A related (or maybe underlying?) question in teaching about the holocaust, which is perhaps unique to Israel (but not necessarily) is that of finding the balance between the universal and particularist lessons of the holocaust. I mean, I understand your point about the educational value of focusing on the perpetrators rather than (only?) on the victims - especially in a sociocultural environment that is fixed on individualized victimhood that capitalizes on group identity. But this is quite problematic, to say the least, when most if not all of the pupils sitting in class are the grandchildren or great-grandchildren of the victims. I'm not making a theoretical counter-argument here about human nature but merely pointing out that the issue may not be, after all, whether the focus is on the victims or perpetrators. In my opinion, the emphasis should be on dynamics and processes - both particular (which covers the Jewish history/persecution of Jews throughout history) and universal (the circumstances under which people could be made into perpetrators). Understanding how people could do the evil things that they did does not and should not come to mean that there is no room to talk about why (a significant portion of) those evil deeds were specifically targeted at Jews. Such an approach would likely result in a better understanding of what genocide is, a more in depth and nuanced understanding of Jewish and Israeli experience and concerns, and hopefully also help in reducing the amount of cliche-wielding anti-zionists on social media that somehow manage to simultaneously deny the holocaust, glorify Hitler, and compare Israel to Nazi Germany.
And one last thing. In a previous post, Alex, you said that you didn't confront the person from your class who took down the hostages posters. Regardless of the specific circumstances you were in. If we are talking about hate, Jews, and enabling dynamics and processes - I'm genuinly curious if you have any reflections in terms of at what point do you intervene? When you see people harassing Jews on campus? When Israeli academics are openly discriminated against? When you see a person beating up someone for being a zionist?
To your first point, I completely agree that the dynamics and processes approach is where Holocaust education (and genocide education in general) should be; I see that as where the education leads. Perhaps I should have added that the reason I think a more confrontational approach is necessary is BECAUSE of our culture's inordinate approach toward historical and present victimhood (especially when the victimhood status is just sort of accepted rather than justified or explained). But yes, I do think emphasizing the dynamics and processes is a vital component to the overall educational project of teaching the Holocaust (and genocide/crimes against humanity).
In regards to your questions, those are really good. My decision to not say anything in the moment was mostly just a selfish one (like I said, it was the end of the semester and I just wanted to go home). My approach has been to be a little more bullish on things this semester, including making one of my research papers be focused on the Arab Revolt of 1936-1939, in which I make it a point to show how Arab nationalists are just as responsible for their failures as the British and the Zionists. Coincidentally, just two nights ago, we discussed U.S. imperialism in the Middle East and I was very careful to make it clear that Zionism was as much a nationalist movement as the Arab nationalist movements were and that even though settlement and displacement occurred in a way that benefitted the Zionists and hurt the Arabs, the empire in question was the British one (and earlier, the Ottoman one). Frankly, I don't think a lot of my classmates are really all that informed on the subject and are mostly just seeing it as part of their political identity rather than something requiring a time investment to understand. Basically, I think simply explaining the history in a forum where people are forced to listen (as classmates) will do some good to disabuse some people of simplistic thinking.
Unfortunately, that is a slower method and by no means guaranteed way to deradicalized people who have planted their feet in a political mentality. In more extreme cases, if I saw one of those pro-Palestine rallies on campus involve physical and even verbal harassment of visibly Jewish students or faculty, I would almost certainly do what I could to stop it or at least document it and provide the evidence to school authorities. In terms of rallies just being generally unpleasant and broadly abusive in language? I don't think anything should be done; those students have just as much right to express themselves as I do. It's definitely troubling that "Zionist" has become an acceptable cross-ideological dogwhistle, especially online, but I think we need to allow it. A LOT of people are seeing through it, and not just Jews or righteous gentiles.
A related (or maybe underlying?) question in teaching about the holocaust, which is perhaps unique to Israel (but not necessarily) is that of finding the balance between the universal and particularist lessons of the holocaust. I mean, I understand your point about the educational value of focusing on the perpetrators rather than (only?) on the victims - especially in a sociocultural environment that is fixed on individualized victimhood that capitalizes on group identity. But this is quite problematic, to say the least, when most if not all of the pupils sitting in class are the grandchildren or great-grandchildren of the victims. I'm not making a theoretical counter-argument here about human nature but merely pointing out that the issue may not be, after all, whether the focus is on the victims or perpetrators. In my opinion, the emphasis should be on dynamics and processes - both particular (which covers the Jewish history/persecution of Jews throughout history) and universal (the circumstances under which people could be made into perpetrators). Understanding how people could do the evil things that they did does not and should not come to mean that there is no room to talk about why (a significant portion of) those evil deeds were specifically targeted at Jews. Such an approach would likely result in a better understanding of what genocide is, a more in depth and nuanced understanding of Jewish and Israeli experience and concerns, and hopefully also help in reducing the amount of cliche-wielding anti-zionists on social media that somehow manage to simultaneously deny the holocaust, glorify Hitler, and compare Israel to Nazi Germany.
And one last thing. In a previous post, Alex, you said that you didn't confront the person from your class who took down the hostages posters. Regardless of the specific circumstances you were in. If we are talking about hate, Jews, and enabling dynamics and processes - I'm genuinly curious if you have any reflections in terms of at what point do you intervene? When you see people harassing Jews on campus? When Israeli academics are openly discriminated against? When you see a person beating up someone for being a zionist?
To your first point, I completely agree that the dynamics and processes approach is where Holocaust education (and genocide education in general) should be; I see that as where the education leads. Perhaps I should have added that the reason I think a more confrontational approach is necessary is BECAUSE of our culture's inordinate approach toward historical and present victimhood (especially when the victimhood status is just sort of accepted rather than justified or explained). But yes, I do think emphasizing the dynamics and processes is a vital component to the overall educational project of teaching the Holocaust (and genocide/crimes against humanity).
In regards to your questions, those are really good. My decision to not say anything in the moment was mostly just a selfish one (like I said, it was the end of the semester and I just wanted to go home). My approach has been to be a little more bullish on things this semester, including making one of my research papers be focused on the Arab Revolt of 1936-1939, in which I make it a point to show how Arab nationalists are just as responsible for their failures as the British and the Zionists. Coincidentally, just two nights ago, we discussed U.S. imperialism in the Middle East and I was very careful to make it clear that Zionism was as much a nationalist movement as the Arab nationalist movements were and that even though settlement and displacement occurred in a way that benefitted the Zionists and hurt the Arabs, the empire in question was the British one (and earlier, the Ottoman one). Frankly, I don't think a lot of my classmates are really all that informed on the subject and are mostly just seeing it as part of their political identity rather than something requiring a time investment to understand. Basically, I think simply explaining the history in a forum where people are forced to listen (as classmates) will do some good to disabuse some people of simplistic thinking.
Unfortunately, that is a slower method and by no means guaranteed way to deradicalized people who have planted their feet in a political mentality. In more extreme cases, if I saw one of those pro-Palestine rallies on campus involve physical and even verbal harassment of visibly Jewish students or faculty, I would almost certainly do what I could to stop it or at least document it and provide the evidence to school authorities. In terms of rallies just being generally unpleasant and broadly abusive in language? I don't think anything should be done; those students have just as much right to express themselves as I do. It's definitely troubling that "Zionist" has become an acceptable cross-ideological dogwhistle, especially online, but I think we need to allow it. A LOT of people are seeing through it, and not just Jews or righteous gentiles.