Below are my media inquiries to the CMHR as Editor of the Winnipeg Jewish Review relating to the need for a parity exhibit on Jewish indigeneity to the land of Israel to run concurrent with the Nakba Exhibit. Below are also questions relating to the scope of the Nakba Exhibit itself.

1. Will the CMHR put on a concurrent “parity exhibit” to run concurrently with the Nakba exhibit, about the Jewish people’s indigeneity to their ancestral homeland in Israel given their enduring biblical, religious and historical connection, as proven by indisputable archaeological evidence? The Jews who have been in the land of Israel since antiquity have had the same language, have worshipped the same G-d, and on the same land, in the same country, as they did over 3000 years ago. Is that not a true indigenous people?). The exhibit ought to include the modern rise of Zionism in Europe, and t include the expulsion of approx. 750,000 Jews from surrounding Arab States and North Africa who were absorbed by the state of Israel, as well as some 70,000 Jews who were expelled from their homes in 1948 in the Old City of Jerusalem and nearby environs. [Note that in the Holocaust gallery of the Museum there is absolutely no reference whatsoever to Israel, such that the first time that Israel is being referred to in an exhibit is in a Nakba exhibit. The Holocaust gallery is not a “parity exhibit” at all.]

2. Since Canada’s longstanding position has been in favour of “two states for two peoples” why is it that the CMHR sees fit to put on an exhibit about one side of the equation, the Palestinians, without the need for a concurrent “parity exhibit” about the other side of the equation, the Jewish people who are an indigenous people to the land of Israel?

3. Does the Museum acknowledge that Jews, like all other peoples have a right to self-determination in their ancestral homeland (Canada’s long standing position), and if so will the Museum put on a concurrent parity exhibit as described above?

4. Why would the CMHR be preferring the stories and artifacts of one people on this same land over the stories and artifacts of both people in this land? Telling the narratives of both sides together concurrently would be the only way to foster real dialogue and understanding between both sides, would it not ?

QUESTIONS RE: THE SCOPE OF THE NAKBA EXHIBIT

A.) THE ROLE OF THE MUFTI OF JERUSALEM AND ATTEMPTED GENOCIDE OF JEWS

5. In 1937, the British Peel Commission had to decide to recommend the creation of two states, one Arab and one Jewish or one bi-national state. When Hajj Min Al Husseini, the Mufti of Jerusalem and President of the Supreme Muslim Council, the undisputed leader of the Arabs under British Mandatory Palestine the testified before the Peel Commission he was asked whether the 400, 000 Jews living there could remain in an Arab majority state. When the Mufti answered that they could not, it became clear to the Peel commission it could not recommend that the Jews live in a bi-national state as the Mufti would expel them. Specifically, Lord Peel asked the Mufti “Since you demand the establishment of a national government in Palestine, what will you do with the 400,000 Jews already living there?” When the Mufti’s answers were evasive, Lord Peel asked again”: Does His Eminence think that this country can assimilate and digest the 400,000 Jews now in the country? The Mufti answered “No.” Will the CMHR be showing the Mufti’s testimony on this point before the Peel commission in its Nakba exhibit?

6. Since Hajj Min Al Husseini, the Mufti of Jerusalem was the undisputed leader of the Palestinian Arabs leading up to 1948, will the CMHR be including in its Nakba exhibit the fact that the Mufti had an alliance with Adolf Hitler? Further will the CMHR be putting forth testimony from any Palestinian Canadian who believes that the Mufti of Jerusalem’s alliance with Hitler led the Jews living in the Holy land to understand that if the Mufti had his way, their fate would be the same as the fate of the Jews during the Holocaust? [Specifically the US Holocaust Memorial Museum website refers to the Mufti’s first meeting with Hitler on Nov 28,1941 meeting between the Mufti and Hitler in which Hitler stated the only German goal “at that time would be the annihilation of Jewry in Arab space under the protection of British power?”]

7. Research by Hillel Cohen of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem has shown that prior to the State of Israel being established about 20% of Palestinians were willing to accept the Peel Commission plan for the partition of Palestine in 1937 , which called for a Jewish state. They were represented by Raghib al-Nashashibi, who became Mayor of Jerusalem in 1920, and who was willing to accept the Peel Commission plan, and secretly favoured a union with Transjordan. The Nashashibi clan opposed the extremism of the Mufti of Jerusalem, Hajj Amin Husseini. However, as Cohen relates, the extremists of the Palestinians had the upper hand and terrorized the moderates. Cohen writes, “The message was clear: anyone who leaned towards compromise or disputed Hajj Amin’s leadership was a traitor whose life was forfeit.” (Hillel Cohen, Army of Shadows; Palestinian Collaboration with Zionism at 64 and 122). Will the CMHR be putting forth Cohen’s research showing that the Mufti and his followers terrorized the moderates in Palestinian Arab society? And will the CMHR be including in the exhibit the narrative that had the Palestinians leading up to 1948 preferred the moderate leadership of the Nashishibi clan over the Mufti’s leadership, they would have had a state a very, very long time ago?

B) TESTIMONIES IN THE NABA EXHIBIT

8. Will the CMHR be putting forth the testimony of any Canadian Palestinian whose family supported the position of the Nashashibi clan as opposed to the leadership of the Mufti of Jerusalem and acknowledges that the Mufti’s extremist leadership lead to the lack of a Palestinian state? [Note: Oren Kessler’s new book Palestine 1936: The Great Revolt and the Roots of the Middle East Conflict, which details how the Mufti led the Palestinian Arabs into defeat and misery in 1948).

9. Will the CMHR be presenting the pain and suffering of the followers of the Nashishibi clan who were terrorized by the Mufti and his followers?

10. Will the CMHR be putting forth the testimony of any Palestinian who is of the view that the abiding cause of the Nakba was the result of Palestinian and Arab leadership rejecting the UN resolution calling for the establishment of both a Jewish state and a [Palestinian] Arab state, which meant there would be war. Will it be showing that Canada voted in favour of the 1947 Partition Plan? [Had the UN partition Resolution been accepted by Palestinian Arab leadership at the time, there would have been no 1948 Arab-Israel war, and no Palestinian refugees]

11. Will the CMHR be presenting any testimony of a Palestinian Canadian that 1948 war was “a jihad” or “-an Islamic holy war” as well as a territorial and political war? Will the CMHR be referring to any documentation as referred by historian Benny Morris that the central element in the war was an imperative to launch jihad and to uproot the infidel Jews from the area?

12. Will the CMHR be putting forth the voice of any Canadian Palestinian who acknowledges that their family and other Palestinian Arabs perceived the 1948 war as an accident that would be swiftly rectified, since the demographic balance of power favoured the Arab states and would enable them to triumph in the long term?

13. Will the CMHR be putting forth the lived experience of any Palestinian Canadian who agrees with Canada’s position since 1947, calling for a two-state solution a State of Palestine alongside the State of Israel?

14. Will the CMHR be putting forth the opinion of any Palestinian Canadian or anyone else in the exhibit that Jews who have had continuous presence in the Holy land for 3000 years are an indigenous people to that land ? Or will the exhibit’s narrative be that Palestinians are an indigenous people, without saying anything about Jews being an indigenous people? And if not, will this not leave the impression that only Palestinian Arabs are an indigenous people? (Note: In 1947 the UN partition plan called for a Jewish and Arab state not a Palestinian state).

C) ROLE OF HAMAS

15: Will the CMHR Nakba Exhibit deal be presenting testimonies or other information regarding the current War in Gaza?

16. Specifically, will the CMHR be including the actions of Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and individual Gazans who perpetrated the Oct 7 attacks in the exhibit, as they set off the current chain of events that led to the war?

17. Will any of the Palestinian Canadians giving testimony in the Nakba exhibit be condemning Hamas’s attacks, as per the position of the government of Canada, and/or state that Hamas can have no role in any future governance of Gaza, also Canada’s position?

18. Will the CMHR be putting forth the testimony of any Palestinian Canadian who denounces the Oct 7 attacks, or whose families have been terrorized by Hamas?

19. Will the Nakba exhibit include the Canadians who are in Hamas, as per the report of Global News indicating some 450 people with assorted roles in Hamas have ties to Canada? https://globalnews.ca/news/11527110/canadians-of-hamas/

Rhonda J. Spivak has a Bachelor of Arts with Distinction in English and History and an L.LB from the University of Manitoba. She practiced constitutional law in the Department of Justice of Manitoba for close to a decade. She received her call to the Israeli Bar in 1996 after articling at the Association for Civil Rights in Jerusalem where she acted on behalf of both Arabs and Jews living in Israel. She has travelled extensively in both Israel and the West Bank and has conducted many interviews of both Jews and Arabs living in Israel as well as Palestinians living in the West Bank.  

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR