UNRWA schoolbooks for you: https://www.impact-se.org/wp-content/uploads/UNRWA-Education...

and first UN general assembly resolution condemning hamas attack is the one from the past week that speaks about recognition of palestinian state.

unless you can find different one

I can't refute all their findings, but it's still worth looking at the board of that org:

https://www.impact-se.org/about-us/impact-se-board-members/

For an organization ostensibly concerned with education to violence everywhere, that's a LOT of board members with direct connections to Israel.

I also think it's common sense that if an occupying force deliberately ensures your living conditions become ever worse, shoots your friends and family to death for throwing stones and eventually obliterates entire families, that you don't exactly need textbooks to develop hatred.

As for "from the Nile to the Euphrates", just ask Daniella Weiss: https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2024-10-21/ty-article-ma...

"i can't refute the facts so i will have to do character assassination".

(i'll remind that those are books that are taught by UN agency)

the atlantic article from 1961 about unrwa camps showing that they were taught back than liberation of entire area by force and destruction of israel https://cdn.theatlantic.com/media/archives/1961/10/208-4/132...

it's almost like if population is educated for violence for 50 years, it will behave violently and it will result in counter action from "occupying force"

on the other side, Israeli population is been subjected to palestinian violence for extended period. Pretty much everybody was either target of it or lost somebody to it.

Lets see what do we have in Israeli schoolbooks: https://www.impact-se.org/wp-content/uploads/Arabs-and-Pales...

Yeah, they do that stuff in the pre-army courses instead.

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2025-09-04/ty-article-op...

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2025-08-09/ty-article-ma...

i am talking about systemic things in education system. not about random anecdotes. also good chunk of israeli population (and even bigger chunk of those serving in army) is secular and whatever random rabi says means nothing.

but kudos on shifting goal posts.

United Nations General Assembly Resolution ES-10/21 (Oct. 27th 2023):

> Condemning all acts of violence aimed at Palestinian and Israeli civilians, including all acts of terrorism and indiscriminate attacks, as well as all acts of provocation, incitement and destruction

https://docs.un.org/en/A/ES-10/L.25

The UN has been condemning the Hamas terrorist attacks from the start.

no condemnation of hamas attack. no mention of hamas. generic one that was mixed in into condemnation of israeli response.

This resolution didn’t mention the IDF either, nor any other Zionist terror groups. Why do you want the UN to single out Hamas here? The wording was quite clear and it is easy for anybody reading this who they were referring to.

obviously UN wouldn't like to single out hamas which just executed mass massacre which proudly livestreamed on internet.

i wouldn't expect UN to care about it.

This resolution came 20 days into what would eventually be known as the Gaza genocide. The IDF had enganged in dozens of massacres at this point. The number of Palestinian victims was already over 6x that of the Oct 7 massacres (7326 when the resolution was published).

If the resolution was going to mention Hamas, it would also have to mention the IDF. The wording was deliberate for that reason.

the only attempt on genocide was hamas attempt to kill as much jews and infadels as possible. but you glance over this, because this genocide you approve of.

here is nice quote [0] : "for the past two years theHamas leadership had been talking about implementing "the last promise" (alwaed al'akhir) – a divine promise regarding the end of days, when all human beings will accept Islam. Sinwar and his circle ascribed an extreme and literal meaning to the notion of "the promise, " a belief that pervaded all their messages: in speeches, sermons, lectures in schools and universities. The cardinal theme was the implementation of the last promise, which included the forced conversion of all heretics to Islam, or their killing."

everything that followed would be eventually known as largest brainwashing by mainstream and social media.

[0] https://judaic.arizona.edu/sites/judaic.arizona.edu/files/20...

It took 20 days just so they could smuggle Israel into the condemnation. Come on man, it's so obvious, it's a pattern of behavior from the UN.

“Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.”

- Jean-Paul Sartre

The resolution was drafted and a vote was called on October 18th. It was called following a failed resolution at the security council which the USA vetoed on October 17th.

This is the normal speed in which the UN operates. Note that the UN Secretary General condemned Hamas with name hours after the terrorist attacks. Also note that leaving out the name of Hamas in both the Security Council resolution, and in the General Assembly resolution was on purpose as if you named one human rights violator in your condemnation, you would also have to name the other, and the draft authors thought it was likelier to pass without naming the perpetrators. The security council resolution was never going to pass because of USA complicity in the genocide, but in case of the General Assembly, they were correct. The October resolution passed, but not by as wide a margin as the later ones, e.g. if every absentee would have voted against, the resolution would have failed to get the required 2/3rds majority to pass.