Colonialism is narrated as modernization while indigenous resistance is framed as backwardness.

Evidence

Moreover, the textbooks criticize both Arab and Palestinian resistance to Zionism, describing Zionism (and British colonialism) as a modernizing force to the ‘backward’ Palestinian society [emphasis mine]. The Zionists are portrayed as seeking to live in peace with the Arabs, while the Arabs chose to fight against the Jews.… The textbooks fail to explain why the Zionist movement, before Palestinian resistance intensified, built exclusive Jewish settlements where only Jews can work. In addition, the textbooks explain such separatist Zionist policies and the creation of an ethno-national political entity by emphasizing the historical victimization and persecution of Jews. However, the textbooks do not discuss the Palestinian refugees, and the reasons behind the loss of their homeland. — Wael Hallaq, Restating Orientalism, 940

Categorization

• XREF: The ‘colonizer as modernizer, native as backward’ framing is the exact template critiqued in Restating Orientalism and appears in classic colonial discourse; connects to the reader’s work on power and narrative.
• SHARE: The specific asymmetry — textbooks invoke Jewish historical victimization to explain separatist settlement policies while omitting the Palestinian refugees entirely — is a striking counterpoint worth sharing with someone studying historiography or education.