The world is made up of opposites (positive and negative, up and down, left and right, night and day, hot and cold) some bring pleasure whilst others bring pain. As the saying goes, what is best for one person is not best for all, but should minority interests take precedence over the majority? It is very easy to side with one party if that party makes up one’s own interest but what should a person do if they sit outside of both parties. Should they even take an interest or try to understand both parties?

The way of narratives between the conflict participants is extremely important as one can only truly understand a situation by having both sides of the story. I’m not talking about being impartial where one can skate around an issue without really touching it, but providing two partial examples and leave the reader/listener/viewer to make sense of the story. I think we owe it to our audiences to give them a clear picture as to what is going on.

For me, the biggest example I can find between competing narratives is the Holocaust and the Nakba. The Holocaust is now taught in mainstream schools around the country and special education projects have been set up around the UK. There is a recognised Memorial Day service and people can take part in moving experiences in other places around Europe. For the record, I was in Berlin for this year’s anniversary and met a wonderful Kinder-transported person who even invited me around for a Sabbath meal with her family. That being said, the Nakba is less recognised in the UK and I only really heard about it whilst stumbling across a conference that was held at the University of London’s School of Oriental and African Studies. To my knowledge there are no memorial services around Europe and the subject is certainly not taught in schools.

This tribal view of politics and ideology is fascinating to an outside observer. The Nakba equates to the 1948 ethnic cleansing in Palestine, which doesn’t stop and grows into further oppression and dislocation up until and beyond 1967. History is always uncomfortable to some people and depending on what side of the fence you are on, will determine whether you decide to read on or not. The state of Israel is considered as some sort of redemption, as written in the formation of the state of Israel and Zionism is a legitimate response to anti-Semitism. The singular narratives are not necessarily real and do not account for the multiple views even within a particular group. Again I have personally met Israelis who do not fully support their government’s policies and try to protest in extreme conditions, facing prejudice from both sides of the conflict.

In order to rebalance history, we should look at the role of the Israeli’s in the Nakba and the continued oppression of the Palestinian people. Some would argue that the Palestinian’s have paid and are still paying for the Holocaust, almost becoming the victims of the victims. The Holocaust and anti-Semitism were European issues that have been exported into the Islamic Middle East. The Palestinians fought with the British during the 1930’s, which destroyed the leadership in Palestine and created the space for Israelis to claim the land as part of their birth right.

If you deny the Holocaust you could lose your job or go to jail but if you deny the Nakba, you could go into the House of Lords as certain academics from King’s College London have already done. Is there a need for that disparity in the UK?

The rage that was directed at the Nazi’s has now been placed on the Palestinians. That rage and incapability of understanding has been transferred onto other groups of people. Almost like people saw the Arabs and killed the Nazi’s. The problems are magnified with no dialogue, no concession, and no recognition whilst waging a war with an uncompromising attitude towards the Palestinians.

That being said is it really legitimate to use the same language of Nazi Germany to describe what is going on today in Israel? We need to make use of neutral language and ensure that both states can gain a sense of security rather than insecurity. History has no end or beginning – we can go back but we should look towards today and the future. The use of Nazi like terms is not rational and will cause more problems than it’s worth.

Israeli’s brought the Holocaust into the Middle East context. The denial in Israel has changed as people have archives which state that they succeeded in the project of cleansing the area of one population. Truth and recognition is desperately needed between both sides. The importance of the shared history and understanding of identity could bring about a new chapter in the history books.

So why is the Israeli state denying the Nakba?