A prominent Israeli legal organization alleges the Canadian Museum for Human Rights is promoting a politically one-sided narrative.
…how is The Onion still in business again?
This is like one day a British lobbyist group wake up and starting to sue their ex-colonies for misrepresentation. The amount of delulu one must have to do this deserve to be studied.
Scholars of fascism whose job literally is to study it: Am I a joke to you?
Oh yeah, I remember the “the other side” at the Holocaust museum…
There is nothing more antisemitic than someone that conflates anti-zionism with antisemitism. Those who do believe that an entire race and religion are morally culpable for the actions of an evil government. That’s like being racist against Germans today because of what Hitler did in the 30s and 40s.
A prominent Israeli legal organization alleges the Canadian Museum for Human Rights is promoting a politically one-sided narrative.
So we should consider adding Nakba exhibits to Holocaust museums to avoid a one-sided narrative?
We’ll have to add a bunch of literal Nazi propaganda. And not as examples of vile hatred, but presented seriously as an argument to “both sides” the Holocaust.
For more perspective, throw in the Turkish genocide of the Armenians (where a British journalist first used the word “holocaust” in its modern sense-- the journalist was Winston Churchill) and the Holodomor. And to diversify more, there’s Pol Pot’s auto-genocide in Cambodia and the Rwanda bloodbath. Maybe also a sideshow on the Serbian aggression against everyone nearby who isn’t a Serb.
No, silly, you have to show the side where the Jews made the Nazis feel bad for gassing them /s
a politically one-sided narrative.
Easy to fix, add a single sign ‘nothing bad happened’. Big chance you can re-use the next time Israel is featured in an exhibition in your human rights museum.
So only one perspective is allowed?? Why can’t their be multiple views?
No, ALL perspectives must be allowed. Unless it would otherwise make Israel look bad, in which case only the Israeli perspective is allowed. Anything else is antisemitic.
No silly, freedom of speech is only good when people say the thing that agrees with what I already believe
Ah yes the other side.
Fueled by imperialist fervor, and backed by western military power, the settlers marched under a perceived promise from the God of the universe as recorded in a book written by men thousands of years ago that they would be the sole inhabitants of a specific piece of dirt that already had other people living in it. Under this banner of heaven the settlers felt justified in the violences documented in this exhibit because they wanted the land that other people had been living on for generations. The animosity toward their fellow man from settlers of the Israeli state continues to this day in much the same fashion: seizing land, beating inhabitants, turning a blind eye to rape and murder, enforcement of an apparteid status, and unceasing propaganda including the delegitimizing of the term “antisemite.”
I personally don’t understand why sharing that viewpoint would matter, but I guess, go ham.
Also
delegitimizing Jewish self-determination
No it doesn’t. Jewish self-determination doesn’t grant the right to murder, rape, and steal from people, and documenting the abuses of the settlers does not delegitimizing Jewish self-determination. This is true of all acts of self-determination, and to believe different because it’s “Jewish” would be holding Jewish people to a double standard which, I’m sure you all know, the ADL considers antisemitic.
…how is The Onion still in business again?
I dunno, but if anyone comes across the embroidered Ass and Face towels they used to sell in the back of the print version, let me know
