Palestinians carry their national flag as they walk through the streets of Shatila camp in Beirut. (Photo: Marwan Tahtah)
The Lebanese may not agree about their country’s history, but teachers and students in Palestinian refugee schools don’t see why they shouldn’t study their own.
It does not matter if the Lebanese disagree on how to teach their history. What matters to students at schools in refugee camps, who follow the same curriculum, is whether Palestine is present in the new history textbooks, should these books become part of their school programs.
One child at an UNRWA school wants to know what actually happened after the Balfour Declaration, and what brought him to a school run by a UN body that removed Palestine from history and geography lessons some time ago. Another wants to know if it is true that an Umm Kulthum concert was behind the “loss of Arab lands in 1965,” as he was informed.
The older ones, who completed high school last year when “Lebanese” history books were in use, share the outlook of their parents who were part of recent history.
“If the Palestinians are to be portrayed as barbarians who came to Lebanon to occupy it and establish an alternative homeland for themselves…then they should not mention us at all in the history textbook,” says Yahya, now a university student. He particularly resents references to the Palestinian martyrs who fell in the defense of Beirut as “aliens.”
A friend of Yahya’s remarks that while the Lebanese are entitled to write their history as they want, “we too have the right to write our history.” Another interjects to complain that they were “forced” to study “insignificant” matters in the Lebanese textbook, such as the history of the Phoenicians and Pharaohs.
“Isn’t it always the victor who writes history?” asks student Khaled Muhammad, before quickly responding: “Certainly, but who won in Lebanon? It is a turning wheel. If we have to change history every time the government changes…we will never learn anything.”
The Lebanese, he points out, are still quarrelling over the same issues they previously fought over.
This prompts another to suggest sarcastically that Israel should write the history books, in its capacity as victor, before remarking: “You know what? The best thing would be for us to write history ourselves and teach it to our children at UNRWA schools. Leave the Lebanese to each other. Why does the history of Palestine have to remain forgotten? Our children should learn everything about Palestine, about Abu Ammar (Yasser Arafat) and Oslo. What does someone from the camp care if March 14 ousted or supported Hosni Mubarak or Gaddafi? We lost our identity when we began studying others’ history and forgot ours.”
But forgetting victors and the endless debates about the happy history of Lebanon, how do Palestinians want to be described in the books of the host country’s curriculum? If they had a chance to write the texts that deal with the Palestinian revolution, what would they want to say?
“Everything…We will not hide anything,” says a history teacher at an UNRWA school, who requests anonymity for fear, he says, of losing his job. “We taught the whole world lessons…we don’t need to wait for anybody to teach us about our history…UNRWA has erased Palestine from history and geography, but we still teach our children about their villages and towns.”
The teacher adds that it would be wrong to exclude the Palestinians from the recent history of Lebanon, given that they both influenced and were influenced by it. But he acknowledges that this needs to be done with care. “If we were allowed to give our opinion on the history textbook, we would at least ask that things are called by their names.”
For example, if Lebanese combatants during the civil war can be described as “martyrs,” why should Palestinian freedom fighters be termed “militiamen.”
But surely the Palestinians participated in the war. South Lebanon was known as “Fatahland.” Isn’t it wrong to oversimplify things? “Of course,” the teacher answers, adding, “There were some mistakes and excesses, but that does not mean that history should focus only on those lapses. As I said, things should be called by their names. We are not ashamed of our history, it is part of Lebanon’s history and we are still paying the price to this day. The past still haunts us.”
He pauses and reconsiders: “I am not saying that the history of Palestinians in Lebanon is all errors. Of course, the relationship between the Palestinians and the Lebanese is much too complicated to be explained in a few pages. While they fought against some parties, Palestinians participated alongside other Lebanese in resistance against Israel. Even the ‘Fatahland’ you mentioned was established with the consent of the Lebanese. They facilitated the presence of Palestinians in the south in order to be in direct confrontation with the Israelis.”
But the teacher goes on to opine that arguing about history books is futile in the absence of political reconciliation. “It would be more useful to have a comprehensive and fair reconciliation before writing history. Later, if they want to change the history curriculum, we are ready to be the first to acknowledge our mistakes with an open heart.”
But, he wonders, “is the other side prepared to acknowledge its ‘mistakes’ too?” The experience of former Palestinian Ambassador Abbas Zaki was not encouraging in this regard. His “official” Palestinian apology received a frosty response from the Lebanese Forces (LF) following the holding of talks that closed the book on the issue of missing persons and the LF massacres of Palestinians in Lebanon, he says. The school bell signals an end to the conversation.
The debate between the Lebanese about their history is endless, and may swamp the Palestinians if they opt to join in. The disagreements are over fundamentals and principles, and the very definition of homeland, citizens, revolutions, and martyrs.
Some want to portray Palestinians as monsters who came to destroy some Lebanese dream, or as occupiers and inciters of sedition. Some know the Palestinians’ first shots were fired against the enemy, whose identity the Lebanese are still incapable of agreeing on after many years of war.
The inclusion of an overview in the new Lebanese history textbook might be designed to answer a question that young Lebanese often hurl at their Palestinian counterparts: “Why don’t you go back to your own country if you don’t like it here?” The refugees often give sarcastic responses. They do not realize that the history curriculum taught at Lebanese schools stops at 1946 – three years after the end of the French mandate in Lebanon, and two years prior to the Palestinian Nakba.
This article is an edited translation from the Arabic Edition.
It does not matter if the Lebanese disagree on how to teach their history. What matters to students at schools in refugee camps, who follow the same curriculum, is whether Palestine is present in the new history textbooks, should these books become part of their school programs.
One child at an UNRWA school wants to know what actually happened after the Balfour Declaration, and what brought him to a school run by a UN body that removed Palestine from history and geography lessons some time ago. Another wants to know if it is true that an Umm Kulthum concert was behind the “loss of Arab lands in 1965,” as he was informed.
The older ones, who completed high school last year when “Lebanese” history books were in use, share the outlook of their parents who were part of recent history.
“If the Palestinians are to be portrayed as barbarians who came to Lebanon to occupy it and establish an alternative homeland for themselves…then they should not mention us at all in the history textbook,” says Yahya, now a university student. He particularly resents references to the Palestinian martyrs who fell in the defense of Beirut as “aliens.”
A friend of Yahya’s remarks that while the Lebanese are entitled to write their history as they want, “we too have the right to write our history.” Another interjects to complain that they were “forced” to study “insignificant” matters in the Lebanese textbook, such as the history of the Phoenicians and Pharaohs.
“Isn’t it always the victor who writes history?” asks student Khaled Muhammad, before quickly responding: “Certainly, but who won in Lebanon? It is a turning wheel. If we have to change history every time the government changes…we will never learn anything.”
The Lebanese, he points out, are still quarrelling over the same issues they previously fought over.
This prompts another to suggest sarcastically that Israel should write the history books, in its capacity as victor, before remarking: “You know what? The best thing would be for us to write history ourselves and teach it to our children at UNRWA schools. Leave the Lebanese to each other. Why does the history of Palestine have to remain forgotten? Our children should learn everything about Palestine, about Abu Ammar (Yasser Arafat) and Oslo. What does someone from the camp care if March 14 ousted or supported Hosni Mubarak or Gaddafi? We lost our identity when we began studying others’ history and forgot ours.”
But forgetting victors and the endless debates about the happy history of Lebanon, how do Palestinians want to be described in the books of the host country’s curriculum? If they had a chance to write the texts that deal with the Palestinian revolution, what would they want to say?
“Everything…We will not hide anything,” says a history teacher at an UNRWA school, who requests anonymity for fear, he says, of losing his job. “We taught the whole world lessons…we don’t need to wait for anybody to teach us about our history…UNRWA has erased Palestine from history and geography, but we still teach our children about their villages and towns.”
The teacher adds that it would be wrong to exclude the Palestinians from the recent history of Lebanon, given that they both influenced and were influenced by it. But he acknowledges that this needs to be done with care. “If we were allowed to give our opinion on the history textbook, we would at least ask that things are called by their names.”
For example, if Lebanese combatants during the civil war can be described as “martyrs,” why should Palestinian freedom fighters be termed “militiamen.”
But surely the Palestinians participated in the war. South Lebanon was known as “Fatahland.” Isn’t it wrong to oversimplify things? “Of course,” the teacher answers, adding, “There were some mistakes and excesses, but that does not mean that history should focus only on those lapses. As I said, things should be called by their names. We are not ashamed of our history, it is part of Lebanon’s history and we are still paying the price to this day. The past still haunts us.”
He pauses and reconsiders: “I am not saying that the history of Palestinians in Lebanon is all errors. Of course, the relationship between the Palestinians and the Lebanese is much too complicated to be explained in a few pages. While they fought against some parties, Palestinians participated alongside other Lebanese in resistance against Israel. Even the ‘Fatahland’ you mentioned was established with the consent of the Lebanese. They facilitated the presence of Palestinians in the south in order to be in direct confrontation with the Israelis.”
But the teacher goes on to opine that arguing about history books is futile in the absence of political reconciliation. “It would be more useful to have a comprehensive and fair reconciliation before writing history. Later, if they want to change the history curriculum, we are ready to be the first to acknowledge our mistakes with an open heart.”
But, he wonders, “is the other side prepared to acknowledge its ‘mistakes’ too?” The experience of former Palestinian Ambassador Abbas Zaki was not encouraging in this regard. His “official” Palestinian apology received a frosty response from the Lebanese Forces (LF) following the holding of talks that closed the book on the issue of missing persons and the LF massacres of Palestinians in Lebanon, he says. The school bell signals an end to the conversation.
The debate between the Lebanese about their history is endless, and may swamp the Palestinians if they opt to join in. The disagreements are over fundamentals and principles, and the very definition of homeland, citizens, revolutions, and martyrs.
Some want to portray Palestinians as monsters who came to destroy some Lebanese dream, or as occupiers and inciters of sedition. Some know the Palestinians’ first shots were fired against the enemy, whose identity the Lebanese are still incapable of agreeing on after many years of war.
The inclusion of an overview in the new Lebanese history textbook might be designed to answer a question that young Lebanese often hurl at their Palestinian counterparts: “Why don’t you go back to your own country if you don’t like it here?” The refugees often give sarcastic responses. They do not realize that the history curriculum taught at Lebanese schools stops at 1946 – three years after the end of the French mandate in Lebanon, and two years prior to the Palestinian Nakba.
This article is an edited translation from the Arabic Edition.
Uprooted Palestinian 
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!
No comments:
Post a Comment