Comment from Amihai City: Jerusalem State: Israel
The Left is gone because it has failed to understand that the conflict is not an Israeli-Palestinian one but rather an Israeli-Arab conflict, one between Israel and the entire Muslim-Arab world and civilization that has refused to accept Israel`s right to be, to exist as the nation-state of the Jewish people.
In its attempt to resolve the conflict whose nature the left has misunderstood it has come to blame Israel and even Zionism for standing firm and demanding recognition of right of the Arab side.
And when that demand has not been met, indeed when Barak offered peace for such recognition and the end of conflict and received a war-of-attrition-through-terror that lasted for years, the Left, instead of siding with Barak`s loyalty to his people and his state, left him and became closer to Arafat and Bargouti.
It has now paid the price.
Following Strenger's piece is a retort penned by an Israeli, "Amichai." Amichai's explanation for why the Israeli Left is at present a non-factor is " because it has failed to understand that the conflict is based squarely on the Palestinian and Arab "[refusal] to accept Israel`s right to be, to exist as the nation-state of the Jewish people."
[In accord with the premise identified by Amichai, Why recognition of Israel as a Jewish state is a prime requirement for Israel-Palestinian peace is explained by Barry Rubin.] //Mark Finkelstein
Why Israel's left has disappeared
Ha'aretz August 17, 2009
By Carlo Strenger The writer teaches at the psychology department of Tel Aviv University and is a member of the Permanent Monitoring Panel on Terrorism of the World Federation of Scientists.
Israel's left has disappeared; it has nearly no parliamentary representation and remarkably little public presence. At first glance, this is a paradox, because the left's program has, in many ways, won, as Yossi Sarid said when he left the Knesset for good. The idea of a Palestinian state, anathema in Israeli society a few decades ago, is now accepted by the mainstream.
The left has dissipated because it has failed to provide a realistic picture of the conflict with the Palestinians. Its ideological foundation was based on a simple prediction: If we offer the Palestinians a state in the territories occupied in 1967, there will be "peace now."
Then things started to go wrong. After the Oslo process began, the newly formed Palestinian Authority educated its children with violently anti-Israeli and often straightforwardly anti-Semitic textbooks. The suicide bombings of 1996 were not prevented by Arafat (some say they were supported). What brought the left down completely were the failures of Camp David in 2000 and Taba in 2001, as well as the onset of the second intifada.
On the face of it, Israel's left should have said "we were wrong in our predictions. We underestimated the complexity of the situation. We didn't see that the Palestinians were not ready to renounce the right of return and we underestimated how much murderous rage there was against Israel. We still believe that we need to end the occupation as quickly as possible, but we need to face reality."
Instead of admitting that it had been partially wrong, the left tried to explain away all the facts that didn't square with its theory by putting the onus of responsibility for Palestinian actions exclusively on Israel's policies. The left argued that the bombings in 1996 happened because the Oslo process was too slow and the Palestinians wanted to avenge the targeted killing of Yihye Ayash; Camp David failed because prime minister Ehud Barak's offers were insufficient. The second intifada started because of Ariel Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount in September 2000. Hamas came to power because we turned Fatah into collaborators with the Zionists, and so on.
The Israeli left's thinking is governed by what I call SLES (Standard Left Explanatory System). This intellectual construct gained popularity in Europe and the United States in the 1960s after the demise of European colonialism. The basic principle of SLES is simple: Always support the underdog, particularly when non-Western, and always accuse Western powers, preferably the United States and its allies, for what the underdog does. Anything aggressive or destructive a non-Western group says or does must be explained by Western dominance or oppression. This ranges from the emergence of Al-Qaida, which is blamed on the United States' dropping of its support for the Mujahideen in Afghanistan after the Soviets were expelled, to corruption and violence in Africa, which is blamed on the aftereffects of European colonialism.
SLES is built on very questionable psychology: It assumes that if you are nice to people, all conflicts will disappear. It simply disregards the human desire for dominance, power and a belief system that gives them self-respect. As a result, SLES, under the guise of humanitarianism, assumes that non-Western groups don't have a will of their own; that all they do, feel or want is purely reactive to the West. It is also devoid of respect for non-Western groups: It assumes that they are not responsible for their deeds, and that all they do must be explained by victimization by the West.
If you listen to the left's explanations of Palestinian behavior, you might easily conclude that Israel is omnipotent and that Palestinians have no self will. In conversations with Palestinians I have heard more than once that they feel that the right wing respects them more than the left because the left always presumes to know what the Palestinians really want. [end of citation]
---------------------
Comment from Amihai City: Jerusalem State: Israel
The Left is gone because it has failed to understand that the conflict is not an Israeli-Palestinian one but rather an Israeli-Arab conflict, one between Israel and the entire Muslim-Arab world and civilization that has refused to accept Israel`s right to be, to exist as the nation-state of the Jewish people.
In its attempt to resolve the conflict whose nature the left has misunderstood it has come to blame Israel and even Zionism for standing firm and demanding recognition of right of the Arab side.
And when that demand has not been met, indeed when Barak offered peace for such recognition and the end of conflict and received a war-of-attrition-through-terror that lasted for years, the Left, instead of siding with Barak`s loyalty to his people and his state, left him and became closer to Arafat and Bargouti.
It has now paid the price.
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
UNRWA's proud denial
“I can refute allegations that UN school curriculum includes anything about the Holocaust. Anyone can have a look at the school books. Really we focus on human rights in curriculum.” -- Commissioner-General of UNRWA, Karen Abu Zayd ( responding to Hamas' objection to the Holocaust being taught by the UN schools in Gaza)
Source: Ma'an News Agency September 1, 2009
Source: Ma'an News Agency September 1, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)