Doc's Talk: Could this book turn your child against Israel?

Thursday, April 01, 2010

Could this book turn your child against Israel?

Written by Atara Beck
Monday, 29 March 2010

TORONTO – “Reading this book made me want to go to Palestine and kill Israelis,” commented a teenaged girl who “likes Jews” and has attended three Bat Mitzvahs. Her comments on the book she refers to – The Shepherd’s Granddaughter by Anne Laurel Carter – can be found on the book-promoting goodreads.com web site.
On the same site, another young student who read it compared the Israeli regime to Nazis. As a quick read of the book shows, The Shepherd’s Granddaughter is a work of fiction based on the political situation in the West Bank that demonizes the Jewish state, presenting a completely one-sided, pro-Palestinian, anti-Israel view with absolutely no balance or background information. For example, in the novel, the Israelis poisoned the likeable Palestinian protagonist’s sheep for no reason, and the driver of a bulldozer tried to run her over. The Palestinians are portrayed as completely innocent and helpless victims, while the cruel Israelis pursue a goal of ethnic cleansing.

The book came to the attention of the Jewish Tribune through writer Brian Henry, a contributor to this paper. The father of a Grade 6 student in the public school system, his open letter of concern to Ontario’s education minister is on page 14.

Recognized as a Book of the Year for children by the Canadian Library Association (CLA) and nominated for the prestigious Red Maple Award 2010 (geared to grades 7 and 8) of the Ontario Library Association (OLA), The Shepherd’s Granddaughter is highly recommended by Toronto District School Board (TDSB) teachers and librarians. The Jewish Tribune, after seeing Henry’s letter, picked up the book – which was in high demand – at a local library. There were 44 copies of the book in circulation in Toronto libraries and only one was available.

The CLA did not return any calls on this issue before publication deadline.

According to Shelagh Paterson, OLA’s executive director, “the committee did not think this was propaganda; otherwise, it wouldn’t have been chosen.”

She defended the choice with the assertion that children in the Red Maple program could “pick their favourite author. They don’t have to read all the books. It is not part of the curriculum. It’s recreational book club material and encourages love of reading and discussion…. Usually discussions are welcome. Teachers help sort out thoughts.”

Ruth Dameron, a teacher at Eitz Chaim’s middle school who is not a member of the Jewish community, said: “I find it difficult to believe that this book, which [I think] encourages antisemitism, is being circulated in Ontario schools for young, impressionable children.

“Every teacher has a different perspective on politics, therefore, how could the OLA be so sure that a teacher would necessarily provide another point of view or challenge the message in the book?”

“I don’t know of any books that are balanced or unbiased,” Paterson declared. “I think the best opportunity to be exposed to controversial issues is when they’re learning. The committee does carefully select [each book]…. It is not setting out to upset anyone. They want to ensure there’s a richness to it.”

Asked whether the committee would have considered a compelling and well-written work of fiction with an equally biased message against another ethnic group – for example, insinuating that African-Americans are intellectually inferior – she responded: “They read To Kill a Mockingbird.”

(To Kill a Mockingbird, by Harper Lee, published in 1960, is an American Pulitzer Prize-winning novel taught widely in North American schools. Its message is a powerful condemnation of racial injustice.)

Trustee James Pasternak (York Centre) said that he “received a complaint and forwarded it over to our executive director of equity, Lloyd McKell. He said it was starting to get on our radar screen. We’re going to be reading it.

“The initial reports are that this book is disconcerting to us and it is unbalanced political propaganda. However, senior staff is looking into it. We have a responsibility to follow up on all complaints and this is one of them. We will take it very seriously. We have very strict rules governing political activity in schools. Everyone must abide by them regardless of their political views. We would vigorously forbid the distribution of materials that smacked of political agendas, especially views from conflict zones.”
McKell was out of town and unavailable for comment.

Shari Schwartz-Maltz, the Toronto board’s manager of media, said there is a formal process for parents to deal with this kind of situation and the first thing they should do is discuss it with the school principal. She was unaware of any formal complaint.
“Decisions about the use of books are the responsibility of the school board,” asserted Gary Wheeler, a spokesperson for the Ontario education ministry. “District school boards select and approve all supplementary learning resources. Boards and schools have their own internal procedures for selecting and approving various books and resources.”
“It concerns me that this book is getting positive reviews and students are reading it without any guidance,” said Associated Hebrew Schools librarian Bev Birkan. “This is one book that definitely should have unbiased adult supervision.”

“I’m Israeli,” said Ettie Stubbs, president of the Association of Jewish Libraries. The book “neglected to mention any background. Kids that know nothing about the conflict will read it and that is the impression they will get.”

Ross Virgo, spokesperson for the York Region District School Board, was “very familiar with the book. We have provided some advice to our teachers and librarians. It is considered to be a sensitive issues text, raising subject matter and concepts that merit some informed, contextual discussion. They would certainly understand that it carries a distinctive point of view.”

The book “was researched by the OLA, which is fairly representative of Canadian communities,” he added. “We have 162 elementary schools and I believe it is probably in many of the school libraries.”

Frank Dimant, B’nai Brith Canada’s executive vice-president, has written to the provincial education minister calling for the removal of the book, which is “so clearly biased against Israel,” from any school’s recommended reading list. “This is not just a matter of political differences with Israeli policy. Having these types of one-sided books in the classroom marginalizes Jewish children and is definitely not in the spirit of the TDSB, which recently banned the hate-fest known as ‘Israeli Apartheid Week’ from its schools.”

Sorry, no url, received via email

No comments:

The IDF’s Minorities in Numbers and Pictures

In honor of IDF Diversity Week, we present diversity through numbers and pictures. Each year, more and more Muslims, Christians, Druze, Bedouin and immigrants from around the world take on the responsibility of defending Israel.

MUSLIMS:

Muslim Arab Israelis are not required to draft in the IDF, but there are many who volunteer. In 2013, there were over 200 Muslims serving in the IDF and over 300 in the reserves.

Bedouins:

Bedouins are nomadic Muslims who were in Israel when modern borders were set in place and are now considered Israeli citizens. They are not required to draft but a growing number choose to enlist. In 2012, there were over 1,400 Bedouin Muslim soldiers doing regular IDF service and almost 1,500 in the reserves.

Read more:http://www.idfblog.com/2014/02/27/truth-idf-numbers-pictures/#more-34027

Are you aware that in 2013, Middle class taxes go up-significantly?

In January of next year, the federal income tax rate for middle-class taxpayers is scheduled to rise from 25 percent to 28 percent, and the payroll tax is scheduled to rise from 13.3 percent to 15.3 percent… This drives the marginal tax rate based on the aforementioned three taxes to 48.12 percent. Add in state and local property, corporate, excise, and other state and local taxes, and the percentage of each additional dollar that is taxed hovers around 50 percent… When half of each additional dollar earned is taxed away, taxpayers experience a disincentive to start businesses or expand existing ones. This leads to fewer jobs being created.

Why is HAMAS Inside Tampa Schools?

Clare Lopez

Kelly Miliziano, who teaches history classes at Steinbrenner High School in the Tampa, Florida area apparently thinks it’s perfectly OK to invite a senior official of a HAMAS-affiliated organization into her classroom to discuss Islam with her students. According to local media reports, not only has this been going on for years, but in spite of the civil and criminal proceedings that could result from such reckless negligence, the Hillsborough County school superintendent, Mary Ellen Elia, and the chairman of the school board, Candy Olson, also expressed approval for students under their responsibility to be exposed repeatedly to guest speaker, Hassan Shibly, who is the Executive Director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in the Tampa area.
More...

Did You Know... Ignoring the Call to Islam will Bring Jihad

‘Conquest through Da’wa [proselytizing] that is what we hope for. We will conquer Europe, we will conquer America! Not through sword but through Da’wa.’
-- Yousef al-Qaradawi , Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader The Arabic word ‘Da’wa’ means the “call to Islam.” But do not think that Da’wa is the same thing as an invitation to an optional holiday event. The classical Islamic doctrine of jihad mandates that enemies must be given the opportunity to convert to Islam or pay the jizya tax before it is permissible to attack them.
Clare M. Lopez

Who is being discriminated-facts tell the truth

Religious bias

Hate crimes motivated by religious bias accounted for 1,409 offenses reported by law enforcement. A breakdown of the bias motivation of religious-bias offenses showed:

65.4 percent were anti-Jewish.
13.2 percent were anti-Islamic.
9.5 percent were anti-other religion, i.e., those not specified.
4.3 percent were anti-Catholic.
3.8 percent were anti-multiple religions, group.
3.3 percent were anti-Protestant.
0.5 percent were anti-Atheism/Agnosticism/etc.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2010/narratives/hate-crime-2010-incidents-and-offenses.

On March 31, 1977, the Dutch newspaper Trouw published an interview

with PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein. Here's what he said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism.

For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

In March 1977, Zahir Muhsein, a PLO executive, said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct Palestinian people to oppose Zionism."

"For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

The Arab Apartheid

Ben-Dror Yemini
In 1948, the Arab countries refused to accept the UN partition proposal and they launched a war of annihilation against the State of Israel which had barely been established. All precedents in this matter showed that the party that starts the war - and with a declaration of annihilation, yet - pays a price for it. Between 550,000 and 710,000 Arabs fled because of the war and a larger number of 850,000 Jews were expelled or fled from Arab countries (the "Jewish nakba").
Population exchanges and expulsions were the norm at that time, occurring in dozens of other conflict points and affecting about 52 million people. In all the population exchange precedents that occurred during or at the end of an armed conflict, there was no return of refugees to the previous region, which had turned into a new national state.
Only the Arab states acted completely differently from the rest of the world. Instead of assimilating the refugees, they crushed them despite the fact that they were their coreligionists and members of the Arab nation - instituting a regime of apartheid. So the "nakba" was not caused by the actual dispossession, which had also been experienced by tens of millions of others. The "nakba" is the story of the apartheid, oppression, abuse and denial of rights suffered by the Arab refugees at the hands of the Arab countries. (Maariv)

International Law and Military Operations in Practice - Col. Richard Kemp

"Islamist fighting groups study the international laws of armed conflict carefully and they understand it well. They know that a British or Israeli commander and his men are bound by international law and the rules of engagement that flow from it. They then do their utmost to exploit what they view as one of their enemy's main weaknesses. Their very modus operandi is built on the correct assumption that Western armies will normally abide by the rules, while these insurgents employ a deliberate policy of operating consistently outside international law. "

Lost Historical Moments

What Rabin’s last Knesset speech really said:repudiation of a Palestinian state

Rabin ruled out a fully sovereign Palestinian state :

“We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority.”

Rabin ruled out a total withdrawal from Judea and Samaria and thus a return to the pre-June 1967 borders :

“The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.”

Rabin ruled out withdrawing form the Jordan Valley:

“The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.”

Rabin ruled out uprooting settlement blocs, like the Gush Katif bloc in Gaza (which was subsequently uprooted by former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon):

“The establishment of blocs of settlements in Judea and Samaria, like the one in Gush Katif.

AND

Rabin ruled out removing any settlement before coming to a full peace agreement with the Palestinians:

“I want to remind you: we committed ourselves, that is, we came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth.”

Rabin insisted on Israel retaining full security control of the borders with Egypt and Jordan, contrary to Israel’s relinquishment of the Philadelphia Corridor on the border with Egypt:

“The responsibility for external security along the borders with Egypt and Jordan, as well as control over the airspace above all of the territories and Gaza Strip maritime zone, remains in our hands.”

Correcting Oslo Myths-Part 2

3) Kuttab laments that the post-1993 Oslo process resulted in a Palestinian Authority "whose ministers and legislators are not guaranteed passage between Gaza and the West Bank ...."

Before free passage or other perquisites, PA leaders were obligated, among other things, to eliminate the terrorist infrastructure in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, end anti-Israeli, antisemitic incitement in schools, mosques, and communications media, and resolve all outstanding issues through peaceful negotiations. They met none of these commitments, sometimes bolstering terrorism and greatly increasing incitement.

4) Kuttab complains that under Oslo the PA got "lightly armed police ---- but no real sovereignty over the land or contiguity between our communities in Gaza and the West Bank."

Oslo agreements repeatedly were revised, regardless of Palestinian non-compliance, until the authorized number of police grew from 8,000 to 40,000. Though they were to be the only armed forces in the territories, Israeli estimates early in the second intifada put the number of gunmen - police, "security services," terrorists, and armed gangs - at 85,000. Their armament reportedly included not only heavy machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades, but also anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles.

Sovereignty was to be negotiated in the envisioned 1998 "final status" talks - after a five-year period of confidence-building. Palestinian leadership chronically undermined the process. Palestinian terrorism made the 1993 - 1998 Oslo period more deadly for Israelis than the 15 years preceding it.

The United States doesn't have contiguity between the lower 48 states and Alaska and Hawaii; territorial contiguity between the West Bank and Gaza Strip - that is, through the 20 miles of Israeli territory between them - was never promised and would destroy Israeli contiguity.

5) "Palestinians have been made to endure hundreds of checkpoints in the West Bank, an eight-foot wall deep in our territories, and tight Israeli control over borders."

The security barrier is not "deep in Palestinian territories," but rather encompasses less than 8 percent of Judea and Samaria, and is mostly a fence, rarely a wall; the land in question is not "our [Palestinian] territories" but disputed territory to which, according to the authors of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, Jews as well as Arabs have claims; and there are no international borders, only the 1949 armistice lines with Jordan. Under 242, borders remain to be negotiated. As for checkpoints - like the security barrier and "tight Israeli control" - Palestinian Arabs precipitated these measures themselves. No terrorism and there would be no fence or tight Israeli control and few checkpoints - like before the first intifada.

Correcting Some Oslo Myths

1) In Oslo "Israeli, Palestinian and other world leaders promised that ... Palestinian sovereignty would be solidified."

No, they didn't. The 1993 Declaration of Principles and subsequent Oslo agreements outlined a process by which final status negotiations about the West Bank and Gaza Strip would be reached. The process required an end to anti-Israel terrorism and incitement and a commitment to peaceful negotiations. The PA, Fatah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and other terrorist groups, sabotaged the process from the start.

2) "The reality is that, in defiance of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, which states that it is inadmissible to occupy land by force, Palestinian territories are still under foreign military occupation."
Wrong again. Resolution 242 (1967) does note "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war." It also affirms the right of every state in the area "to live in peace with secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force." There were no "Palestinian territories." Jordan occupied the West Bank, Egypt controlled Gaza. Israel did not have "secure and recognized boundaries," so retention of some of those territories was possible under 242. Israel is not a "foreign" military occupier in the West Bank but, pending final negotiations, the lawful military administrator as a result of a successful war of self-defense.

Doc's Talk