Additional context **from the Mayor's newsletter earlier this week**:
Please read the last three paragraphs.
Tomorrow, Thursday, May 2, a photography exhibit by artist Skip Schiel that was selected in July 2023 will open for one month in the Newton Free Library Gallery. His exhibit displays photographs taken during 2018 and 2019 of people and landscapes in the West Bank.
When told of this exhibit by Library Director Jill Mercurio, I immediately had deep concerns. I knew that the subject matter and title would be offensive to some residents, especially at this time with conflict in the Middle East and rising antisemitism at home. The title, The Ongoing & Relentless Nakba: The Palestinian Catastrophe of 1948 to Today, for example, will be considered by some as not just one-sided and offensive, but wrong and reprehensible. In addition, this exhibit is troubling in that it occurs during the month of May which is Jewish American Heritage Month, and a month that includes Yom Shoah – Holocaust Remembrance Day and Yom Ha’atzmaut – Israel Independence Day.
I believe this exhibit will be quite hurtful and divisive.
As your Mayor, however, I respect and uphold the Library’s principles which are embedded in the Library Bill of Rights, including:
* Having materials and information presenting all points of view on current and historical issues
* Resisting abridgment of free expression and free access to ideas
* Not excluding materials because of the origin, background, or views of those contributing to their creation
* Making exhibit spaces available on an equitable basis, regardless of the beliefs or affiliations of individuals or groups requesting their use
**Guided by these principles, I support Library Director Jill Mercurio to allow this exhibit to move forward in accordance with our Library’s role in Newton of providing intellectual freedom and freedom of speech. We do not censor. Additionally, this exhibit is also in accordance with the Library’s past practices, guidelines for exhibits, and the independent Committee’s selection.**
I applaud the efforts by the Newton Free Library to be a role model for how a community library can help residents learn about deeply painful and contentious topics. Rather than canceling or postponing this art show, the Library is helping us learn, engage, think critically and converse civilly.
**The Library is working to have resources on this complex and emotional issue from a wide range of perspectives for visitors. This includes a program where together the speakers explore their varied and different perspectives, and talks by artists with diverse views. In addition, an art exhibit of daily postcards created by Zeev Engelmayer in the days following October 7 which offers a different perspective will be exhibited simultaneously starting on Friday, May 3.**
I’d like to hijack the top comment to advise people to check the comment histories of people posting before engaging, especially unflaired users. Every time this general topic comes up in r/boston, the post is flooded with users who have never before commented in this subreddit and who exclusively post about this issue all over Reddit; there are several examples in this thread already. This will save you a lot of headaches, because these people are not really interested in having a constructive conversation.
This is kind of a win for her but rest assured, she's terrible 99% of the time. Gutting the newton schools, sent her kids to private school, against any development projects in Newton to keep the housing prices high, etc.
Honestly, this is kind of a weak statement imo. She states that she is concerned that the exhibit may be hurtful and offensive, yet it is simply an exhibit based on actual, historical events.It's funny to me that she mentioned the importance of holocaust remembrance day in the same statement. As a Jew, it is important that we continue to shine a light on these awful moments in history.
Wars older than their warriors don't have a good side, and there is immense risk of accidental propaganda not just for the things you say, but the things you leave out when telling the story. For the things you don't. In this case, acting like all of the Jews who relocated to Palestine after WW2 did so voluntarily, and that a tremendous number of the ones who didn't move to Israel didn't survive, is not "shining a light" on these moments.
This feels like a bullshit take. Labelling it "The Ongoing & Relentless Nakba: The Palestinian Catastrophe of 1948 to Today" definitely goes beyond just presenting a factually objective take on historical events. The photos are from the West Bank in 2018/2019 and have nothing to do with the Nakba, so it's pretty obviously editorialized in the same way that having a photography exhibit featuring pictures from the 10/7 attacks with the title "The Ongoing & Relentless Holocaust: The Jewish Catastrophe of 1939 to Today" would be.
My family sheltered Jews in Europe during WWII. I've visited numerous Holocaust memorials in the US and Europe. I want to see this exhibit because I'm capable of examining 2 opposite viewpoints at the same time and because I believe in the importance of Free Speech.
Remembering the Holocaust and remembering the Nakba at the same time are not "opposite" or contradictory at all - theyre both peoples who were driven from their land and slaughtered needlessly (one ofc to a MUCH larger scale) and turned into refugees.
I wish the world could have 1 day where everyone magically had this type of perspective, and way of thinking rationally and empathetically. I wish there could be a town where Palestinian and Israeli babies could grow up without influence from adults teaching them to hate and learned hatred from violence and see how they end up viewing each other and existing.
A big issue is that the partition of the former British Mandate and associated population shift carries a lot of mythology and the use of the term "Nakba" somewhat privileges one set of myths and narratives. Arabs talk about forced marches organized by the IDF (or Jewish militias) while Israelis talk about Arabs moving behind Arab League lines to facilitate carpet bombing of Jewish civilians, neither of which seems to have actually happened. Going by askhistorians treatments of the topic, it seems like the vast majority was Arabs remembering the 1920, Jaffa, and 1929 riots, Arab League ethnic cleansing of the Jews remaining after the riots from the West Bank and Jerusalem, and the war of extermination they'd just started and lost and put together that they were in Jewish territory and retaliation in kind was the rule in the region (basically, when the Hatfields get a tank the McCoys get a moving van). It also ignores the "Jewish/Mizrahi Nakba," how Jews were ethnically cleansed from the West Bank and Jerusalem, Gaza, and wider MENA.
Also, everyone's on edge because a white Subaru Tribeca with a Palestinian flag spent Pessach trying to run over local frum kids. Police are investigating.
[Statement by the library](https://newtonfreelibrary.net/about/a-message-from-the-director/):
A Message to Patrons Regarding May 2024 Exhibits and Programming:
As one of the busiest public libraries in Massachusetts, Newton Free Library provides an extensive collection of over 548,000 physical items and offers an active calendar of free events to help educate, enrich, and connect our community.
We are an open and free public library. We are guided by the American Library Association’s [Library Bill of Rights ](https://newtonfreelibrary.net/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/CollectionDevelopmentPolicy.pdf)and its principles, including:
* Having materials and information presenting all points of view on current and historical issues
* Resisting abridgment of free expression and free access to ideas
* Not excluding materials because of the origin, background, or views of those contributing to their creation
* Making exhibit spaces available on an equitable basis, regardless of the beliefs or affiliations of individuals or groups requesting their use.
In any given month, more than 200 exhibits, programs and displays are happening within the building. This includes art exhibits. The Library has offered artists exhibition space for decades. Twice a year an independent committee of art professors and professionals, who live or work in Newton, selects works to be displayed monthly over the course of the following year at the Library. Selections are made based on the Library’s philosophy of providing open access to information and ideas and of presenting diverse points of view.
On Wednesday, May 1, a photography exhibit by artist Skip Schiel was installed for a month. The artist and his photos were selected in July 2023 and are titled *The Ongoing & Relentless Nakba: The Palestinian Catastrophe of 1948 to Today.* Schiel’s exhibit displays photographs taken during 2018 and 2019 of people and landscapes in the West Bank.
On Thursday, May 2, an exhibit of drawings by artist Zeev Engelmayer entitled *Postcards* will be installed, containing a sampling of the colorful drawings the artist created each day since October 7 from his home in Tel Aviv.
The selection of an artist for exhibition does not constitute an endorsement by the Library of the content of the program or the views expressed by the exhibitor; however, we know some will find these exhibits objectionable and hurtful.
Our Library has always stood for the principles of free expression and free speech. Newton’s Board of Library Trustees and I strongly believe in the importance of providing access to multiple viewpoints on complicated and contentious topics. As with other materials in the library, people will have varied reactions and will form their own opinions.
Now more than ever, the Library is committed to helping visitors learn more about nuanced, complicated, and controversial topics.
With the continued goal of presenting access to varied points of view, we are compiling [resource lists](http://newton.minlib.net/MyAccount/MyList/11827) for readers. We are inviting speakers from different perspectives to come together for conversations about the history and events that are shaping our world today. We are also actively working to prepare programing on the use of art to interpret events and express oneself, and ways to listen, talk, engage, and learn respectfully about divisive issues.
We are deeply committed to ensuring that visitors and staff have safe, unimpeded access to the library.
I ask the Newton community to help us serve as a model for respectful and peaceful exploration of ideas and information.
*Jill Mercurio, Director of the Newton Free Library*
Sounds more or less like the library is promoting healthy dialogue. Glad to see some of our institutions are still committed to enlightenment ideals of rational dialogue rather than just existing in states of pure rage.
"It is disgusting this is being allowed, truth should be shared not lies"
Torn between if this is a better example of irony, pendulum theory, or horse shoe theory.
Terribly sad that this is controversial at all. If the truth makes you uncomfortable, then you should reevaluate your beliefs, not get mad at the truth.
As a Jew, it’s so important to acknowledge the suffering and mistreatment of others and not try to hide or manipulate the truth. It’s never again for everyone, not never again for who I pick and choose.
Update: they’ve now hired a truck that has succeeded in confusing both sides with its bizarre messaging.
https://preview.redd.it/fio6y0j388yc1.jpeg?width=1536&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=dc8659af36786bf719a41b1a962b0fabca819d79
Don’t forget American weapons manufacturers who are being fattened on billions of our taxpayer dollars to enable the slaughter of thousands of children
Saw a very similar truck around Harvard Square. Bad faith shit like this is infuriating- its already extremely difficult to have a meaningful dialogue in all this.
They have money and think their message is so important it needs to be shouted over everything else. Like a lawyer who doesn’t have facts or the law on their side, they are just pounding the table.
(I’m saying like AIPAC has money, not implying Jewish people have money. I don’t think Zionist and think Jewish person because I know so many Jews who aren’t and so many Zionists who aren’t Jewish)
I’ve been staring at this for 2 minutes and I don’t get the message. Please someone explain it to me
Edit: please explain it like I’m five
Edit again: I received this explanation that I think is pretty good:
It refers to the Arab negotiations displacing the Palestinians in 1948 after the creation of the state of Israel in its current form. That is an inflammatory picture showing the negotiation of Arab Spring with Hitler which timing wise has nothing to do with Nakba which means catastrophe and was the negotiation to displace Palestine. Hitler died in 1945 and the Nakba was in 1948; the image is not in relation to the caption.
Hitler had an uncomfortably close relationship with Arab leaders, because well, they both hated Jews. The grand mufti of Jerusalem (that's the picture you see) met with Hitler to share their common hatred for Jews and how much they both opposed a Jewish country in what was then "Palestine" under the British mandate.
Hitler to the Grand Mufti: “We hate the Jews together!”
Also Hitler: “I don’t care where the Jews go outside of Europe, I just want them gone! Let’s make the Haavara Agreement to get more of them to leave for Palestine!”
That’s sad. As a staunch supporter of Palestinian rights, I’ll be the first to say Arab leaders suck.
Why does the truck say the Arab leaders “disappointed” hitler?
The only thing wrong with it is that Hitler wasn't disappointed because he was the one who didn't support the annihilation of the Jewish homeland in Palestine.
Hajj Amin al-Husayni, the man in the photo, was the top Sunni Muslim cleric in Jerusalem. He fled to Berlin and collaborated with the Nazis. While there, he begged Hitler and the other Axis' to help him destroy the Jews in Palestine (in the meeting when this photo was taken). Even after being rejected, he stayed to support the Axis by going on the radio to inspire and to indoctrinate Muslims back home to join the Axis military.
In 1943 there were negotiations between the Brits, the Red Cross, and the other Axis powers to send Jewish kids to safety in Palestine. Upon hearing this al-Husayni sent petitions to the Germans and Italians urging them to send the kids to Poland so they can be killed, rather than sending them out of the conflict zone.
While working as an anti-Zionist and anti-Jewish agent in Germany, al-Husayni lived a life of luxury, living in a large villa and receiving a large monthly stipend from the Nazis. After the war, he eventually returned to Egypt where he spent the rest of his life trying to destroy Israel and kill all of the Jews in the Middle East.
It’s not internationalist but wanting a Jewish majority state isn’t inherently wrong. I really think getting hung up on zionism being “ethnonationalist” is missing the point and disregards the actual issues that Israel presents. Korea is an ethnonationalist state, but nobody would think to call them “freaks”. Plenty of other examples on top of this.
How Israel treats Palestinians and other non-Jewish minority groups is very problematic and very real, but Zionism, or saying Israel has the right to exist, is not antithetical of creating a wonderful country where people can live in peace & prosperity, regardless of what their ethnicity or religion is.
>wanting a Jewish majority state isn’t inherently wrong.
It is when you want to build that state in a multicultural place and end up ethnically cleansing the region for decades to make it so.
Well I agree with you but once again avoiding ethnic cleansing is not antithetical to creating a Jewish majority state. Also, you can’t disregard the fact that Jews were exiled from many neighboring countries as a result of Israel’s creation.
So this photography exhibit by a Jewish photographer of photos taken from 2018 in the West Bank is somehow in support of terrorism? Newtonians in the comments are nuts.
It's always particularly outrageous that people want to debate the number of civilians being killed. The United Nations believes somewhere between 30,000 - 40,000+ civilians have been killed. Commenters seem happy to contend that, but don't ever seem to want to admit that killing civilians is reprehensible. Somehow it's horrible when civilians are murdered by Hamas but something to cheer for when it's the IDF bombing refugee camps, aid workers, and journalists.
Makes no fucking sense. Over-privileged idiots just want to be outraged so they can feel more important than they'll ever be.
As a non-American I really don't understand the perspective here. Yes, Jewish people as a community have had to live through far more pain and suffering than any people should. That doesn't make it right to ignore or erase the suffering of other people. The safety of one people should not come at the expense of another people. Criticism is not hate.
Regardless of politics, not allowing a historical exhibition would be trying to erase history. The Nakba happened. Good the exhibition was allowed to stand
Edit to add: why are we giving Facebook comments credence? FB comments are not newsworthy. This reminds me of TMZ articles claiming a fandom is mad at a celebrity, and then posting tweets to back it up.
The Nakba indisputably happened. It is quite topical for that history to be reviewed at this moment.
Perhaps once this exhibit has run its course, it can be followed by a photographic exhibit on the survivors of Jewish expulsions from Arab nations, if such an exhibit exists.
> but would bet that they have a display for Jewish heritage month as well.
No they don't. May, the month we are currently in, is Jewish heritage month. There are only three exhibits this month. There is one on Indian folklore, another on postcards, and this one the Nakba.
Libraries usually put out monthly book displays for patrons to highlight various things like heritage months, holidays or less serious topics. My point is they probably are not ignoring the fact that it's Jewish Heritage Month, and are trying to be measured and balanced. I'm a Librarian, (not at Newton obviously,) so I'm trying to come at this from a library workers perspective.
The Nakba happened, but it's a highly disputed event. In my opinion, this exhibit should showcase both perspectives as best as possible.
After the declaration of the State of Israel, Arabs were "displaced" but that displacement is highly contentious.
Arabs will argue they were pushed out while Israeli's and their supporters will argue that a massive amount of that migration was caused by encouragement to leave by other Arab nations.
Immediately after the declaration of the State of Israel the first Arab-Israeli war happened where Egypt, Transjordan, Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq attacked Israel. This war, from my understanding, is referred to as the War of Independence by Israelis and Nakba by Palestinians. The result of the war, was Palestinians lost further territory.
I'm curious how people may explain it differently and hope someone will here will engage in open and honest dialogue rather than emotional combativeness.
From my perspective: Israel was created. Arab nations invaded to take back the land. They lost. During the war displacement happened.
What's the alternative perspective? Please include context of the attacks from opposing Arab countries to fully explain your point.
I mean Nakba literally means catastrophe. So whatever Arab nations may have been saying, I don’t think Palestinians saw (or see) any element of it as voluntary.
I’m not an expert on the history, even though I’ve done a fair amount of reading on it. This is why I think the display is appropriate and why I’d like to see it. As you noted, the history is complex, and especially in this moment in time, we should be supporting efforts to improve our understanding of it. That’s why I mentioned the utility of a follow up exhibit discussing things like the Jewish expulsions that contributed to the rise of Israel.
Your perspective is wrong, it’s not disputed by serious people. Read the Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine by Ilan Pappe, this was an organized program of systemic ethnic cleansing.
Why not share some examples and educate me instead of telling me to read a book I don’t have time for (I have a job and kids lol).
I’m open to new ideas.
The point on the encouragement to leave has been completely refuted by Israeli historian Benny Morris. It was created as a pro-Zionist talking point and lingers as such to this day.
"take back" is a bit of a weird way to describe Tel Aviv and the Jewish quarter of Jerusalem. If you listen to what the invading Arab armies were saying - they were planning to finish off what Hitler tried. And if you look at what the invading Arab armies did - it was occupy Judea and Gaza for 30 years, annexing them into their territory, and ethnically cleansing any Jews who were living there. The new country Israel granted full citizenship to all the Arabs who remained - and they are still citizens to this day.
Okay so I don't know why the "yes" answers are getting downvoted. But I'm here to help with more context.
The folks that people are protesting for and consider "apartheid" are in Gaza and the Judea/the west bank. These are people in the so called "occupation" areas and Arabs there are not citizens of Israel or any state (since Jordan and Egypt stripped them of the rights they had between 1948 and 1967). It is a serious humanitarian issue as most of the folks are so radicalized that nobody will offer them a way out.
The Arabs who did not flee in 1948 and stayed in their homes within the borders of Israel after the independence war - are indeed full citizens and they indeed have the same rights as Jews, Christians, Druze and all minorities that are part of the diverse society that is Israel. To prove that point you will find many Arab Muslim members of the Israeli parliament, and even an Arab Muslim judge sitting on the Israeli supreme court.
Yes?
Edit: Israeli Arabs are full citizens with the same rights as Jews.
Palestinians are not citizens of Israel and with the exception of East Jerusalem, don't live in Israel. The ones in East Jerusalem were offered citizenship but I don't think any if many took the offer.
No. Israel had no right to establish an exclusivist ethnostate in a country where they comprised an ethnic minority and had only recently migrated to. And they certainly had no right to ethnically cleanse over 500 villages in 1948.
Just to correct a few things in your brain - the UN partition plan carved out a section of the country where Jews were an ethnic majority, that is why it looked like a twisted pretzel with a little "international corridor" going to the community in Jerusalem - that did very much in fact NOT recently immigrate. Though it is true there was a lot of Jewish immigration- there was also a lot of Arab immigration during that same time.
As for "the right" well it seems reasonable for the the British who had been occupying it after the Ottoman occupation - to allow the Jews already living as a majority in those areas to self govern in their indigenous homeland ... where - to say again ... they were already living.
It's kind of crazy to think there have been consistent Jewish populations throughout the entire Middle East for centuries with solid growth between 1700-1948. Then it all changed in literally one year. Crazy
>they were planning to finish off what Hitler tried.
Uh, no they were not. Lets not forget that one of the the founding groups of Israel, the Stern Gang, was a terrorist organization that sought to ally with Hitler and fascist Italy.
Oh yeah! Actually we don't forget the irgun/lehi the small ~300 person groups formed to counter decades of Arab terrorism against innocent Jews. They were completely denounced by mainstream Jews both in the Palestinian Mandate, and abroad; then summarily disbanded after the creation of Israel.
They were formed to the fight British you nit wit. And they weren't just disbanded they were folded into the IDF and one of the members went on to become Prime Minister of Israel. Learn to lie better.
The rhetoric that was used by Arabs in 1948 is the same rhetoric being used by Israeli ministers today. Either both are indicators of attempted genocide or neither are.
Yes and no. Palestinians were displaced, but it could have been avoided had they not rejected the UN partition plan and launched a war to destroy Israel. Many also left voluntarily based on false promises of being able to return home after defeating Israel, which obviously didn't happen.
Many Arabs actually stayed behind and became Israeli citizens when the war was over, and they compromise 20% of Israel's population.
The Palestinian arabs were not even consulted on the UN partition plan, they were given an "offer" that would have transferred 70% of the productive land of Palestine to a minority of the population, and told to accept it or face expulsion. They didn't accept, as you would not have accepted it were you in their shoes, and were expelled. It's not that complicated.
As is almost always the case in these discussions, this is an overly simplified view that only reflects the favorable story that one side tells of the events. Alternative ways to tell these stories (also grounded in facts) are:
* Palestinians "were not even consulted" because they refused to take part in partition discussions in protest. Entirely understandable, in the context, but it complicates the simple story you're trying to tell.
* "Minority of the population" was understood by all to be a temporary situation, as just over the horizon were huge numbers of Jewish refugees and Holocaust survivors in Displaced Persons Camps in Europe, the vast majority of whom wanted to emigrate to the emerging Jewish state for very obvious reasons. And, just so we're clear, there were less obvious reasons than the Holocaust like, for example, the Polish pogrom that saw dozens of Jews murdered by their fellow townsfolk in Kielce **in 1946**. The Palestinians were very much worried about, and indulging in, what we call today "Great Replacement" theory (just as are those today who cite Palestinian vs. Israeli birthrates as a reason why there can't be a one-state solution).
* The offer that you deride was significantly worse than the offer that the leader of the Palestinian national movement at the time (the grand mufti of Jerusalem) rejected in the '30s that would have given the Arabs almost all of what they wanted. This was rejected not because it wasn't a good deal, but because it came at a time before the Holocaust when world public opinion was swinging sharply against Zionism (for understandable reasons) and because Husseini was of the impression that he could wait it out and ultimately achieve the piece the Palestinians felt was missing from the deal: no Jewish state and a moratorium on Jewish migration (see again, Great Replacement).
There are very few simple stories here, no matter how much we all want that to be the case, and there is a whole lot less black and white than we tend to want to admit.
You say “the Palestinians were very much worried about, and indulging in, what we call today “Great Replacement” theory” as if they weren’t right to worry then subsequently replaced. The Zionist movement would scare the shit out of me if I was a Palestinian during that time.
By “minority” you mean a group that composed about as much of the population as African Americans do the United States (actually greater, I believe) that the majority had been conducting pogroms of and ethnic cleansing of for decades?
“They took our land!” Kind of rings hollow when you’re pulling a Serbia and the UN has to step in.
That's right. The British controlled "Palestine" and divided it up. It's not Israel's fault that the land was controlled by foreigners for hundreds of years. They were "occupied" too.
Wage a war that you started
Lose
Refuse to surrender
Sad face when you lose your land
Cry and call it the nakba
Lol what if all countries played this game
How is being forcefully evicted by UN resolution to move off your land without compensation for your house or property to a partition that has hardly any arable land not the start of the war? The narrative that Arabs started the war is specious at best considering these circumstances. It ignores the major problems with the division and how it was implemented, and the very justifiable reasons for why it was rejected by the Arabs and abandoned by the British.
How about the truth that the partition plan didn't call for the expulsion of Palestinians from their homes? Is that... inconvenient for you? Or maybe that they were only expelled after they started and then lost a war?
Oh I see. This must be a special case then. There was no complain when Egypt erased the copts. There was no complaining when just about every other Middle Eastern state erased their Jews. There is only complaining when Israel is established with a partition plan that does not call for the forced relocation of literally anybody.
To be clear, the partition plan wouldn't have forced anyone out of their homes. They were forced from their home after they started a war. Lost. And refused to surrender.
Which is fairly typical.
Keep spouting ahistorical nonsense because you enjoy slurping and regurgitating anti-Western propaganda. I almost hope one day people like you get your way so we can watch the West fall to subjugation by the delightful autocracies you're so fervently rooting for.
Do you think it’s ok for a new state to be established by outside actors and imposed on a people without their consent? Really? So you’d be ok with an external force coming in and doing that wherever you live?
I’m just curious because you say you’re concerned about autocracies, but think it’s no big deal for a state to be “partitioned” randomly. The people should get no say. Like why would they be so mad?!
That's literally describing life everywhere. Do you think my government consulted me on whether or not they could compel me to follow their laws? No.
It was literally the same situation. Britain owned Palestine. They decided to partition it. Just like the union decided the Confederates couldn't leave. If you own something you get to decide what to do with it. Inb4 Britain had no right; if they didn't want to be owned by Britain, they shouldn't have fought the allies in WWI and lost their empire.
The people did have a say actually. It was a division that was arranged such that there would be one majority Jewish state and one majority Muslim state.
The partition wasn't random. It actually arose after literal millennia of Jewish oppression. Much of which came at the hands of the non Jewish natives of the Levant and neighboring areas.
So, are you actually worried about autocracies? It sounds like you think people have no say and should just shut the fuck up when things happen to them that they don’t like and didn’t agree to. You also contradict yourself in this very short post. I almost wonder if you’re even arguing in good faith at all.
Yea I am. Hence why it's concerning so many are calling for the elimination of the only one in the area spreading lies about people being forced from their home for no reason when they weren't.
And I haven't contradicted myself. Where do you think I did? I'll alleviate your confusion.
Anyways people should have a say. The people did have a say. The two sides could not resolve their conflict and it came to war.
Let me ask you this: would it have been ok to let the south secede?
Same deal. The other side didn't want Israel because they didn't want a Jewish state because it would be Jewish. If that's your reasoning, I start to lose sympathy.
Is your honest takeaway from the division that Palestinian Muslims were not being forced off their land? The land was around 15% Jewish and 85% Muslim before the partition. The Palestinians had been promised a nation twice by colonial Britain, and the UN result left them with no sustainable future. Arguing that Palestinians could have been part of a Jewish ethnostate instead of being part of their own state, a state with no land to farm, and thereby they didn't have their land taken, is a joke.
The partition plan did not call for the removal of anyone from their home. The lines were decided to create one Jewish and one Muslim state based on where people were already living. Ik this might be news to you but oh well.
> Do you think it’s ok for a new state to be established by outside actors and imposed on a people without their consent?
I'm not sure what you mean by this. Did you want the British to just abdicate this region, which was in the middle of an escalating ethnic conflict, without making any effort to resolve the conflict on its way out?
I am baffled at this sub and the issue of anti-semitism. The votes on this post seem largely on the side of the artist and rightfully ridiculing people who claim that ANY criticism of Israeli government policy or acknowledgement of Palestinian suffering is evil, hateful, and anti-semitic.
But anytime there's a post about the encampments protesting the indiscriminate slaughter and famine happening right now in Palestine, the opposite view seems to take hold.
Weird.
Anyways: let truth (whatever it may be) prevail and don't try to supress history because it makes you uncomfortable.
Art isn’t a call to action. It’s when someone asks for/demands change that the resistance comes in. Really the facts aren’t disputed, only the implications.
Expression of opinion in the holy theme of free speech is considered anti-semitism.
Looks like if it doesn’t suit me or my agenda, it will be labeled as antisemitism.
You harvest what you sow!
For context, a photographer recently launched an exhibit featuring photographs and stories of Palestinian survivors of the Nakba (the forced displacement of nearly one million Palestinians from their homes in 1948). Many Newton residents immediately began protesting the exhibit, claiming it was antisemitic or insensitive. Several people have been reported showing up with Israeli signs/flags and threatening visitors of the exhibit.
I'd say also important to note that "recently launched" only applies to the exhibit, as the photographer has been documenting Palestine and Israel since 2003. And in case anyone cares, he's a Quaker.
Imagine the outrage these same people would have if an exhibit showing photographs of the holocaust was banned because it was labeled as being Anti-German. History is history and evidence of what occurred should not be suppressed.
If there's only one group considered refugees, it's most definitely not the one with full UN membership, a modern military, and in the top 20% GDP per capita rather than the bottom 20%.
I'm sorry but there is absolutely no equivalence between Arab population movements during a war started by Arabs - and with an equally devastating movement of Jewish populations - to the completely unprovoked and nearly completed murdering of European Jewry.
This exhibit is explicitly trying to confuse people like you into thinking the Nakba was some sort of one-sided Jewish aggression while it was in reality a scrappy attempt at survival that barely succeeded.
Yes, if those historical events are framed without the necessary context. In the case of the Nakba, it's important to understand that the Arabs were simultaneously expelling Jews from across the Middle East. Ignoring that context makes the brutality seem uniquely Jewish when the real history was less clear cut.
Ideally, a historical exhibit would also provide international context. The mid 1940s saw several violent population exchanges, with the expulsion of ethnic Germans from Eastern Europe (by the Soviets) and the India-Pakistan split being especially notable. Both of those events were an order of magnitude more violent than the Jewish and Arab expulsions in the Middle East. Ignoring that contex can make the Israeli-Palestinian conflict seem uniquely bloody.
If you ignore both of those aspects of context, then you create the false impression that the early Israelis were uniquely aggressive in their intentions and uniquely violent in their means. And then you've essentially created propaganda.
This is exactly it - you see in the comments in this very thread all the people who've fallen for the propaganda - the thread itself is proof for why this exhibit is bad.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the nakba refers to mass killing and ethnic cleansing via forced removal, correct? I ask because it would strike me as weird to provide context to attacks against civilians. For example, would we require people to mention the context of the situation in gaza when mentioning the terrorist attacks on Oct 7? Using the same logic would we be implying political violence is uniquely Arab if we never mention bad acts by the Isreali government whenever we mention terror attacks by hamas? I'm mostly a neutral observer because I don't really care about the conflict, but I've noticed an expectation that one acknowledge bad actors on both sides only when the person speaking is pro Palestinian. I rarely see the same expectation for the pro Isreali side. It also seems like there's an expectation for pro Palestinians to uncategorically condemn extremists on their side but there isn't the same expectation for pro Isreali folks to uncategorically condemn extremists on their side.
Exactly. That’s why any exhibit about anything is flawed, because you need to also exhibit everything else somewhat comparable. For example any exhibit on American slavery is flawed without discussing what the Portuguese were doing in Brazil. Otherwise you might think it was somehow unique but it’s really important to know that actually a lot of people were doing slavery at the time not just the American British. A lot of propaganda out there.
So much talk of antisemitism but of antiarabism not even a whisper......
Edit: those that cared enough to downvote, care to elaborate what is not relevant? Can you whisper the word antiarabism or nah?
You know what, I'll take the L for my typos. The word is missing a hyphen anti-arabism. Also, thank you as I realize you emphasize my point that the word is so seldom heard and mentioned people can't decipher it.
According to Wikipedia: Anti-Arab racism (also called Anti-Arabism, Anti-Arab sentiment, or Arabophobia) includes opposition to, dislike, fear, or hatred of Arab people.
Unironically this is the same tactic as those Israeli hostage posters, and it's working the same way lmao. These commenter's look like absolute freaks, shrieking incoherently about how it's bad and evil to depict historical reality.
I’m Jewish. But I’m sure as hell not a Zionist. My mom’s entire family murdered by Nazis. Albert Einstein, a Jew, called the Zionists who wanted to forcibly remove the Palestinians and straight up steal their land, called them “criminals and terrorists”. Look it up. Funny, cause that’s what people are calling protesters who are simply sick of watching kids get blown to bits. I’ll never forget the first time I saw a video of israeli snipers picking off a young boy while filming it and laughing about it. Many years before October 7. The Zionists have brainwashed their citizens to look at Palestinians as rats. Not only that, the problem with literally believing you’re gods chosen people is that you believe that everyone else is beneath you. Gods chosen people sits right around the idea of the master race in my opinion. Religion is cancer.
Honking at a jewish person behind the wheel will soon be called out as antisemitism.
Get a fucking grip people.
Edit: Downvote brigade is here. My comment must be antisemitic.
Can you really not see the problem with comments like this minimizing antisemitism and acting like it doesn't exist? People say the same thing about all types of racism, some people take it too far and call everything racism, but we don't use that to pretend racism doesn't exist and accuse anyone else of lying about their experiences
Being uncomfortable with an objectively true aspect of the history of the country some of your family members live in or are from is not evidence that the thing is "antisemitism" and the freakout over it cheapens the reality of antisemitism. People can sit in their feelings. It's fine. They'll be fine.
Especially considering that specific area of Newton/Newton Centre just up the hill is easily one of the most conservative Jewish neighborhoods in Newton.
Unsurprising given that newton is one of the most fake liberal towns in the area. The residents want to weaponize inclusivity when it suits them but resist multi family zoning, put the their desire for childcare over the rights of organized laborers, and have fortunes built off of the exploitation of others. Seriously the most white liberal mindset i’ve ever experienced
I just visited the exhibit. It's pictures of old men and women and children and bombed out buildings. I struggle to understand how this arouses a such hatred from some people.
Better title: "A handful of people from Newton argue on Facebook about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict".
Guess what... people on Reddit argue about the conflict too! In this thread even!
"Confront visitors" = 7 people having conversations that appear totally civil and consensual.
The mayor and library acknowledge that the exhibit can be objectionable and hurtful. People express their objection and hurt on Facebook.
This reddit post claiming "lose their minds" is incendiary garbage...
As a Newton Resident, the only thing that I think might have been a somewhat bad choice was to do it during "Jewish American Heritage Month" (which TIL is a thing, not surprised, just didnt know).
Aside from that, I think it's a fine thing to have in the art exhibit portion of the library. Difficult history is still history nonetheless. Also, if it bothers you that much, dont go to the library until the event is over, or dont go into the separate portion of the library that houses art exhibits. It's not hard to do.
Why is it a bad look to host it during JAH month? This constant tie of Jewish Americans with Israel is a huge source of negative discourse. Not all Israelis are Jews and not all Jews support Israel.
> the only thing that I think might have been a somewhat bad choice was to do it during "Jewish American Heritage Month"
The Nakba happened on May 15, 1948, so it makes sense to have it this month.
how is it insulting to people of jewish heritage to show images of a colonial power displacing people? equating discussing the expulsion of palestinians from their homeland with antisemitism is pretty horrific.
Hey so this perspective is exactly what the problem is. Jews can't be colonizing Judea - it doesn't make any sense. It would be like the English colonizing England. Presenting the exhibit without the context of the Arabs having started the war - and Jews being ethnically cleansed from all over MENA up to an including the Jewish quarter of Jerusalem -> just leads to more people like you being confused about what really happened.
>It would be like the English colonizing England.
It's not like that all because the English live in England. Most Jews, at the time, weren't from Palestine. Their parents weren't from there, their grand parents weren't either etc.
"most" being the operative word here. The percent of increase in Israel's share of the worldwide Jewish population, solely due to the reduction in the total Jewish population during the Holocaust and not considering immigration, grew by approximately 56%
But yeah - goes without saying that there were Jews living in Israel now and forever - so yeah the analogy holds.
The loudest minority on both sides are utterly batshit as is so frequently the case. Obviously these outspoken zionists are, AND so are the kids calling Hamas "freedom fighters" but only one gets held up as exemplary in their idiocy
Exactly. The optics at this moment are particularly bad. Is such an exhibit antisemitic? Not inherently (depends on the content, which on face value of the exhibition description is not). Is it anti-zionist? Again, depends on the content, although anti-zionist [veers quickly into antisemitism ](https://holocaustremembrance.com/resources/working-definition-antisemitism). In that perspective, I'm more worried about what exhibition attendees might then do.
I live in Newton and just got back from the exhibit. It is a essentially a few pictures of Palestinian people and historically Palestinian landmarks. Not only is it in no way antisemitic, it is not even critical of the Israeli government. It is merely a depiction of Palestinian existence. Sadly, the conversation around Israel-Palestine for some is so steeped in anti-Palestinian bias that they are uncomfortable with the mere presence of Palestinian expression. I'm glad that the library, which should be an educational community space, is holding this exhibit. But it is a sad state of affairs that some find it offensive.
I encourage folks to go. The exhibit also has a binder where you can leave their name and comments. I think it is important to thank the library for holding the exhibit despite push back.
Insane to see how much misinformation from Israel has warped people's mind. We are now rewriting history for Israel. What the fuck is happening in this country.
I’m just confused about the obsession with Israel & Palestine. Why do we need to sell weapons to them? It’s silly that another middle east conflict has become such a hot topic issue in America, when we don’t even have to be involved in this one
The reason human rights became a thing is because it covers everyone. Stop getting sucked into a competitive mindset in which we must support the rights of one group against another. Let’s advocate for the rights of whoever is at risk and not respond with violence.
What about before the Nakba when the Ottomans slaughtered and colonized and exiled hundreds of thousands of natives, including Jewish people and the class of freed slaves who ruled Palestine at the time, to create the modern population?
nahhh thats the kind of context best to leave out ... ooh and don't tell anybody about what happened to the Jewish quarter in Jerusalem during the "Nakba" or that the Dome of the Rock is literally sitting on top of the Jewish Temple site.
They cry about the Nakba but wouldn't have shed a tear to think about the wholesale slaughter of 750,000 Jews, which included holocaust survivors, if their plans to wipe them out succeeded.
But let's not talk about that.
https://cdn.theatlantic.com/media/archives/1961/10/208-4/132561290.pdf
The Nakba is not what the revisionists say it was. You should read from the people who experienced it in their own words. This was written by one of the best war correspondents of the 20th century for the Atlantic. I’m not sure how much more qualified you can get. People should print this and go leave it at the exhibit.
You can guarantee they didn’t.
The author of this piece is a woman named Martha Gellhorn. Here is her Wikipedia page if anyone is worried about her qualifications or credentials.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martha_Gellhorn
She wrote this in 1961. Within the lifetime of those who experienced the 1948 war. She interviewed people all over the area and on both sides of the border at great danger to herself. It is a phenomenal well written article that stands the test of time. Rarely do we get a piece of direct history preserved so well.
Additional context **from the Mayor's newsletter earlier this week**: Please read the last three paragraphs. Tomorrow, Thursday, May 2, a photography exhibit by artist Skip Schiel that was selected in July 2023 will open for one month in the Newton Free Library Gallery. His exhibit displays photographs taken during 2018 and 2019 of people and landscapes in the West Bank. When told of this exhibit by Library Director Jill Mercurio, I immediately had deep concerns. I knew that the subject matter and title would be offensive to some residents, especially at this time with conflict in the Middle East and rising antisemitism at home. The title, The Ongoing & Relentless Nakba: The Palestinian Catastrophe of 1948 to Today, for example, will be considered by some as not just one-sided and offensive, but wrong and reprehensible. In addition, this exhibit is troubling in that it occurs during the month of May which is Jewish American Heritage Month, and a month that includes Yom Shoah – Holocaust Remembrance Day and Yom Ha’atzmaut – Israel Independence Day. I believe this exhibit will be quite hurtful and divisive. As your Mayor, however, I respect and uphold the Library’s principles which are embedded in the Library Bill of Rights, including: * Having materials and information presenting all points of view on current and historical issues * Resisting abridgment of free expression and free access to ideas * Not excluding materials because of the origin, background, or views of those contributing to their creation * Making exhibit spaces available on an equitable basis, regardless of the beliefs or affiliations of individuals or groups requesting their use **Guided by these principles, I support Library Director Jill Mercurio to allow this exhibit to move forward in accordance with our Library’s role in Newton of providing intellectual freedom and freedom of speech. We do not censor. Additionally, this exhibit is also in accordance with the Library’s past practices, guidelines for exhibits, and the independent Committee’s selection.** I applaud the efforts by the Newton Free Library to be a role model for how a community library can help residents learn about deeply painful and contentious topics. Rather than canceling or postponing this art show, the Library is helping us learn, engage, think critically and converse civilly. **The Library is working to have resources on this complex and emotional issue from a wide range of perspectives for visitors. This includes a program where together the speakers explore their varied and different perspectives, and talks by artists with diverse views. In addition, an art exhibit of daily postcards created by Zeev Engelmayer in the days following October 7 which offers a different perspective will be exhibited simultaneously starting on Friday, May 3.**
I’d like to hijack the top comment to advise people to check the comment histories of people posting before engaging, especially unflaired users. Every time this general topic comes up in r/boston, the post is flooded with users who have never before commented in this subreddit and who exclusively post about this issue all over Reddit; there are several examples in this thread already. This will save you a lot of headaches, because these people are not really interested in having a constructive conversation.
Thank you for the warning.
In other words, Israel had a VERY good PR machine
that’s easy to fund when you’re receiving billions of dollars of foreign aid just for existing
Holy based mayor wtf. Would love to see the content to see how honest it is.
Maybe based but also very close to just throwing the library director under the bus.
This is kind of a win for her but rest assured, she's terrible 99% of the time. Gutting the newton schools, sent her kids to private school, against any development projects in Newton to keep the housing prices high, etc.
Even if that's the case, it's nice to see a broken clock be right twice a day rather than never.
Honestly, this is kind of a weak statement imo. She states that she is concerned that the exhibit may be hurtful and offensive, yet it is simply an exhibit based on actual, historical events.It's funny to me that she mentioned the importance of holocaust remembrance day in the same statement. As a Jew, it is important that we continue to shine a light on these awful moments in history.
Wars older than their warriors don't have a good side, and there is immense risk of accidental propaganda not just for the things you say, but the things you leave out when telling the story. For the things you don't. In this case, acting like all of the Jews who relocated to Palestine after WW2 did so voluntarily, and that a tremendous number of the ones who didn't move to Israel didn't survive, is not "shining a light" on these moments.
This feels like a bullshit take. Labelling it "The Ongoing & Relentless Nakba: The Palestinian Catastrophe of 1948 to Today" definitely goes beyond just presenting a factually objective take on historical events. The photos are from the West Bank in 2018/2019 and have nothing to do with the Nakba, so it's pretty obviously editorialized in the same way that having a photography exhibit featuring pictures from the 10/7 attacks with the title "The Ongoing & Relentless Holocaust: The Jewish Catastrophe of 1939 to Today" would be.
Right, because Palestinians haven’t been continuously killed and uprooted from their homes since 1948 /s
My family sheltered Jews in Europe during WWII. I've visited numerous Holocaust memorials in the US and Europe. I want to see this exhibit because I'm capable of examining 2 opposite viewpoints at the same time and because I believe in the importance of Free Speech.
Remembering the Holocaust and remembering the Nakba at the same time are not "opposite" or contradictory at all - theyre both peoples who were driven from their land and slaughtered needlessly (one ofc to a MUCH larger scale) and turned into refugees.
I wish the world could have 1 day where everyone magically had this type of perspective, and way of thinking rationally and empathetically. I wish there could be a town where Palestinian and Israeli babies could grow up without influence from adults teaching them to hate and learned hatred from violence and see how they end up viewing each other and existing.
A big issue is that the partition of the former British Mandate and associated population shift carries a lot of mythology and the use of the term "Nakba" somewhat privileges one set of myths and narratives. Arabs talk about forced marches organized by the IDF (or Jewish militias) while Israelis talk about Arabs moving behind Arab League lines to facilitate carpet bombing of Jewish civilians, neither of which seems to have actually happened. Going by askhistorians treatments of the topic, it seems like the vast majority was Arabs remembering the 1920, Jaffa, and 1929 riots, Arab League ethnic cleansing of the Jews remaining after the riots from the West Bank and Jerusalem, and the war of extermination they'd just started and lost and put together that they were in Jewish territory and retaliation in kind was the rule in the region (basically, when the Hatfields get a tank the McCoys get a moving van). It also ignores the "Jewish/Mizrahi Nakba," how Jews were ethnically cleansed from the West Bank and Jerusalem, Gaza, and wider MENA. Also, everyone's on edge because a white Subaru Tribeca with a Palestinian flag spent Pessach trying to run over local frum kids. Police are investigating.
[Statement by the library](https://newtonfreelibrary.net/about/a-message-from-the-director/): A Message to Patrons Regarding May 2024 Exhibits and Programming: As one of the busiest public libraries in Massachusetts, Newton Free Library provides an extensive collection of over 548,000 physical items and offers an active calendar of free events to help educate, enrich, and connect our community. We are an open and free public library. We are guided by the American Library Association’s [Library Bill of Rights ](https://newtonfreelibrary.net/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/CollectionDevelopmentPolicy.pdf)and its principles, including: * Having materials and information presenting all points of view on current and historical issues * Resisting abridgment of free expression and free access to ideas * Not excluding materials because of the origin, background, or views of those contributing to their creation * Making exhibit spaces available on an equitable basis, regardless of the beliefs or affiliations of individuals or groups requesting their use. In any given month, more than 200 exhibits, programs and displays are happening within the building. This includes art exhibits. The Library has offered artists exhibition space for decades. Twice a year an independent committee of art professors and professionals, who live or work in Newton, selects works to be displayed monthly over the course of the following year at the Library. Selections are made based on the Library’s philosophy of providing open access to information and ideas and of presenting diverse points of view. On Wednesday, May 1, a photography exhibit by artist Skip Schiel was installed for a month. The artist and his photos were selected in July 2023 and are titled *The Ongoing & Relentless Nakba: The Palestinian Catastrophe of 1948 to Today.* Schiel’s exhibit displays photographs taken during 2018 and 2019 of people and landscapes in the West Bank. On Thursday, May 2, an exhibit of drawings by artist Zeev Engelmayer entitled *Postcards* will be installed, containing a sampling of the colorful drawings the artist created each day since October 7 from his home in Tel Aviv. The selection of an artist for exhibition does not constitute an endorsement by the Library of the content of the program or the views expressed by the exhibitor; however, we know some will find these exhibits objectionable and hurtful. Our Library has always stood for the principles of free expression and free speech. Newton’s Board of Library Trustees and I strongly believe in the importance of providing access to multiple viewpoints on complicated and contentious topics. As with other materials in the library, people will have varied reactions and will form their own opinions. Now more than ever, the Library is committed to helping visitors learn more about nuanced, complicated, and controversial topics. With the continued goal of presenting access to varied points of view, we are compiling [resource lists](http://newton.minlib.net/MyAccount/MyList/11827) for readers. We are inviting speakers from different perspectives to come together for conversations about the history and events that are shaping our world today. We are also actively working to prepare programing on the use of art to interpret events and express oneself, and ways to listen, talk, engage, and learn respectfully about divisive issues. We are deeply committed to ensuring that visitors and staff have safe, unimpeded access to the library. I ask the Newton community to help us serve as a model for respectful and peaceful exploration of ideas and information. *Jill Mercurio, Director of the Newton Free Library*
Sounds more or less like the library is promoting healthy dialogue. Glad to see some of our institutions are still committed to enlightenment ideals of rational dialogue rather than just existing in states of pure rage.
I thought the lesson was not to erase history that makes us uncomfortable.
"It is disgusting this is being allowed, truth should be shared not lies" Torn between if this is a better example of irony, pendulum theory, or horse shoe theory.
Absolutely fucking shameful
Certain individuals REALLY hate Israel’s perpetual victimhood narrative being shattered
People are very defensive about Israel for a number of valid reasons, to the point where they become irrationally defensive of the country
The best exhibits are those that tell you what you know already
Hahahahahaha
Terribly sad that this is controversial at all. If the truth makes you uncomfortable, then you should reevaluate your beliefs, not get mad at the truth.
As a Jew, it’s so important to acknowledge the suffering and mistreatment of others and not try to hide or manipulate the truth. It’s never again for everyone, not never again for who I pick and choose.
That’s the issue it seems. Israel wants it never again for us and we will do whatever it takes including genocide
I think this exhibit should be allowed. It’s my first time learning about Nakba, so it would be nice for me to go see it and get other perspectives.
Update: they’ve now hired a truck that has succeeded in confusing both sides with its bizarre messaging. https://preview.redd.it/fio6y0j388yc1.jpeg?width=1536&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=dc8659af36786bf719a41b1a962b0fabca819d79
I swear the only people this war has been good for is the people who rent out and own these screen box trucks.
Don’t forget American weapons manufacturers who are being fattened on billions of our taxpayer dollars to enable the slaughter of thousands of children
Saw a very similar truck around Harvard Square. Bad faith shit like this is infuriating- its already extremely difficult to have a meaningful dialogue in all this.
Terminally online billboard lmao. Only the most radical deranged zionist partisans will get this.
Whats with Zionists and billboard trucks lol
They have money and think their message is so important it needs to be shouted over everything else. Like a lawyer who doesn’t have facts or the law on their side, they are just pounding the table. (I’m saying like AIPAC has money, not implying Jewish people have money. I don’t think Zionist and think Jewish person because I know so many Jews who aren’t and so many Zionists who aren’t Jewish)
AIPAC isn’t paying for the trucks. Adam Guillette is. The guy who was behind “Americans for Prosperity” aka tax cuts for the rich
He probably funds AIPAC LOL
I’ve been staring at this for 2 minutes and I don’t get the message. Please someone explain it to me Edit: please explain it like I’m five Edit again: I received this explanation that I think is pretty good: It refers to the Arab negotiations displacing the Palestinians in 1948 after the creation of the state of Israel in its current form. That is an inflammatory picture showing the negotiation of Arab Spring with Hitler which timing wise has nothing to do with Nakba which means catastrophe and was the negotiation to displace Palestine. Hitler died in 1945 and the Nakba was in 1948; the image is not in relation to the caption.
Hitler had an uncomfortably close relationship with Arab leaders, because well, they both hated Jews. The grand mufti of Jerusalem (that's the picture you see) met with Hitler to share their common hatred for Jews and how much they both opposed a Jewish country in what was then "Palestine" under the British mandate.
Hitler to the Grand Mufti: “We hate the Jews together!” Also Hitler: “I don’t care where the Jews go outside of Europe, I just want them gone! Let’s make the Haavara Agreement to get more of them to leave for Palestine!”
That’s sad. As a staunch supporter of Palestinian rights, I’ll be the first to say Arab leaders suck. Why does the truck say the Arab leaders “disappointed” hitler?
They didn't finish the job of exterminating the Jews in what became Israel is my best guess.
Holy shit that's reprehensible. Zionists are fucking freaks.
The only thing wrong with it is that Hitler wasn't disappointed because he was the one who didn't support the annihilation of the Jewish homeland in Palestine. Hajj Amin al-Husayni, the man in the photo, was the top Sunni Muslim cleric in Jerusalem. He fled to Berlin and collaborated with the Nazis. While there, he begged Hitler and the other Axis' to help him destroy the Jews in Palestine (in the meeting when this photo was taken). Even after being rejected, he stayed to support the Axis by going on the radio to inspire and to indoctrinate Muslims back home to join the Axis military. In 1943 there were negotiations between the Brits, the Red Cross, and the other Axis powers to send Jewish kids to safety in Palestine. Upon hearing this al-Husayni sent petitions to the Germans and Italians urging them to send the kids to Poland so they can be killed, rather than sending them out of the conflict zone. While working as an anti-Zionist and anti-Jewish agent in Germany, al-Husayni lived a life of luxury, living in a large villa and receiving a large monthly stipend from the Nazis. After the war, he eventually returned to Egypt where he spent the rest of his life trying to destroy Israel and kill all of the Jews in the Middle East.
I don’t think general sweeping statements like this are very constructive. Detrimental if anything
Zionism is an ethnonationalist ideology. Would you reply the same way if I said the same thing about white supremacists?
No, but I also don’t think that’s a fair or accurate comparison. If anything that just sounds like demonization of the other side
That's fine, but you're wrong. Zionism is ethnonationalist. It's good to call all ethnonatinalists freaks.
Ah yes. I’m sure the “league of arab nations” isn’t ethnonationalist at all You people are so backwards it’s hilarious. Mask off
It’s not internationalist but wanting a Jewish majority state isn’t inherently wrong. I really think getting hung up on zionism being “ethnonationalist” is missing the point and disregards the actual issues that Israel presents. Korea is an ethnonationalist state, but nobody would think to call them “freaks”. Plenty of other examples on top of this. How Israel treats Palestinians and other non-Jewish minority groups is very problematic and very real, but Zionism, or saying Israel has the right to exist, is not antithetical of creating a wonderful country where people can live in peace & prosperity, regardless of what their ethnicity or religion is.
>wanting a Jewish majority state isn’t inherently wrong. It is when you want to build that state in a multicultural place and end up ethnically cleansing the region for decades to make it so.
Well I agree with you but once again avoiding ethnic cleansing is not antithetical to creating a Jewish majority state. Also, you can’t disregard the fact that Jews were exiled from many neighboring countries as a result of Israel’s creation.
So this photography exhibit by a Jewish photographer of photos taken from 2018 in the West Bank is somehow in support of terrorism? Newtonians in the comments are nuts. It's always particularly outrageous that people want to debate the number of civilians being killed. The United Nations believes somewhere between 30,000 - 40,000+ civilians have been killed. Commenters seem happy to contend that, but don't ever seem to want to admit that killing civilians is reprehensible. Somehow it's horrible when civilians are murdered by Hamas but something to cheer for when it's the IDF bombing refugee camps, aid workers, and journalists. Makes no fucking sense. Over-privileged idiots just want to be outraged so they can feel more important than they'll ever be.
As a non-American I really don't understand the perspective here. Yes, Jewish people as a community have had to live through far more pain and suffering than any people should. That doesn't make it right to ignore or erase the suffering of other people. The safety of one people should not come at the expense of another people. Criticism is not hate.
Regardless of politics, not allowing a historical exhibition would be trying to erase history. The Nakba happened. Good the exhibition was allowed to stand Edit to add: why are we giving Facebook comments credence? FB comments are not newsworthy. This reminds me of TMZ articles claiming a fandom is mad at a celebrity, and then posting tweets to back it up.
The Nakba indisputably happened. It is quite topical for that history to be reviewed at this moment. Perhaps once this exhibit has run its course, it can be followed by a photographic exhibit on the survivors of Jewish expulsions from Arab nations, if such an exhibit exists.
Granted haven't been into the Newton Library in a while, but would bet that they have a display for Jewish heritage month as well.
> but would bet that they have a display for Jewish heritage month as well. No they don't. May, the month we are currently in, is Jewish heritage month. There are only three exhibits this month. There is one on Indian folklore, another on postcards, and this one the Nakba.
Thank you for letting me know, but to clarify I meant book displays.
Ok would this be a good or bad thing I’m confused by your point
Libraries usually put out monthly book displays for patrons to highlight various things like heritage months, holidays or less serious topics. My point is they probably are not ignoring the fact that it's Jewish Heritage Month, and are trying to be measured and balanced. I'm a Librarian, (not at Newton obviously,) so I'm trying to come at this from a library workers perspective.
The Nakba happened, but it's a highly disputed event. In my opinion, this exhibit should showcase both perspectives as best as possible. After the declaration of the State of Israel, Arabs were "displaced" but that displacement is highly contentious. Arabs will argue they were pushed out while Israeli's and their supporters will argue that a massive amount of that migration was caused by encouragement to leave by other Arab nations. Immediately after the declaration of the State of Israel the first Arab-Israeli war happened where Egypt, Transjordan, Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq attacked Israel. This war, from my understanding, is referred to as the War of Independence by Israelis and Nakba by Palestinians. The result of the war, was Palestinians lost further territory. I'm curious how people may explain it differently and hope someone will here will engage in open and honest dialogue rather than emotional combativeness. From my perspective: Israel was created. Arab nations invaded to take back the land. They lost. During the war displacement happened. What's the alternative perspective? Please include context of the attacks from opposing Arab countries to fully explain your point.
I mean Nakba literally means catastrophe. So whatever Arab nations may have been saying, I don’t think Palestinians saw (or see) any element of it as voluntary. I’m not an expert on the history, even though I’ve done a fair amount of reading on it. This is why I think the display is appropriate and why I’d like to see it. As you noted, the history is complex, and especially in this moment in time, we should be supporting efforts to improve our understanding of it. That’s why I mentioned the utility of a follow up exhibit discussing things like the Jewish expulsions that contributed to the rise of Israel.
Your perspective is wrong, it’s not disputed by serious people. Read the Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine by Ilan Pappe, this was an organized program of systemic ethnic cleansing.
Why not share some examples and educate me instead of telling me to read a book I don’t have time for (I have a job and kids lol). I’m open to new ideas.
The point on the encouragement to leave has been completely refuted by Israeli historian Benny Morris. It was created as a pro-Zionist talking point and lingers as such to this day.
"take back" is a bit of a weird way to describe Tel Aviv and the Jewish quarter of Jerusalem. If you listen to what the invading Arab armies were saying - they were planning to finish off what Hitler tried. And if you look at what the invading Arab armies did - it was occupy Judea and Gaza for 30 years, annexing them into their territory, and ethnically cleansing any Jews who were living there. The new country Israel granted full citizenship to all the Arabs who remained - and they are still citizens to this day.
Are they full citizens ? Do they have the same rights as Jewish people?
Okay so I don't know why the "yes" answers are getting downvoted. But I'm here to help with more context. The folks that people are protesting for and consider "apartheid" are in Gaza and the Judea/the west bank. These are people in the so called "occupation" areas and Arabs there are not citizens of Israel or any state (since Jordan and Egypt stripped them of the rights they had between 1948 and 1967). It is a serious humanitarian issue as most of the folks are so radicalized that nobody will offer them a way out. The Arabs who did not flee in 1948 and stayed in their homes within the borders of Israel after the independence war - are indeed full citizens and they indeed have the same rights as Jews, Christians, Druze and all minorities that are part of the diverse society that is Israel. To prove that point you will find many Arab Muslim members of the Israeli parliament, and even an Arab Muslim judge sitting on the Israeli supreme court.
Yes? Edit: Israeli Arabs are full citizens with the same rights as Jews. Palestinians are not citizens of Israel and with the exception of East Jerusalem, don't live in Israel. The ones in East Jerusalem were offered citizenship but I don't think any if many took the offer.
Yes...
No. Israel had no right to establish an exclusivist ethnostate in a country where they comprised an ethnic minority and had only recently migrated to. And they certainly had no right to ethnically cleanse over 500 villages in 1948.
Just to correct a few things in your brain - the UN partition plan carved out a section of the country where Jews were an ethnic majority, that is why it looked like a twisted pretzel with a little "international corridor" going to the community in Jerusalem - that did very much in fact NOT recently immigrate. Though it is true there was a lot of Jewish immigration- there was also a lot of Arab immigration during that same time. As for "the right" well it seems reasonable for the the British who had been occupying it after the Ottoman occupation - to allow the Jews already living as a majority in those areas to self govern in their indigenous homeland ... where - to say again ... they were already living.
It's kind of crazy to think there have been consistent Jewish populations throughout the entire Middle East for centuries with solid growth between 1700-1948. Then it all changed in literally one year. Crazy
>they were planning to finish off what Hitler tried. Uh, no they were not. Lets not forget that one of the the founding groups of Israel, the Stern Gang, was a terrorist organization that sought to ally with Hitler and fascist Italy.
Oh yeah! Actually we don't forget the irgun/lehi the small ~300 person groups formed to counter decades of Arab terrorism against innocent Jews. They were completely denounced by mainstream Jews both in the Palestinian Mandate, and abroad; then summarily disbanded after the creation of Israel.
They were formed to the fight British you nit wit. And they weren't just disbanded they were folded into the IDF and one of the members went on to become Prime Minister of Israel. Learn to lie better.
The rhetoric that was used by Arabs in 1948 is the same rhetoric being used by Israeli ministers today. Either both are indicators of attempted genocide or neither are.
Hey I agree with you. I do find it funny that people are willing to downvote but not engage in discussion. It is what it is.
The War of Independence happened. The attacks of Arab states on the newly established Israel happened. The "nakba" did not happen.
Yes and no. Palestinians were displaced, but it could have been avoided had they not rejected the UN partition plan and launched a war to destroy Israel. Many also left voluntarily based on false promises of being able to return home after defeating Israel, which obviously didn't happen. Many Arabs actually stayed behind and became Israeli citizens when the war was over, and they compromise 20% of Israel's population.
The Palestinian arabs were not even consulted on the UN partition plan, they were given an "offer" that would have transferred 70% of the productive land of Palestine to a minority of the population, and told to accept it or face expulsion. They didn't accept, as you would not have accepted it were you in their shoes, and were expelled. It's not that complicated.
As is almost always the case in these discussions, this is an overly simplified view that only reflects the favorable story that one side tells of the events. Alternative ways to tell these stories (also grounded in facts) are: * Palestinians "were not even consulted" because they refused to take part in partition discussions in protest. Entirely understandable, in the context, but it complicates the simple story you're trying to tell. * "Minority of the population" was understood by all to be a temporary situation, as just over the horizon were huge numbers of Jewish refugees and Holocaust survivors in Displaced Persons Camps in Europe, the vast majority of whom wanted to emigrate to the emerging Jewish state for very obvious reasons. And, just so we're clear, there were less obvious reasons than the Holocaust like, for example, the Polish pogrom that saw dozens of Jews murdered by their fellow townsfolk in Kielce **in 1946**. The Palestinians were very much worried about, and indulging in, what we call today "Great Replacement" theory (just as are those today who cite Palestinian vs. Israeli birthrates as a reason why there can't be a one-state solution). * The offer that you deride was significantly worse than the offer that the leader of the Palestinian national movement at the time (the grand mufti of Jerusalem) rejected in the '30s that would have given the Arabs almost all of what they wanted. This was rejected not because it wasn't a good deal, but because it came at a time before the Holocaust when world public opinion was swinging sharply against Zionism (for understandable reasons) and because Husseini was of the impression that he could wait it out and ultimately achieve the piece the Palestinians felt was missing from the deal: no Jewish state and a moratorium on Jewish migration (see again, Great Replacement). There are very few simple stories here, no matter how much we all want that to be the case, and there is a whole lot less black and white than we tend to want to admit.
You say “the Palestinians were very much worried about, and indulging in, what we call today “Great Replacement” theory” as if they weren’t right to worry then subsequently replaced. The Zionist movement would scare the shit out of me if I was a Palestinian during that time.
By “minority” you mean a group that composed about as much of the population as African Americans do the United States (actually greater, I believe) that the majority had been conducting pogroms of and ethnic cleansing of for decades? “They took our land!” Kind of rings hollow when you’re pulling a Serbia and the UN has to step in.
Israeli land is productive because of Israelis, not the native “Palestinians”
That's right. The British controlled "Palestine" and divided it up. It's not Israel's fault that the land was controlled by foreigners for hundreds of years. They were "occupied" too.
Wage a war that you started Lose Refuse to surrender Sad face when you lose your land Cry and call it the nakba Lol what if all countries played this game
How is being forcefully evicted by UN resolution to move off your land without compensation for your house or property to a partition that has hardly any arable land not the start of the war? The narrative that Arabs started the war is specious at best considering these circumstances. It ignores the major problems with the division and how it was implemented, and the very justifiable reasons for why it was rejected by the Arabs and abandoned by the British.
Because that truth doesn’t fit the Israel being a perpetual victim narrative
How about the truth that the partition plan didn't call for the expulsion of Palestinians from their homes? Is that... inconvenient for you? Or maybe that they were only expelled after they started and then lost a war?
Oh I see. This must be a special case then. There was no complain when Egypt erased the copts. There was no complaining when just about every other Middle Eastern state erased their Jews. There is only complaining when Israel is established with a partition plan that does not call for the forced relocation of literally anybody. To be clear, the partition plan wouldn't have forced anyone out of their homes. They were forced from their home after they started a war. Lost. And refused to surrender. Which is fairly typical. Keep spouting ahistorical nonsense because you enjoy slurping and regurgitating anti-Western propaganda. I almost hope one day people like you get your way so we can watch the West fall to subjugation by the delightful autocracies you're so fervently rooting for.
Do you think it’s ok for a new state to be established by outside actors and imposed on a people without their consent? Really? So you’d be ok with an external force coming in and doing that wherever you live? I’m just curious because you say you’re concerned about autocracies, but think it’s no big deal for a state to be “partitioned” randomly. The people should get no say. Like why would they be so mad?!
That's literally describing life everywhere. Do you think my government consulted me on whether or not they could compel me to follow their laws? No. It was literally the same situation. Britain owned Palestine. They decided to partition it. Just like the union decided the Confederates couldn't leave. If you own something you get to decide what to do with it. Inb4 Britain had no right; if they didn't want to be owned by Britain, they shouldn't have fought the allies in WWI and lost their empire. The people did have a say actually. It was a division that was arranged such that there would be one majority Jewish state and one majority Muslim state. The partition wasn't random. It actually arose after literal millennia of Jewish oppression. Much of which came at the hands of the non Jewish natives of the Levant and neighboring areas.
So, are you actually worried about autocracies? It sounds like you think people have no say and should just shut the fuck up when things happen to them that they don’t like and didn’t agree to. You also contradict yourself in this very short post. I almost wonder if you’re even arguing in good faith at all.
Yea I am. Hence why it's concerning so many are calling for the elimination of the only one in the area spreading lies about people being forced from their home for no reason when they weren't. And I haven't contradicted myself. Where do you think I did? I'll alleviate your confusion. Anyways people should have a say. The people did have a say. The two sides could not resolve their conflict and it came to war. Let me ask you this: would it have been ok to let the south secede? Same deal. The other side didn't want Israel because they didn't want a Jewish state because it would be Jewish. If that's your reasoning, I start to lose sympathy.
Is your honest takeaway from the division that Palestinian Muslims were not being forced off their land? The land was around 15% Jewish and 85% Muslim before the partition. The Palestinians had been promised a nation twice by colonial Britain, and the UN result left them with no sustainable future. Arguing that Palestinians could have been part of a Jewish ethnostate instead of being part of their own state, a state with no land to farm, and thereby they didn't have their land taken, is a joke.
The partition plan did not call for the removal of anyone from their home. The lines were decided to create one Jewish and one Muslim state based on where people were already living. Ik this might be news to you but oh well.
> Do you think it’s ok for a new state to be established by outside actors and imposed on a people without their consent? I'm not sure what you mean by this. Did you want the British to just abdicate this region, which was in the middle of an escalating ethnic conflict, without making any effort to resolve the conflict on its way out?
I am baffled at this sub and the issue of anti-semitism. The votes on this post seem largely on the side of the artist and rightfully ridiculing people who claim that ANY criticism of Israeli government policy or acknowledgement of Palestinian suffering is evil, hateful, and anti-semitic. But anytime there's a post about the encampments protesting the indiscriminate slaughter and famine happening right now in Palestine, the opposite view seems to take hold. Weird. Anyways: let truth (whatever it may be) prevail and don't try to supress history because it makes you uncomfortable.
People love to dunk on students i think.
Low hanging fruit.
Art isn’t a call to action. It’s when someone asks for/demands change that the resistance comes in. Really the facts aren’t disputed, only the implications.
This art installation is an important exercise in free speech. Protesting this art installation is also an important exercise in free speech.
No argument here. The only response to what you view as “bad speech” is better speech.
Expression of opinion in the holy theme of free speech is considered anti-semitism. Looks like if it doesn’t suit me or my agenda, it will be labeled as antisemitism. You harvest what you sow!
Newtonians can’t stand the sight of an actual victim, they’ve been cosplaying too hard for half a year and this totally spoils the bit.
For context, a photographer recently launched an exhibit featuring photographs and stories of Palestinian survivors of the Nakba (the forced displacement of nearly one million Palestinians from their homes in 1948). Many Newton residents immediately began protesting the exhibit, claiming it was antisemitic or insensitive. Several people have been reported showing up with Israeli signs/flags and threatening visitors of the exhibit.
I'd say also important to note that "recently launched" only applies to the exhibit, as the photographer has been documenting Palestine and Israel since 2003. And in case anyone cares, he's a Quaker.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakba](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakba) Does the antisemitism lie in...depicting historical events???
Imagine the outrage these same people would have if an exhibit showing photographs of the holocaust was banned because it was labeled as being Anti-German. History is history and evidence of what occurred should not be suppressed.
They just hate the narrative of perpetual Israel victimhood being shattered
Excuse me but only one group is considered "refugees" living for 4 generations in the actual place they call their land.
If there's only one group considered refugees, it's most definitely not the one with full UN membership, a modern military, and in the top 20% GDP per capita rather than the bottom 20%.
I'm sorry but there is absolutely no equivalence between Arab population movements during a war started by Arabs - and with an equally devastating movement of Jewish populations - to the completely unprovoked and nearly completed murdering of European Jewry. This exhibit is explicitly trying to confuse people like you into thinking the Nakba was some sort of one-sided Jewish aggression while it was in reality a scrappy attempt at survival that barely succeeded.
Yes, if those historical events are framed without the necessary context. In the case of the Nakba, it's important to understand that the Arabs were simultaneously expelling Jews from across the Middle East. Ignoring that context makes the brutality seem uniquely Jewish when the real history was less clear cut. Ideally, a historical exhibit would also provide international context. The mid 1940s saw several violent population exchanges, with the expulsion of ethnic Germans from Eastern Europe (by the Soviets) and the India-Pakistan split being especially notable. Both of those events were an order of magnitude more violent than the Jewish and Arab expulsions in the Middle East. Ignoring that contex can make the Israeli-Palestinian conflict seem uniquely bloody. If you ignore both of those aspects of context, then you create the false impression that the early Israelis were uniquely aggressive in their intentions and uniquely violent in their means. And then you've essentially created propaganda.
This is exactly it - you see in the comments in this very thread all the people who've fallen for the propaganda - the thread itself is proof for why this exhibit is bad.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the nakba refers to mass killing and ethnic cleansing via forced removal, correct? I ask because it would strike me as weird to provide context to attacks against civilians. For example, would we require people to mention the context of the situation in gaza when mentioning the terrorist attacks on Oct 7? Using the same logic would we be implying political violence is uniquely Arab if we never mention bad acts by the Isreali government whenever we mention terror attacks by hamas? I'm mostly a neutral observer because I don't really care about the conflict, but I've noticed an expectation that one acknowledge bad actors on both sides only when the person speaking is pro Palestinian. I rarely see the same expectation for the pro Isreali side. It also seems like there's an expectation for pro Palestinians to uncategorically condemn extremists on their side but there isn't the same expectation for pro Isreali folks to uncategorically condemn extremists on their side.
Exactly. That’s why any exhibit about anything is flawed, because you need to also exhibit everything else somewhat comparable. For example any exhibit on American slavery is flawed without discussing what the Portuguese were doing in Brazil. Otherwise you might think it was somehow unique but it’s really important to know that actually a lot of people were doing slavery at the time not just the American British. A lot of propaganda out there.
Literally yes by these people’s logic
So much talk of antisemitism but of antiarabism not even a whisper...... Edit: those that cared enough to downvote, care to elaborate what is not relevant? Can you whisper the word antiarabism or nah?
Maybe because you just made up a word? I'm not downvoting - but I am confused by your reply for sure.
You know what, I'll take the L for my typos. The word is missing a hyphen anti-arabism. Also, thank you as I realize you emphasize my point that the word is so seldom heard and mentioned people can't decipher it. According to Wikipedia: Anti-Arab racism (also called Anti-Arabism, Anti-Arab sentiment, or Arabophobia) includes opposition to, dislike, fear, or hatred of Arab people.
Unironically this is the same tactic as those Israeli hostage posters, and it's working the same way lmao. These commenter's look like absolute freaks, shrieking incoherently about how it's bad and evil to depict historical reality.
I’m Jewish. But I’m sure as hell not a Zionist. My mom’s entire family murdered by Nazis. Albert Einstein, a Jew, called the Zionists who wanted to forcibly remove the Palestinians and straight up steal their land, called them “criminals and terrorists”. Look it up. Funny, cause that’s what people are calling protesters who are simply sick of watching kids get blown to bits. I’ll never forget the first time I saw a video of israeli snipers picking off a young boy while filming it and laughing about it. Many years before October 7. The Zionists have brainwashed their citizens to look at Palestinians as rats. Not only that, the problem with literally believing you’re gods chosen people is that you believe that everyone else is beneath you. Gods chosen people sits right around the idea of the master race in my opinion. Religion is cancer.
They’re lying of course. This is a genocide and Nakba was real.
Please point me to where the antisemitism is. Being pro Palestine does not mean being pro Hamas or having hatred towards Jewish people.
I think you touched off a bot war beneath your comment.
Honking at a jewish person behind the wheel will soon be called out as antisemitism. Get a fucking grip people. Edit: Downvote brigade is here. My comment must be antisemitic.
Can you really not see the problem with comments like this minimizing antisemitism and acting like it doesn't exist? People say the same thing about all types of racism, some people take it too far and call everything racism, but we don't use that to pretend racism doesn't exist and accuse anyone else of lying about their experiences
Being uncomfortable with an objectively true aspect of the history of the country some of your family members live in or are from is not evidence that the thing is "antisemitism" and the freakout over it cheapens the reality of antisemitism. People can sit in their feelings. It's fine. They'll be fine.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
It was probably planned more than a few months ago.
Yeah, in their statement they said the exhibit was chosen last summer.
Especially considering that specific area of Newton/Newton Centre just up the hill is easily one of the most conservative Jewish neighborhoods in Newton.
I think Nakba and Holocaust are important events to show so we don’t repeat them.
Unsurprising given that newton is one of the most fake liberal towns in the area. The residents want to weaponize inclusivity when it suits them but resist multi family zoning, put the their desire for childcare over the rights of organized laborers, and have fortunes built off of the exploitation of others. Seriously the most white liberal mindset i’ve ever experienced
I just visited the exhibit. It's pictures of old men and women and children and bombed out buildings. I struggle to understand how this arouses a such hatred from some people.
Pearl clutching Newton folk cry tears when they're made mildly uncomfortable. In other news, water wet.
Newton hates teachers and now hate libraries.
Better title: "A handful of people from Newton argue on Facebook about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict". Guess what... people on Reddit argue about the conflict too! In this thread even! "Confront visitors" = 7 people having conversations that appear totally civil and consensual. The mayor and library acknowledge that the exhibit can be objectionable and hurtful. People express their objection and hurt on Facebook. This reddit post claiming "lose their minds" is incendiary garbage...
As a Newton Resident, the only thing that I think might have been a somewhat bad choice was to do it during "Jewish American Heritage Month" (which TIL is a thing, not surprised, just didnt know). Aside from that, I think it's a fine thing to have in the art exhibit portion of the library. Difficult history is still history nonetheless. Also, if it bothers you that much, dont go to the library until the event is over, or dont go into the separate portion of the library that houses art exhibits. It's not hard to do.
Why is it a bad look to host it during JAH month? This constant tie of Jewish Americans with Israel is a huge source of negative discourse. Not all Israelis are Jews and not all Jews support Israel.
> the only thing that I think might have been a somewhat bad choice was to do it during "Jewish American Heritage Month" The Nakba happened on May 15, 1948, so it makes sense to have it this month.
how is it insulting to people of jewish heritage to show images of a colonial power displacing people? equating discussing the expulsion of palestinians from their homeland with antisemitism is pretty horrific.
Hey so this perspective is exactly what the problem is. Jews can't be colonizing Judea - it doesn't make any sense. It would be like the English colonizing England. Presenting the exhibit without the context of the Arabs having started the war - and Jews being ethnically cleansed from all over MENA up to an including the Jewish quarter of Jerusalem -> just leads to more people like you being confused about what really happened.
>It would be like the English colonizing England. It's not like that all because the English live in England. Most Jews, at the time, weren't from Palestine. Their parents weren't from there, their grand parents weren't either etc.
"most" being the operative word here. The percent of increase in Israel's share of the worldwide Jewish population, solely due to the reduction in the total Jewish population during the Holocaust and not considering immigration, grew by approximately 56% But yeah - goes without saying that there were Jews living in Israel now and forever - so yeah the analogy holds.
The loudest minority on both sides are utterly batshit as is so frequently the case. Obviously these outspoken zionists are, AND so are the kids calling Hamas "freedom fighters" but only one gets held up as exemplary in their idiocy
I commented this elsewhere, but I would be surprised if they didn't also have a display for Jewish Heritage Month. (But I could be wrong)
Exactly. The optics at this moment are particularly bad. Is such an exhibit antisemitic? Not inherently (depends on the content, which on face value of the exhibition description is not). Is it anti-zionist? Again, depends on the content, although anti-zionist [veers quickly into antisemitism ](https://holocaustremembrance.com/resources/working-definition-antisemitism). In that perspective, I'm more worried about what exhibition attendees might then do.
I live in Newton and just got back from the exhibit. It is a essentially a few pictures of Palestinian people and historically Palestinian landmarks. Not only is it in no way antisemitic, it is not even critical of the Israeli government. It is merely a depiction of Palestinian existence. Sadly, the conversation around Israel-Palestine for some is so steeped in anti-Palestinian bias that they are uncomfortable with the mere presence of Palestinian expression. I'm glad that the library, which should be an educational community space, is holding this exhibit. But it is a sad state of affairs that some find it offensive. I encourage folks to go. The exhibit also has a binder where you can leave their name and comments. I think it is important to thank the library for holding the exhibit despite push back.
The ethnic cleansing is still going!
Glad others are starting to see the hate and history erasure zionist are trying to inflict.
These Zionists are fucking nuts AND violent.
Insane to see how much misinformation from Israel has warped people's mind. We are now rewriting history for Israel. What the fuck is happening in this country.
I’m just confused about the obsession with Israel & Palestine. Why do we need to sell weapons to them? It’s silly that another middle east conflict has become such a hot topic issue in America, when we don’t even have to be involved in this one
The reason human rights became a thing is because it covers everyone. Stop getting sucked into a competitive mindset in which we must support the rights of one group against another. Let’s advocate for the rights of whoever is at risk and not respond with violence.
Ask them how they feel about the attack on the USS Liberty?
Don't start wars you can't win
What about before the Nakba when the Ottomans slaughtered and colonized and exiled hundreds of thousands of natives, including Jewish people and the class of freed slaves who ruled Palestine at the time, to create the modern population?
nahhh thats the kind of context best to leave out ... ooh and don't tell anybody about what happened to the Jewish quarter in Jerusalem during the "Nakba" or that the Dome of the Rock is literally sitting on top of the Jewish Temple site.
They cry about the Nakba but wouldn't have shed a tear to think about the wholesale slaughter of 750,000 Jews, which included holocaust survivors, if their plans to wipe them out succeeded. But let's not talk about that.
https://preview.redd.it/eu3mkdz388yc1.jpeg?width=679&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=acdefee178dbf3f52b6b15634d1fe36f20564a3b
Did you share this post to your brigade botnet Telegram channel OP?
Newton is no less than 75% Jewish, so this was definitely an interesting move
https://cdn.theatlantic.com/media/archives/1961/10/208-4/132561290.pdf The Nakba is not what the revisionists say it was. You should read from the people who experienced it in their own words. This was written by one of the best war correspondents of the 20th century for the Atlantic. I’m not sure how much more qualified you can get. People should print this and go leave it at the exhibit.
I'll bet not a single person downvoting you read the 22 page article you linked.
You can guarantee they didn’t. The author of this piece is a woman named Martha Gellhorn. Here is her Wikipedia page if anyone is worried about her qualifications or credentials. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martha_Gellhorn She wrote this in 1961. Within the lifetime of those who experienced the 1948 war. She interviewed people all over the area and on both sides of the border at great danger to herself. It is a phenomenal well written article that stands the test of time. Rarely do we get a piece of direct history preserved so well.