Dear Neighbors:
I’ve never been so disappointed in our city. Last week I attended the Library Trustee’s monthly Board meeting which included an agenda item on the policy for reconsideration of a book the summer reading list. This was largely due to a letter that I and other Jewish residents sent regarding concerns with one book on the second grade summer reading list curated by the Watertown Free Public Library and Watertown School District. We shared our concerns with how it framed Israel as the oppressor and sought to teach a young reader a history of Palestine with ideological views often seen as anti-Israel propaganda. In our letter we asked for a dialogue so we could share our concerns and have a conversation. Did we expect the book to be removed from the list? Maybe not. Did we expect our public institution overseen by elected officials would at least hear our concerns? We naively did.
Watertown prides itself on diversity and inclusivity. However, in this case, we were faced with silence. The Library Director outright ignored our three requests to meet and discuss. All but one Trustee ignored our email. And then the propaganda machine arrived. Instead of having an informative discussion, a campaign was started claiming we were seeking to ban books and threaten people’s choice for what to read. Facebook groups started a campaign that said the Library was being “harassed.” And, as more comments flooded in (and still do), it was clear most never read the book nor wanted to consider its impact to a minority population already feeling threatened and vulnerable. Public comments from the Library Board Meeting likened our request to reconsider the book as facism and trying to remove Palestine culture from the library. Many said the summer reading list is purely optional and for parents to choose from, which seems contrary to the purpose of having a summer reading list at all. Even more, it devalues the work that staff have done to create the list. At last week’s meeting three of the 10 public comments shared concerns not just about a second grade book that had context well beyond a second graders critical thinking ability, but also about how the City ignored us. As we shared our concerns, people mumbled in the audience and two people approached us to argue with us afterwards. Despite all of this, at the end of the day, we just wanted a dialogue to share our concerns about one book — and be heard.
The rumors, lies, and rhetoric surfacing from this are both dangerous and disappointing. We all applaud the library’s intentions of representing diverse cultures. We also support the inclusion of other books sharing Palestinian culture and customs, along with Israeli culture and customs (for which no book was on the list), and the many other groups proudly represented in our City. The book we wanted to discuss did none of this. It was polarizing with pretty pictures.
The Middle East conflict is awful with so much suffering to so many innocent civilians. It requires the world’s humanity to help solve this tragic war. We need humanity and respect in Watertown, too — from our neighbors, elected officials, and the library. True dialogue doesn’t require agreement, only the willingness to listen to one another. I haven’t seen much of that here but remain optimistic that we’ll get there; I think we could all learn more about people’s concerns — and their hope for the future — if we actually didn’t just talk, but also listened.
Rachael Sack
Watertown, MA
I would be less concerned about this book if the Library had included a book, or article, detailing the 75 years of terrorist attacks, intifadas, and the three wars (1956, 1967, 1975) launched on Israel. But that isn’t going to happen.
Unclear – you want military history to be mandatorily included with children’s books? You know there is a mechanism for requesting specific titles at your library. Since you didn’t say any specific names, I’m wondering if perhaps your comment is not about recommendations so much as condemnations?
That’s because Israel has been terrorizing Palestinians and slaughtering innocent men, women and children for way longer than that. You reap what you sow.
Many reasonable people are aware of organized campaigns by groups like Moms for Liberty, to remove a wide range of books from school and public libraries. Book removal campaigns began with a small number of individual parents challenging specific titles, but the current trend is large-scale, coordinated efforts to restrict or remove multiple books. These book removal groups often cite concerns about explicit sexual content, profanity, violence, and political or religious ideologies. A recent American Library Association (ALA) survey found that 70 percent of parents oppose banning books in pubic libraries, with most parents having a high level of confidence in librarians’ and library boards’ decisions about age-appropriate book selections. The Watertown Free Public Library trustees exercised their discretionary authority not to remove the book Jewish parents found objectionable. It’s notable that the ALA found that many of the parent book removal proponents target books that disproportionately impact books written by or involving people of color, political and religious minorities, and LGBTQ+ authors. That indicates a deliberate attempt to silence certain voices rather than protect children.
As I understand the situation, no one is arguing to remove the book from the library—only not to highlight, promote, espouse a single viewpoint in an ancient and difficult conflict. At the exclusion of all other viewpoints. That’s not free speech, but coerced speech, and that’s a dealbreaker in my opinion. But only my opinion and others who share it. Our opinion is not to remove the book from the library. Not at all. Please don’t misunderstand or, worse, mischaracterize our words.
However all decisions for the library need to be discussed in a public forum as the library is a public institution so the complaint here that the concerned party wasn’t allowed to have behind closed doors conversation with the library director is not valid. The library followed their protocols to allow all concerned parties at all times to receive the exact same treatment.
-Sarah Bowman
It seems like your main complaint is that the public library wouldn’t meet with you privately, and instead insisted on following their standard operations for when concerns about books come up. As a public institution with operating rules in place, public libraries need to adhere to certain standards. If somebody is challenging a book it needs to be done in a public forum – otherwise directors could remove books randomly and at will without any accountability.
The library followed their standard process and had the issue discussed in an open forum. Seems like exactly what should happen is what happened! Kudos to our public librarians everywhere. They do so much for our cities.
Fantastic point Sarah! It’s embarassing to me as a Jew to see a fellow Jew demonstrate that we deserve “exceptional” treatment, given that Israel is given “exceptional” treatment when it comes to obeying international laws and complying with widely recognized norms and expectations of civilian safety during wars.
Public meetings are not standard operating procedures. This is the only time I have ever heard of it, and it wasn’t even a hearing given no one replied to anything, nor do they intend to.
Please check your info.
Public meetings are actually the operating norm for all public libraries (and public schools!) in fact the watertown public library has a once a month or possibly twice a month meeting that’s open to the public it’s advertised on their website however generally people don’t attend unless there’s something of concern that needs to be discussed because they’re usually honestly pretty boring.
I was unclear. Public meetings are normal operating procedure, you are correct. But they do not discuss book removals publicly. That is usually an internal matter for which the trustees do not get involved.
Sorry for my lack of clarity, but you need to stop saying that the people concerned are asking for special unusual privileges. We are asking only for the same treatment other groups get: serious consideration, a complete answer, and a willingness to be heard outside of a public forum. And we were not offered that.
Your misinformation is creating a false narrative that adds to our continued demonization in this process.
discussions on collections decisions are held publicly and the decisions are made privately at public libraries
Gotcha – so the real issue you all have is that your group had hoped to privately encourage the library to quietly remove the books you found objectionable from the summer reading list and instead you had to publicly discuss your concerns about the public library’s reading list and the community’s access to books you find objectionable?
So are you saying that you want your children to have a high opinion of a State that is committing genocide?
And is the word “genocide” only applicable when Jews are the victims?
I’m Jewish and can see clearly that Israel is continuing to erase Palestinians, as it has since before 1948. I would never want my grandchildren to view Israel with respect.
Stop playing the victim.
I’m very sorry to read of your experience, Ms. Sack—and utterly unsurprised. You went against The Narrative, and that can’t be allowed to happen. You didn’t want a book banned; you asked only for fairness and to be heard. Look where that got you. We letter-writers here were treated similarly by the Thought Crime Police squad.
That 4-8 year-olds should be exposed to the brutality of the Israeli-Arab conflict—over a century, even centuries, old—is itself a dangerous proposition. That no moral opposition is allowed shows how debased the self-described tolerant have become. All we argued was to keep the book, just don’t promote it to the exclusion of others. Look where that got us.
Israel is libeled in the press and slandered on the street all day, every day. The truth can’t keep up. Opinions of all sorts, ESPECIALLY those we disagree with, must be shared. Only that is a democracy. If ignoring or shouting down dissent (even threatening violence) is the new patriotism, we’ll just have to keep dissenting. Or submit, but where’s the honor in that?
Nothing new about how Israel is treated. Tom Lehrer (RIP) recognized that as well in his 1965 National Brotherhood Week satire:
“Oh, the Protestants hate the Catholics,
And the Catholics hate the Protestants,
And the Hindus hate the Moslems,
And everybody hates the Jews.”
A very simple solution:
Don’t reserve the book for your children. Nobody is forcing anyone to have their children read it. Instead of trying to remove the book, simply don’t read it. You still have that choice to make based on your own values.
And criticizing Israel’s policies is not antisemitism. It is a reaction to the actions of a political system, not related to the Jewish religion or Jewish people.
Israel is a nuclear power with access to unlimited resources from the United States. As a Jew, I find the victim-posturing AND the implication that Judaism = Zionism to be highly offensive.
Josh, though it’s quite hard to follow your comments, I’m seeing that you think the mainstream media is against Israel. Mainstream media outlets in the U.S. and much of the West tend to reflect pro-Zionist perspectives due to political alignment with U.S. foreign policy, influence from powerful pro-Israel lobbying groups, media ownership patterns, and historical narratives that frame Israel as a democratic ally. Only very recently has Palestine-sympathetic media been popping up, and that’s due to famine—the outlets didn’t seem as concerned with bombing multiple generations of a family into bloody dust.
I have to say, your reactiveness to the inclusion of a children’s book on Palestine is greatly out of proportion to the library issue at hand. I suppose that’s fitting given that Israel has waging an asymmetric assault on Palestinians since the Nakba.
As a Jew concerned with this topic and how my religion is represented, I would appreciate if you would try to make your comments a little more coherent. Perhaps fewer sarcastic remarks, since your writing level doesn’t offer clarity on when you’re being sincere or when you’re attempting the form of polemic.
It is obvious you haven’t seen the BBC or CNN reporting on the subject, to name a few. If that is not enough, go read Spain’s El Pais o Le Figaro. Plenty of anti-Israel bias there.
BTW, sorry about CPB, but you will still have WBUR to bash Israel.
You’re right—for too long Spain’s El Pais o Le Figar has had a stranglehold over our children’s library books. Their malicious influence must be stopped!
I thought we were discussing the MSM and Israel relationships, not what the MSM has to do with children’s books. “ Their malicious influence must be stopped!” May that be an attempt at sarcasm?
And sorry, I have yet to read Le Figar.
sorry, Erik did you forget that on August 4th at 5:50 you referenced El Pais o Le Figar as a an anti-Israel mouthpiece and then just now admit you haven’t actually ever looked at it? this does not look great for your reliability, my man
Rivka, I agree with you completely. Conflating Zionism with Judaism began when Zionists in Israel claimed that they represented all Jews, and that (rogue state) Israel is an exclusively Jewish state. That idea disgusts me. Israel: stop speaking for me! Don’t dare to say that criticism of your Fascist state is antisemitism. It is a lie that frightens people to fear speaking out for fear of being called “Antisemite” or “Self hating Jew.”
Sara:
I have forgotten nothing
I haven’t read Le Figar because it doesn’t exist. I read Le F i g a r o. Not a reliable reader, are you? Just go over Ms. Levy’s reply; I would suggest slowly.
“My man”? Not likely, ever. Where is the moderator?
And to think this all started over a children’s book. Or in asking for due consideration over a children’s book.
Godwin’s Law, right again. From Dictionary.com: “Godwin’s law is the proposition that the longer an internet argument goes on, the higher the probability becomes that something or someone will be compared to Adolf Hitler.”
There is disagreement on this thread, obviously. I’m still discovering posts from days ago with which I disagree down to the spelling and punctuation. But I’m standing down for now. I wish we could have shown more respect for each other, and if I violated that courtesy, I apologize. I concede nothing but the right to reply.
Dear Rachael,
You say “We also support the inclusion of other books sharing Palestinian culture and customs”
Then you also want to ban this book because it,s “polarizing with pretty pictures”.
I fined a lot of the promotion of Israel to also be polarizing with pretty pictures but don’t think that those publications should be banned. I find your request to be offensive but I won’t call for it to be banned. I would hope you can step back from the idea that Israel is all good and Palestine is all bad. Do you even see how Israel is perpetrating a holocaust on Palestine? Do you not see that Israel is the Nazi regime of the current century?
I say this as someone hoping you can see that maybe the book isn’t the problem, it’s a response to the problem.
Wow! Only moments ago, I wrote of the Left’s (un)fairness, intolerance, slander, and libel—and look what shows up. The Four Horsemen of the Leftist Apocalypse. Spooky. Or not so much after you see it often enough. Utterly predictable, actually.
Josh I’m wondering if you think the Hannibal directive is akin to a harbinger of apocalypse? Given that the directive is directly related to the subject of this debate, whereas the pop-Christian metaphor you chose isn’t…
I have no “godly” idea what you’re talking about. Perhaps you can elaborate?
A bit obscure, indeed:
“ The Hannibal Directive, also translated as Hannibal Procedure or Hannibal Protocol, is the name of a controversial procedure used by Israel Defense Forces to prevent the capture of Israeli soldiers by enemy forces”
The context in which is being used here is completely out of place, however.
You don’t know what the Hannibal directive is, yet you feel comfortable speaking authoritatively on Israeli/Gazan relations and the cultural response to them? Sir, please do your homework.
No, I meant I have no godly idea what you’re talking about when you asked: “I’m wondering if you think the Hannibal directive is akin to a harbinger of apocalypse?”
I still don’t. I ask again: what do you mean? How is it relevant to my comment? Also, the Book of Revelation is part of the Christian canon (with the possible exception of the Eastern Orthodox Church). To call a book of the New Testament “pop-Christian” might offend some Christians. That’s part of your right to free speech, of course, but I think it worth mentioning. As for my “homework”, I became absorbed in Middle East affairs on September 11, 2001, as did many Americans. Since then, I have become acutely aware of Arab terrorism against Israel over many decades; also of elections almost 20 years overdue in Gaza and Arab-occupied areas of Judea, Samaria, and Gaza; also of Israel’s removal of all Jewish soldiers and residents in Gaza in 2005.
“A Map for Falesteen” tells a tragic story of a people dispossessed. Just not by Israel. I hope parents and children read it in the light of truth, and in conjunction with some of the other books I discovered with remarkable ease.
Reminder comments must be signed with your full name.
A commenter asked the name of the book. It is “A Map for Falasteen: A Palestinian Child’s Search for Home.”
Reminder that comments must be signed with your full name.
Thanks, Charlie for providing the title of the book. I have placed my name on the wait list in order to read the book. In 2007, the Council voted to rescind its affiliation with ADL’s “No Place for Hate.” The vote centered on the group’s not recognizing the Armenian Genocide and solely on this matter. Watertown’s adoption of “No Place for Hate” was sincere and a core principle of the Town. We should not let recent events divide us. I find there is no right or wrong in war and unfortunately, instead of finding common ground we are swept along with the tide. The history books I read said that America was based on religious freedom.
Not quite:
“ New York, NY, August 21, 2007 … Abraham H. Foxman, National Director of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) today issued the following statement:
In light of the heated controversy that has surrounded the Turkish-Armenian issue in recent weeks, and because of our concern for the unity of the Jewish community at a time of increased threats against the Jewish people, ADL has decided to revisit the tragedy that befell the Armenians.
We have never negated but have always described the painful events of 1915-1918 perpetrated by the Ottoman Empire against the Armenians as massacres and atrocities. On reflection, we have come to share the view of Henry Morgenthau, Sr. that the consequences of those actions were indeed tantamount to genocide. If the word genocide had existed then, they would have called it genocide.”
Thank you for your sensible letter, Ms. Sack.
I suppose those who criticize you here [and elsewhere] would support the WPL efforts to include in its reading list a coloring book version of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
You write “… how the City ignored us.” I guess no DEI for you and those supporting your views.
People who acknowledge the existence of Palestinian children are, in your view, equivalent to white power conspiracy theorists who believe in The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. For those not familiar, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is a debunked antisemitic hoax, fabricated in early 20th-century Russia to falsely portray Jews as plotting world domination. Despite being exposed as a forgery, it has fueled widespread antisemitism, influencing Nazi ideology and modern conspiracy theories.
Mr. Jepsen seems to imply that those who wouldn’t object to a Palestinian children’s book in their library are actual Nazis. Mr. Jepsen, that outrageous comparison is why people can’t have reasonable conversations. As a Jew, I’d rather you didn’t downplay very real, very damaging conspiracy theories by comparing them to harmless things. To do as you did contributes to anti-Jewish sentiment.
No. Nothing of the sort. You misunderstood the intent of my comment.
Just because “A Map…” depicts an adorable child in a book adorned with pretty colors and details, such does not hide its true purpose. Hence the comparison with another nefarious publication which would not be rendered harmless in a cutesy graphic version, such as coloring book.
I am at a loss to understand where you get the comparison of “A Map…” supporters to Nazis. Same goes to your “anti-Jewish sentiment” comment.
Right or wrong, if any other minority community came to the library with a concern, would the library refuse to engage with them? I expect it would only happen for the Jews. And that is anti-Semitism. (Perhaps it would happen with all groups, in which case that is different, but also a problem.)
The concern now for me is not about the book, but the alienation from the library, an institution who claims “You Belong.”
“You Belong”
But they don’t say where.
The library didn’t refuse to engage. They followed the exact same protocol that they follow with literally every single other group that brings a question or concern. Which is to have the concern discussed in a public forum with the trustees and other members of the community. We should be happy that our public institutions are following the same rules regardless of what group is bringing a concern that is fairness and is good.
This is inaccurate. There are a lot of details that happened before we got to that point. Also generally they don’t discuss these things in a public forum where the minority group can be further vilified.
Probably those details should have been disclosed in the letter then, so readers could understand the full picture 🙂
I’ve felt genuinely surprised—and honestly a bit disheartened—by some of the responses to Rachael’s letter. It’s made me wonder whether the content was truly read with care.
From my understanding, she’s not calling for any books to be banned. Rather, she’s pointing out what feels like an inconsistency in how sensitive topics are handled by our public institutions, and she’s asking for something I think we all value: thoughtful dialogue, for the good of our whole community.
It also raises a sincere question for me—if the library offers a reconsideration form, doesn’t that suggest a willingness to engage in conversation with concerned Watertown citizens, instead of simply dismissing their input?
Speaking for myself, I do feel uneasy about introducing a book with such a complex and potentially polarizing topic at the elementary level. Young children process information so differently depending on their stage of development, family context, and emotional maturity. It feels like a surprising choice—especially when there are so many other rich and meaningful topics that can help children grow in resilience, empathy, and critical thinking, while also fostering respectful dialogue.
What concerns me most is the possibility that adult worldviews—whatever their origin—are being embedded into education in ways that don’t always align with what children need at this stage in their lives. That’s not about assigning blame, but about a genuine fear that we may unintentionally hinder children’s emotional development and capacity for independent thought.
It becomes even more difficult to place trust in our institutions when concerns are framed as threats, rather than opportunities for understanding and improvement. It shouldn’t be controversial to ask questions. In fact, I believe that’s how healthy communities function—through honest, compassionate dialogue where different perspectives are allowed to coexist.
We all want what’s best for our children. And I believe we get there not by shutting each other down, but by listening—truly listening—with humility and care.
I’m also genuinely concerned by the amount of people who seemingly don’t understand how jobs work. To work as a children’s librarian at a public library you have to undergo a minimum of two years education in library science focusing on child development and children’s literature. You then have to continue professional development staying up-to-date on educational theories and the publishing world. The people who compile these lists of books for summer reading are experts in their fields. They understand child development and reading levels and work closely with educators and publishers to remain on top of a changing field of thought in terms of childhood development and education.
I’m sorry that some people feel misrepresented because their desire to remove a book from a reading list is being treated as a request to remove a book from a library. But if a book belongs to the library we don’t get to decide that it can only secretly be in the library and not advertised on a reading list. I believe that if Ms. Sack and co are to take a step back they would see if that is actually a really dangerous approach to have clandestine meetings that result in changing reading this for children without all citizens of the town being able to be part of the conversation.
As I’ve said twice already, this is not a matter the library typically discusses in public, so while I wouldn’t call meetings in private “clandestine,” I suppose you could if you want.
Which community are you from that does these meetings in public? None in Massachusetts that I’m aware of, but I’m mostly familiar with Watertown where I watch all the public meetings.
Rachel, you probably haven’t seen that because there hasn’t been an issue like this in Watertown before. I’ve been here (East Watertown) for 7 years and before that I lived in Southie, North Carolina and New York. In NC and NY there were always public meetings to discuss people who were questioning the inclusion of books in libraries or schools.
I know people in the north don’t want to think they’re the same as southerners so here’s an example of a public meeting about removing books from a public library in Ludlow, MA from 2023 https://www.wbur.org/news/2023/06/15/ludlow-school-committee-banned-books-libraries.
Anyway I thought it might also be interesting for you to read the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression’s page about book control in libraries https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/faq-libraries-bookstores-and-free-speech
You have raised the essential issues about this topic. The book’s subject and intent, while OK for many readers, it is not suitable for the suggested young audience. Thanks for such thoughtful commentary.
The existence of Palestinian children is not a “complex and potentially polarizing topic.” They are children just like your children and mine. You should want what’s best for the Arab and Palestinian children in your community and elsewhere, who deserve a sense of home just like yours and mine do. I sense neither humility nor care.
Dear Rivka, If you take the time to read comments with care, you may begin to move beyond the blinding pull of hostility that stands in the way of bridging diverse perspectives. Once again, your message rests on assumptions that simply aren’t there. With deeper awareness of how your accusations impact others, there’s real potential for growth—not just for you, but for all of us. This is my wish for our community in Watertown.
I truly hope you’ll take that to heart.
Many people in this conversation could spend more time practicing Tikkun Olam and less time practicing the mental gymnastics that allow them to think censorship of a suggested reading list is anything but a problem.
I fully support the right to free expression and the exchange of diverse perspectives—these are essential to a healthy, democratic society. However, freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences or critique, especially when that speech causes harm to children. When rhetoric spreads hate, misinformation, or dehumanizing narratives, it can create real-world consequences for individuals and communities, and I care about this for our children in Watertown. Acknowledging and calling out that harm is not censorship—it is a form of civic responsibility.
Censorship involves the suppression of ideas by an authority to silence dissent. What Watertown citizens are doing is using their own voice to highlight how certain messages can perpetuate prejudice and undermine the safety and dignity of others. That’s not silencing others—it’s adding to the conversation in a way that prioritizes truth, accountability, and community well-being. Rejecting it is a form of hatred. In any functioning democracy, free speech and the responsibility to challenge harmful narratives must coexist.
Wow. The readiness to cast aspersions on others who have a different point of view is not exactly Tikkun Olam. It’s a heckuva irony, though, to give credit where it’s due.
Cecile,
The only hostility I read is that of the hostility to a book for Palestinian children and by extension to Palestinians. Do you not see reason for outrage when Israel is murdering innocent men woman and children everyday and in the many thousands. All to steal their lands en mass instead of slowly like they have been doing for generations. Now they don’t like that a book for Palestinian children has become part of a suggested reading list.
Outrage of the treatment of Palestinians is the least of what we should feel.
My personal feelings about the war between Hamas and Israel are not relevant to a child attending an elementary school in Watertown. Neither are yours, nor those of the librarian. And that is precisely the point I want to make.
As adults, we must be mindful that our personal beliefs or emotional responses to complex global issues should never cloud our judgment when it comes to meeting the basic developmental needs of children. Children have a fundamental right to grow and learn in an environment that protects them from being drawn into adult conflicts.
When even adults are struggling to handle these matters with care and respect, it’s unrealistic—and potentially harmful—to expect young children to process or engage with them in a healthy way. We owe it to them to preserve their space for growth, safety, and emotional well-being.
Is the best thing for Palestinians children to leave Hamas in control of Gaza where they bring children to dance of the coffins of murdered Israeli children and to continue for them to be indoctrinated to hate Jews and to serve as human shields in the next al aqsa flood that Hamas propaganda promises?
What a racist thing to say with so much murder of innocent Palestinians numbering in the many thousands.
First, they are not murders. They are killings and casualties of war brought by the Hamas.
Second, explain where do you see racism in the aforementioned comment, as it would escape most people who just tend to read and interpret what is written. Period.
Its not racist if it’s true.
I have spoken with firmer IDF soldiers who have witnessed Hamas operative intentionally setting up IEDs behind children playing.
Also read the Hamas charters. They are devoted to using Gaza as a launch pad for eliminating Israel and gazans children as fodder for this mission.
https://avalon.law.yale.edu/21st_century/hamas.asp
They updated their charter in 2017 but it’s basically the same thing. They just replaced “Jew” with “Zionist” or “colonizer” to appeal to westerners.
As for the coffins, see it for yourself
https://www.instagram.com/reel/DGTazWatgNP/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link
It is racist to accept claims that tens of thousands of combatant deaths were woman and children when they were not or that 16000 children will die of starvation in the next 48 hours when they will not (and clearly did not) just because the claims are leveled against an incorrectly labeled “colonizer state”
Thanks for all the comments. This has been one of the most vigorous discussions I have seen on Watertown News. New thoughts on the issue in the letter are welcome, but some of the discussion has gone into tangents or are repetitive.
Thanks.
My thoughts on the Watertown libraries inclusion of “a map for falasteen” on their summer reading list with no Jewish or Israeli perspective are as follows.
It is bad teaching which does Watertown’s children a disservice. These books present only a one-sided perspective (in this case ahistorical) that valorizes one side and demonizes the other in what is actually a complex geopolitical conflict to impressionable young children. The book itself also goes so far as to valorize the violent acts of one side by praising stone-throwing. Without the inclusion of the alternative perspective or discussion of the Jewish historical experience and the seeds of the conflict that go back generations, this amounts to propaganda, not pedagogy.
The book is factually wrong and lies to children about history in a way that is racist against Jews. The book states that “this land has been called many names but she [Palestine] is the oldest of them all.” Imagine teaching children that the national identity of the United States supersedes the indigenous identity of first nation peoples? This would obviously be a discriminatory lie. However this is precisely what the book does by falsely stating that the Arab-Palestinian identity which traces back to Arab conquest colonization in the 6th century is older than the indigenous Jewish identity which existed for over a thousand years earlier. Lying to children whose parents may not know better is not teaching and libraries should not valorize lies as free speech unless they want to be just like Tiktok. The lack of information on the Jewish indigenous connection to Israel in any of the other reading recommendations is clearly discriminatory.
It is discriminatory because it creates a hostile environment with people whose themselves, their relatives and/or loved ones may have been directly harmed in the ongoing armed conflict which is in no small part sustained by ahistorical viewpoints espoused in this book: that Jews do not have a historic connection to the land of Israel and that Israel is the sole aggressor in the conflict. The Jewish indigenous connection to Israel is indisputable (see below). Arab states and Palestinian nationalist leadership deserve an enormous share of the blame for the conflict in part because the Arab state’s unconditional refusal of any plan to partition in 1937 and 1947 and their continued refusal to repatriate refugees from the conflict that they started when they rejected the partition and attacked, resulting in the “Nakba”.
Israel repatriated more Jews expelled from Arab lands in the years following the 1948 conflict than Palestinians that were displaced by the conflict and Palestinians have repeatedly turned down Israeli peace offers with no reasonable counter offer numerous times. Palestinian nationalist charters that are still in place demonize Israel and declare it illegitimate. There is no Israeli charter that unconditionally proscribes a Palestinian state though Israelis are loath to allow for a state that does not recognize Israel’s sovereignty at the same time. Erasing this perspective and ignoring Jewish and Israeli historical experience to demonize them is discriminatory, especially towards Jewish community members who have been directly harmed in the conflict.
I’ve said all I have to say, but want to thank you for your thoughtful comment.
Thank you John. I am greatly dismayed by the ignorance of history being demonstrated by many people commenting here. Especially the ignorance of some of the ones who identify as Jewish.
Wow. So now we are calling fellow Jews ignorant on top of anti-Semitic?
That certainly belies the call for “. . .an inclusive space that promotes diverse perspectives. . .”.
So if other Jews disagree with you, then they are lesser Jews? Wait a minute. . .couldn’t that be construed as anti-Semitic?
Thank you, Aaron. You are not alone in your beliefs and understanding of history.
Based on the contempt with which they have treated Jewish parents in Watertown and the other issues I outlined above, its clear to me that the Watertown library director and the trustees would clearly be more suited to jobs at free speech maximalist institutions like Facebook and Tiktok or at ideologically (rather than fact) driven media organizations such as one America news network instead of at a publicly funded library whose mission is to provide an inclusive space that promotes diverse perspectives that are also anchored in historical reality and are not hostile to community members based on their protected categories.
New leadership is clearly needed.
I think we’re getting well into the weeds in this discussion. If you have new thoughts on the original post please add them.