Slashdot Mirror
Holocaust Dropped From Some UK Schools
dteichman2 writes "It appears that some UK schools are ignoring the Holocaust. A government-backed study, funded by the Department for Education and Skills, found that some teachers are reluctant to teach history lessons on the Holocaust for fear of offending Muslim students whose beliefs include Holocaust denial. Additionally, similar problems are being encountered with lessons on the Crusades because these lessons contradict teachings from local mosques."
I guess if your "beliefs" include Holocaust denial, then you're excactly the person who needs a history lesson.
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
Disgusting if true, but the Daily Mail is the UK's equivalent of Fox News...
We already have schools ignoring real science to avoid offending radical Christians.
Why does accommodating religion nearly always harm society?
"We are all geniuses when we dream"
- E.M. Cioran
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
And I thought American schools were bad for "teaching the controversy" of Intelligent Design.
What happened to "lest we forget"???
You know, there's verifiable evidence of the Holocaust. Photos. Movies. Graveyards. Camps. Survivors.
This is a dark day for the human race.
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
So we don't want to talk about the killing for 6 million (mainly Jews but of course we have gypsies, POWs, political prisoners, etc) because we will offend some radical Muslims. So by NOT talking about it we have offended the Jewish people, the Jewish faith, and anyone who thinks not talking about the mass murder is a bad idea.
I am sure I can see the reasoning though (being serious now): If we piss of the Jews they will complain vs. if we piss off the Muslims the radicals will riot, burn things, etc.
The day we stop discussing facts/history because somebody may be offended is the day we are all screwed.
It was an April Fool's joke. And it was done in bad taste (what do you expect from the Mail).
It's a pretty notorious one. Cmon editors.
the more they over-think the plumbing the easier it is to stop up the pipe
Corollary to Godwin's Law: As political correctness increases the chances of ignoring the holocaust approach one.
Not true. The example given is that allegedly one school didn't choose it as GCSE (Key Stage 4 - 14-16 year olds) coursework, for that reason. However it's still compulsory to teach the Holocaust in Key Stage 3 (11-14 year olds).
Sorry. History occurred one way. It's not a relative thing. You can argue the ifs and why, but at some point you have to look at the pure documented evidence and make a judgment. The mountain of evidence on the Holocaust can't not be washed away just because people think that people ought to decide for themselves if something occured or didn't. It did occur, and any belief otherwise can not be justified by the facts.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/65634 29.stm
http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/holocaust. asp
From the looks of it they are really talking about 1 school, out of the thousands in the UK that has decided not to teach, what are, optional subjects. From next year teaching the holocaust will apparently become compulsory. I wasn't taught about the crusades at school either but I don't think that had anything to do with offending the 2 muslims in the class and was more about their being other things to teach.
I wasn't aware that holocaust denial was a part of the Muslim religion, especially since their holy books etc were written long before it actually happened and I'm not sure exactly what teaching about the Crusades goes on inside mosques but if this teaching is correct then teaching it in schools as well will just re-enforce the lessons and lead to better exam grades for Muslims.
Not only is this 'story' over a month old, but it is 95% bullshit. Snopes, though, has you covered.
Quoting: 'There are no plans to stop teaching the Holocaust. Indeed, the education department's plan seems to be ensuring that it is taught everywhere. A spokesman for the Department of Education and Skills (DES) maintained that "The Adjegbo report on citizenship [a different report authored by Sir Keith Adjegbo and released in January 2007] said key British historical events must be taught" and that while "the national curriculum is a broad framework and there is scope for schools to make their own decisions, teaching elements including the Holocaust and key British events will be compulsory."'
I came here for a good argument
Did their clue bag get cut? Are they friends with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or David Duke or something? By avoiding teaching about one of the worst examples of intolerance and hatred in human history, they contribute to the problem. And let's face it, there are a lot of reports of Muslims in the UK becoming increasingly radicalized, because they are learning hatred and distorted history in the mosques. The Brits are cutting their own throats.
I didn't think the house band in Hell would play this badly.
This is one of the reasons why I changed my mind on the Danish cartoons that enraged the muslim world so much.
Fear cannot be allowed to dictate what we say or teach.
If you say what you think and someone threatens your life for saying it, they have broken the law in most civilized countries. Send them to jail.
In this case it's not even a matter of belief. It's a matter of fact. The Holocaust happened and denying it is in itself illegal in some countries. Rewriting history is a very serious thing, even though it's being done on a daily basis. History is there for us to learn from so we do not repeat it. We better learn our lessons or we're bound to make the same mistakes over and over.
Badgers, we don't need no stinking badgers! - UHF
I'm British. I'm guessing most of the readers here are not. PLEASE don't assume that the Daily Mail is representative of, or in touch with, any part of British culture. They are a populist tabloid who don't shy from publishing any old headline-grabbing bollocks without the slightest grain of truth. It was the Daily Mail, as I recall, who published a list of paedophiles, most of whom turned out to be paedotricians. Without even checking the source, I can reliably recommend that the Slashdot editors pull this story; there won't be an ounce of truth in it. Believe me, if there was, it would be all over the mainstream press, not just one particular tabloid.
If there were no schools in the UK, Roger Waters would have written every song about his mother.
The future isn't here until I can type "car keys" into Google and have it say "You left them in your pants last night."
> ...it's their right to believe what they choose.
No. Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs, not their own reality. You get to to have your own ideas about what facts mean but you don't get your own facts. 2+2=4 no matter how hard you believe otherwise.
Reality is that which doesn't change no matter how hard you wish it otherwise. The Holocost is objective reality. The fact the whole Middle East was on the Axis side is also objective reality. The fact they LOST WWII is objective reality. And in the end that last fact is the heart of the matter. Because if all three of the facts I just stated are reality their own worldview can't exist, so they collectively went into denial. Because it all comes down to their objection of the Western powers setting up Israel. Here in Reality winning WWII gave the victors the right to remake the defeated enemies territories including, granting Israel to the surviving Jews, splitting up Germany, tearing apart Japanese society and remaking it in our own image, etc.
The difference is we didn't occupy the Middle East and force their backwards asses into the 20th Century, mostly because before oil was discovered nobody cared enough. That was a mistake, but hindsight is always better than foresight. What is happening now with appeasing the crazies is obviously stupid to anyone outside government and the far left. If we won't stand up and defend the teaching of objective REALITY how is the West supposed to muster the courage to defend it's BELIEFS?
Democrat delenda est
I think you're inferring emotion, based upon your own preconceptions. Moderation is a numerical system. Things are not "violently" moderated. They might be "quickly" or "repeatedy" moderated. Can you show me an example of a post that mentions the holocaust or holocaust denial and which was not either completely offtopic, or an emotional appeal instead of a logical argument?
Now don't get me wrong. I'm all in favor of discussion of the holocaust. My grandfather did not like to talk about the war, but he made a point of telling all of us kids that the deniers were full of crap because he saw the furnaces full of bones and the camps. For the most part, however, the topic is not pertinent to subjects being discussed on Slashdot and an impartial audience probably should mod them down, regardless of nationality.
Am I the only person who sees this story coming from the Daily Mail as just a little odd, given their support for the Nazis during the pre-WWII era? I tend to take their views with a grain of salt (for example are the schools who decline to teach the Holocaust publicly or privately funded?).
With all of that said I find the concept of "balanced treatment" in an educational environment revolting. Plurality's sake shouldn't lend itself to falsehoods, lies and distortions and if a fact hurts someone's feeling I'm sorry, but maybe they should just accept that the Earth is round, not flat.
Well, I don't recall my own high school history being terribly accurate on the subject. It was presented in the context that 6 million Jews were killed in concentration camps for no reason other than being jewish. There was never any mention that the Nazis also killed 9 million non-jews (including Poles, Russian POWs, Gypsies, other christian sects like Jehovas Witnesses, etc), or that half of those 6 million jews were killed for being Polish as much as any other reason. I'm no scholar on the subject, and this post isn't meant to shed light on anything except that the typical high school education dumbs the whole complicated mess down to 2 things: Concentration camps and 6 million dead Jews. Except that the vast majority of the dead weren't actually killed in concentration camps. Again, let me repeat my point: high school history takes a complex event and dumbs it down to a couple of multiple choice questions. I'm inclined to think that a more accurate and detailed history lesson would draw fewer objections. The above paragraph takes a couple of stats haphazardly lifted from Wikipedia and contains no serious scholarship. No flames please.
Let's be real. The "history" we learn is nothing more than the history we like to learn. That's always been so, and UK teachers just adapt to new circumstances with new pupils that won't like the old history. There are many facts that are either ignored or twisted to fit the needs of the political whim of the moment.
The Nazis were defeated mainly by the USSR, not by the USA, even if that's not what you learn. The Japanese _were_ defeated by the USA, but the way of doing it, killing and maiming hundreds of thousands of civilians in an atomic inferno is presented as rather the right thing to do, or, at the very least, as a great technical achievement. The holocaust is much remembered, and special laws passed to forbid the denial of the fact, but other much bigger killings go as footnotes in history books. Japanese don't teach about "comfort" women. The paper of England in the slave trade is usually hushed in the classrooms. Spain is indignant when Ben-Laden speaks about it being part of Al-Andalus, because in its history books, it's defined as a re-conquering, even if the people that re-conquered it had nothing to do with the people that lost it in the first place. France prefers not to speak too much about torture in Alger. Israelis will tell you that it's all right if they took the land from Palestinian people after WW2, because it "belonged" to them, somehow. I doubt they would return the land to some previous inhabitants of it, if the situation ever came up.
And so on. There is not such thing as "objective" history, and those teachers are just recognizing it. After all, we must remember that George Orwell, who came up with the idea of automatic history rewriting, was British.
Rome taught me patience and assiduous application to detail. Virtues which temper the boldness of great, general views.
In fact, I think if you read the book, the Jews may have been promises the 'promised land' but they committed genocide in the process of claiming it.
Really? Could you show us all the extermination camps? Where the victims were tossed into ovens, or babies tossed into the air and impaled upon bayonettes, or the poison gas showers?
Reading your post, that line came straight out of the arab narrative. They love to claim genocide, holocaust, war crimes, and so forth. In the process, they denigrate those terms, the real victims of those actions, and impede progress at a resolution. This also presumes the objective truth of the arab narrative, which, history has not been kind to. It appears that numerous fictions were invented purely to continue and prolong this conflict. One of those fictions are the `palestinian' people. They were invented in the 1964 time line. Not in 1948.
What happened in 1948 was the founding of one country and the immediate launching of a war to eradicate said country by angry arabs that didn't get their way. The arabs were given over 80% of the region that was supposed be divided, Jordan or Trans-Jordan was part of what the Balfour declaration had provided as part of the Jewish national homeland. Churchill wanted to provide a place for his hashemite buddies to hole up after being kicked out of the arabian peninsula by the wahabbis, who we know as the `modern' house of Saud. So Churchill sliced off everything west of the Jordan river and created Jordan. The Jews were supposed to live with the rest. All during this time, from 1900 onwards, well, 1880 if you read other histories, the arabs behaved there about the same as they behave today. Killings, bombings, kidnappings, property destruction. You should note that in 1948 a new arab state was proposed, along side of, and slightly larger than Israel. Israelis accepted this. The arabs didn't. The arabs had demanded that arabs in Israel leave right before the 48 war started, this is well documented, and only revisionists for whom this is an inconvenient reality complain otherwise. After Israel was founded and survived, jews in the arab states were expelled forcefully, without possessions, compensation, usually at the point of a gun. A population transfer, not unlike the pakistan india transfer occurred. But the arabs could never accept this. So the UNRWA was formed to perpetuate the crisis (this is what they have done, they have solved nothing). Compare this to *every* other conflict mediated by the UN where the high commissioner for refugees handles this. The other conflicts get settled within about a decade. UNRWA has been perpetuating this conflict for about 6 decades.
Most of what existed prior to 1967 was a construction entirely of the arabs own making. Jordan annexed the west bank, and no one apart from the UK acknowledged and accepted this. Egypt annexed Gaza. Both Jordan and Egypt avoided all out war, but largely failed to comply with terms of the armistice. In 67, with Pan-Arabist Nassar in charge in Egypt, things were brought to a head again. Straights of Tiran and other cassus belli against Israel. Left it with no choice. After the smoke cleared, Israel had gaza and the west bank.
Notice how there are no execution camps in this story. None existed in Israel.
There has not been a genocide against the arabs. The arabs have launched or at least tried to launch genocides against the jews, many times. In Hebron in 1929, every jew who lived there (several thousand, with a multi-thousand year history there) was killed by arab mobs after friday prayers. Now why would that be? There were no "occupied territories"? In 1936-1939 the arabs rioted thoughout the area, killing jews left and right. Again why was this? In WWII the arabs mufti in Israel was directly and overtly allied with Hitler (yeah, invoke Godwin's law).
The jews did not line up the arabs against walls and machine gun them. They did not gas them. They did not spear them, experiment on th
I found a rebuttal of that theory in one of the first google links for "allah moon god"
Last paragraph
The God is the same as you can find in the Islam article
I have discovered a truly marvelous proof of killer sig, which this margin is too narrow to contain.
I posted this a few days ago, may as well repost it ..
The usual pro-confederacy arguments are that they were fighting for states' rights and not for slavery. These are both patently false.
The southern states were the ones arguing for federal supremacy over states. They wanted the federal government to enforce slavery laws in free states. They argued that a slave owner should retain ownership of those slaves while traveling in free states, and that slaves who escaped to free states should be returned to their owners. Hardly a states rights position!
The war of 1812 was a disaster, economically, for the New England states which depended so heavily on trade. They spent three years getting up the nerve to send a delegation to Washington to bring up the subject of secession, but the war ended before they could do anything. The southern states were the most vocal in condemning secession as treason. How interesting that when their ox was being gored, they acted immediately, not even trying to negotiate with the federal government. So much for honor!
As for economics, which is the usual neo-confedrate blame for northern aggression, it was slavery which put the south at a disadvantage, in that it made labor so cheap that industrialization was too expensive. It really hurt the small farmers who had to do their own labor. I have never understood why poor whites, then or now, backed the slavery system which kept them in poverty. No self-employed man can compete with slaves. The expense of overseers doesn't come close to compensating for the cheap maintenance (crowded crappy housing, no elders to take care of) of slaves.
It was a war for the rich white southerners. Nobody else would have benefited from secession.
Infuriate left and right
I have no sympathy for holocaust deniers. Let me quote a good man:
Almost all of the survivors, verbally or in their written memoirs, remember a dream which frequently recurred during the nights of imprisonment, varied in its detail but uniform in its substance: they had returned home, and with passion and relief were describing their past sufferings, addressing themselves to a loved person, and were not believed, indeed were not even listened to. In the most typical (and most cruel) form, they interlocutor turned and left in silence. [Primo Levi: The Drowned and the Saved]
And the diatribe issued by a member of the SS to camp inmates upon arrival:
However this war may end, we have won the war against you; none of you will be left to bear witness, but even if someone were to survive, the world would not believe him. There will perhaps be suspicions, discussions, research by historians, but there will be no certainties, because we will destroy the evidence together with you. And even if some proof should remain and some of you survive, people will say that the events you describe are too monstrous to be believed: they will say that they are the exaggerations of Allied propoganda and will believe us, who will deny everything, and not you. We will be the ones to dictate the history of the [camps] [Simon Wiesenthal: The murderers are amongst us]
The nazis had such an effective shredding campaign, we only know the death toll is between 4 and 8 million. Inmates themselves were responsible for furnace operation and ash disposal, teams being regularly disposed of to prevent information leaks. The retreat at the end of the war was accompanied by systematic recall/slaughter of prisoners, and was given more importance than millitary strategy. Holocaust sympathisers are making the holocaust perpetrators win from beyond the noose. And yes, you may invoke godwin's law.
I am one of many. My idea is not unique, nor do I expect my voice alone to sway you. I speak in a chorus of opinion.
To quote one article The Mail's founder, Lord Northcliffe said his winning formula was to give his readers "a daily hate" - and it does. It says a *lot* that the first thing that I thought of after reading the summary was to find out whether the story came from the Daily Mail... and that I wasn't remotely surprised when it did. The fact that the Mail's style and biases were obvious even via a secondhand interpretation of the story says a lot about it.
More here. Can't say whether they're as bad as Fox News or not, because I haven't seen a significant amount of its output (due to living in the UK). However, I personally wouldn't trust the Daily Mail as far as I could throw it.
Anyway, there is probably some truth in the story, but I expect it's been exaggerated, distorted and "enhanced" by selective reporting. For example, I remember reading a story about ecstasy in New Scientist a few years back. It was all about a study which claimed that there were serious effects of the drug on the brain. However, the story also included plausible-sounding criticism and rebuttal of the study by other equally reputable scientists.
I saw the same story in the Daily Mail later that day. It also included the details about the study and the possibly dangerous effects of the drug, and was written in a moderately "reputable" manner. However, unlike NS's report, they didn't hint that there was *any* scepticism about the findings, let alone print those views. Result was that the effect of the story was very different, more one-sided and scaremongering. Fact-by-fact, the Daily Mail story was correct, but it lied by omission.
Mind you, the Daily Mail is full of scaremongering health stories; that's a staple of the front page for them. Along with reports on how something the government has done is going to affect the value of your house, and right-wing political half-truths.
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
And it won't be for years, and probably never will, because whether people want to openly admit it or not... Arabs are considered animals and there blood is not as valuable as Jewish or Western blood.
Actually, Hitler was quoted as saying that he was going to exterminate Jehovah's Witnesses, too.
Oddly enough, JW's were the only group given the opportunity to sign a paper denouncing their faith and walk away. Very few of them did it.
Eclectic beats from Leeds, UK
handmadehands.co.uk
As far as I know, the only groups that the Nazis determined to systematically exterminate were the Jews and the homosexuals.
Gypsies were also the target of systematic extermination.
The enemies of Democracy are
The Gypsies were persecuted with as much fervor as the Jews. According to Wikipedia, 500k to 1m died. While it's not as large a gross number, proportionately, it's just as high if not higher. Interestingly, the Roma were the original Aryans who had traveled rather than staying in Germany. So the Nazis, in a rare show of coherency, only allowed part-gypsies to be exterminated but allowed full-blood Roma regular status. Later, it was argued that no one could have not become corrupted and the Roma were uniformly exterminated.
If they weren't victimized as systematically, why so much official propaganda and policies on the subject? See Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porajmos
-- Political fascism requires a Fuhrer.
Should we have protesters outside of christian churches every time there is a sermon on 1 Timothy (it is blatantly sexist)? Should we chant and jeer outside churches that teach the parts of the bible about male genital manipulation (circumcision)?
Sure, why not?
Idiotic delusional nonsense is just that regardless of what the particular trivial details that are the only distinctions between these various "absolute truths", so they should be ridiculed mercilessly until people are just too fucking embarrassed to be associated with such idiocy.
Where's the problem exactly?
I'm not really sure how you can say that objectively, I'm a non-republican/non-democrat who regularly watches fox news just because I find the way that they present things somewhat genius, it's kind of like watching Goebbels in action. A good example of their 'slant' is in how they reported the story about the kid who planned on bringing bombs to Falwell's funeral. What I saw on Fox news was that a college student has been arrested after he was caught with bombs in his car, that he intended to bring to Falwell's funeral. With that and other coverage of Falwell's passing it implied that the guy was some left-wing nut who wanted to bomb his funeral, when in actuality the kid was a student of Falwell's university and intended to bring the bombs to 'keep protestors from disturbing the funeral', which makes him a right-wing nut who is obviously totally out of touch with reality. Stuff like that, which an omission of a couple words completely changes the story, puts an incredible slant and spin on the story and honestly borders on outright disinformation.
Honestly, I think if you paid a little closer attention to what they report, how they report it and what they don't report I think you would find their slant pretty incredible, and as I said, their tactics somewhat genius.
Ah yes gratious guests.
These are Palestenian REFUGEES. And where are they refugees from?
There own homes
50 years ago those people were kicked out of there homes and forced to leave. They have no identity, no home. They aren't citizens of Lebanon.
To put this in perspective how would you feel if someone kicked you out of your home with all of your neighbors and you had no place to go but a neighboring country. You and your neighbors and family members have no home no identity no citezenship and have to live in slum camps for 50 years.
You may not rob a bank, or blow up a building, but your grandson might.
I am Lebanese, and while I understand that you might not be as educated about these issues as I am, or for that matter even care, but I want you to realize that this is a SERIOUS problem, and it is only getting worse with ignorance and neglect. I'm not trying to start a flamewar, but I believe that ALL people deserve basic human rights.
There's nothing like a rabid racist lunatic trying to justify himself in this manner.
The mass murder of the large bulk of European Jewry, which happened during the lifetime of many people still living, is of tantamount importance if you take the teaching of history to be an exercise in educating us as to deeds done and how they can be avoided.
For instance, blaming everything on Zionists was precisely the kind of monstrous ideology that allowed the Nazis to kill so many Jews. By recreating a group of individuals into some sort of dark shadow cult out to take over the world, the Nazis were able to more easily demonize Jews. It's sad that there are still evil little monsters like yourself so happy to ape the discredited notions of Nazi anti-semitism. You do, through your hate, make it clear that teaching about the Holocaust is still of the utmost importance.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
I know I'm making a mistake attempting to have a rational discussion of this on the internet, but here goes.
The most prominent primary target of the Nazi's killing spree was indeed the Jewish people, and their story of systematic, legitimized oppression, and how the general German populace went along with it by degrees is the most harrowing. It teaches us that when you start institutionally marginalizing a people or class of persons, even if only slightly at first, you go down a road which may lead to something truly horrific.
That having been said, the current state of holocaust education effectively denies the deaths of the millions of non-Jews by focusing exclusively on the deaths of the Jews. It invalidates their suffering. You yourself implicitly said it was unimportant. And thus, people grow up thinking that genocide is some kind of rare thing which confines itself to one people at a time, and not only is this not correct, but the message is injured. Think I'm wrong? Ask an average American high school kid about Darfur, or the Armenians, or the purges in the Soviet Union, or Cambodia.
I would rather teach kids that if they start letting intolerance into their hearts, not only is it going to be the people of x super-vilified minority who go against the wall, it's going to be your little sister with a bum leg, your evangelical uncle, the sad beggars in downtown, those two boys holding hands, anyone who voices a dissident opinion, and everyone you know who's not white, brown, yellow, or whatever the uber-race is supposed to be.
Yeah -- Fox News, Fair and Balanced.
You are aware that they do things like assessing reporters politcal loyalties during the interview process and giving regular memos directing their newscasters to do things to support Republicans, right? You aware that even the CEO admits using it as a propaganda mouthpiece to sell the Iraq War, right?
If you can't tell that sort of stuff by watching them, then they're succeeding.
GIVE US THE CUTTLEFISH!
There is a difference between Judaism and Zionism. If you don't realize this, you're part of the problem.
There are legitimate complaints about the very concept of Zionism (the argument that Jews should immigrate to the Middle East to form a homeland, even if it means displacing the locals).
There is a legitimate argument to be made that Zionism has, quite contrary to its intent, encouraged a new round of antisemitism and made the world less safe for the Jewish people, not more safe.
There are legitimate complaints to be made about how the Israeli government is currently running its foreign policy.
By treating anyone who has any problem with the concept of Zionism or the policies of the state of Israel as being inherently anti-semitic, you're part of the problem, just like those who deny the Holocaust are part of the problem from the other side.
GIVE US THE CUTTLEFISH!
The retreat at the end of the war was accompanied by systematic recall/slaughter of prisoners, and was given more importance than millitary strategy.
Indeed. Some estimates calculate that one possible reason Germany lost the war in the east was due to none other than their "cleansing" campaign. It took away men and resources as well as solidified the populace in the east against them. Had they done the opposite, and behaved as the liberators from Russian oppression that there were first hailed as, the outcome could have been drastically different....
"All great things are simple & expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope." --Churchill
but raisin' em so ain't asking much
Indeed. Mutilating infant boys without their consent isn't much at all.
I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
A new round of antisemitism?
The difference being the people involved. The old antisemitics largely had no evidence other than racism. Antizionists on the other hand have friends and family, or themselves, who have been kicked out of their homes and regulated to ghetto life in the West Bank, Golan Heights, or the Gaza Strip. Some of them aren't even Muslims, but Christians- it's amazing the zionist racism that has gone on in Bethleham of all places.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Read up on history. Nowadays, you see a person protesting in front of a synagogue (we got one here recently), and it's like, "what cave did you crawl out of?" Yet, antisemitism used to be completely mainstream. Remember Henry Ford, who published a book, "The International Jew: The Worlds Foremost Problem"? And he was widely respected! Yet, he was hardly the only one. Around America and across Europe, anti-semitism was the de-facto standard. It's a sad part of the reason why the increasing violence against Jews in Germany wasn't taken very seriously, and why "Save the Jews" was never a rallying cry for the war, to say the least.
You see the opposite thing in the Middle East. Some of the world's oldest Jewish populations exist in the Middle East, where they, while being a minority and occasionally suffered for it, but only rarely got the same sort of persecution that middle ages, European Jews had to suffer. It remained this way largely up until the 1930s, when the influx of foreign Jews into Palestine and the spawning of Jewish terror groups and militias, culminating in al-Nakhba, led to a violent level of antisemitism in the Middle East. This, in turn, led to most Arab countries likewise pressuring their Jewish populations out, turning a slow Zionist trickle into a major exodus. Many of these Jews migrated to Israel, which increased the strains with Israel's neighbors, and so forth.
I can go into more detail with more modern history if you'd like, but you're probably well aware of the world (outside America)'s increasing dissatisfaction with Israel's foreign policy.
GIVE US THE CUTTLEFISH!