In his article called “Drivel as history,”Ellison explains that he had the students do research:
Working in teams, the students went back 4,000 years to the time of Abraham, when Jews believe God gave them their "Promised Land." Then to A.D. 70, when the Romans kicked them out, allowing the Palestinians to move in. Then to post-World War II when the United Nations gave the land back to the Jews, displacing the Palestinians.
To which he poses the question, "So, who has the better claim to the land?" and an animated discussion ensued. Ellison implies that he did an appropriate bit of teaching here by allowing the students to find out how “messy” history is.
Assembly Bill 137
Ellison’s other point, however, is to argue against Assembly Bill 137 by Chuck DeVore, R-Irvine, and Michael Duvall, R-Anaheim, which would replace clauses in already existing law codes restricting communist activity; the bill would “replace[the communist codes] with a prohibition on membership in and financial support of, foreign terrorist organizations.” The bill “would also make it illegal to teach untruth in the service of a foreign terrorist organization.” Federal statues prohibiting these things already are in effect.
Ellison thinks that if this bill were passed, he would lose his job. Does that mean the Ellison has membership in and/or supports foreign terrorist organizations? Or does it mean that he teaches falsehoods in order to support terrorism?
Teaching Falsehoods
The title of his article, “Drivel as history,” is quite relevant. Of course, it would be one-sided to teach that any country is perfect or that any country is perfectly evil. But it is incompetent to lead students in a discussion of the kind mentioned earlier. By simplifying the history of Israel to such a degree, he essentially does teach his students falsehoods.
For example, in 70 A.D., the Romans did not merely give the land of Israel to the “Palestinians.” The Romans actually created the Palestinians. After killing untold numbers of Jews, enslaving others, and driving out even more, the Romans renamed the land of Israel, deriving the word “Palestine” from a rival group called “Philistines.” The Romans chose the term “Palestine” for two reasons, to further humiliate the Jews and to finally eliminate them culturally.
Ellison simplistically claims that the Roman’s “allow[ed] the Palestinians to move in,” but those who “moved in” were Arabs, Christians, and other groups. And then he again simplistically claims that the UN “gave” the land back to the Jews.
The fact is that despite all the destruction done to Jews by the Romans, there were still Jews living in the land of Israel, which the Romans renamed “Palestine.” This Jewish population continued to grow, prosper, and rebuild their culture. After WWII, when the British Mandate was divided into Jewish-Palestine and Arab-Palestine, the Jews continued to develop their portion of land, and the many Jews who immigrated to the area bought their land; nothing was “given” to them by the UN.
Oversimplification
And the Jews did not expel the Palestinians; in fact, the Jews encouraged the Arabs to remain, and those who did remain continued to prosper alongside the Jews. When the UN made the designation of Jewish-Palestine and Arab-Palestine, the Jews accepted the division, but the Arabs did not.
The Arab states advised the Arab Palestinians to leave the area, so that after they attacked and destroyed Israel, the Arab Palestinians could return and have all of Palestine. Then after Israel declared its independence on May 14, 1948, five Arab states, Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq attacked Israel.
Ellison makes it sound so simple, even as he calls it messy. But the worst is that he uses the term “Palestinians” as if they were already an established culture that had earlier replaced the Jews. This, of course, is not the case, and he does his students a disservice by not informing them of that fact and just letting them leave that discussion with the simple notion that history is messy.
