The CMHR’s upcoming Nakba exhibit risks turning a public institution into a platform that legitimizes only one version of events

A federally funded museum entrusted with promoting human rights should not advance one community’s disputed historical narrative while marginalizing another’s. Yet that is precisely what the Canadian Museum for Human Rights (CMHR) risks doing with its forthcoming exhibit on the Nakba.

Parliament established the CMHR as a federal Crown corporation under the Museums Act, specifically through the Canadian Museum of Human Rights Act of 2008. While it runs its own affairs, the CMHR still bears an obligation to the public. A significant issue exists when a public museum promotes one community’s biased political narrative and delegitimizes another. This contradicts the museum’s federal mandate and its commitment to neutrality.

On June 27, the CMHR will open “Palestine Uprooted: Nakba Past and Present.” The museum describes the exhibit as exploring Palestinian displacement and dispossession as a human rights issue. The question is whether a public institution can do so fairly while omitting perspectives that challenge its central narrative.

Canadian Jews and many others are openly wondering why the museum is holding this exhibit in the shadow of the Oct. 7, 2023, terror attacks in Israel, the worst massacre of Jews since the Holocaust, which directly led to unprecedented levels of intimidation, harassment and violence against Canada’s Jewish communities.

The timing of this exhibit is particularly troubling given the current climate of antisemitism across Canada. Since October 2023, Jewish Canadians have faced an alarming surge in hate crimes, with Statistics Canada reporting a dramatic increase in antisemitic incidents. In such an environment, the obligation of a federally funded institution to present disputed historical events fairly and with proper context becomes even more important.

Palestinians use the term “Nakba” to describe the displacement of Arabs during the 1948 war that accompanied Israel’s creation. Israelis, by contrast, generally view the same period as their war of independence and national survival.

The museum’s decision to adopt the term “Nakba” creates additional problems because it presents terminology that delegitimizes the State of Israel. A federally funded institution should use neutral, historically accurate terminology rather than politically charged language that inherently takes sides in a complex conflict. Universal ethics holds that omissions of critical context constitute misleading testimony, which is what has happened here.

The framing presents the Arab population as uprooted victims with no apparent agency in their own fate. Written accounts during that period widely admitted that Arab misjudgment about Israel’s strength caused Arab dispossession. In 1955, the secretary of the Office of the Arab League in London, Edward Atiyah, stated: “This wholesale exodus was due partly to the belief of the Arabs, encouraged by the boasting of an unrealistic Arab press and the irresponsible utterances of some of the Arab leaders, that it could be only a matter of some weeks before the Jews were defeated.”

An even-handed historical presentation would recognize that Arabs repeatedly declined peace and coexistence with Jews and that the war they and Arab countries declared on the nascent Jewish state in 1948–49 largely led to their dispossession. The exhibit fails to acknowledge this complexity, including the role of Arab leadership decisions in the displacement that occurred. Historical fairness requires acknowledging facts that do not fit a preferred narrative.

Concerns about the exhibit’s content are compounded by questions about the process used to develop it. Several advisers have publicly aligned themselves with anti-Israel activism, and some regularly smear Israel, raising legitimate questions about whether the exhibit development process was sufficiently impartial. These ideologically compromised individuals are acting as judges of this exhibit.

Canada’s Jewish community has known about this exhibit for quite a while and has lobbied the museum to consider Jewish perspectives and present a more balanced historical portrayal. Despite repeated outreach to museum administration, it plans to open the exhibit exactly as scheduled with no evidence of adjustment or meaningful consultation with Jewish historians and community leaders.

If proper procedural fairness had existed from the start, this exhibit would be much less controversial. Both Jews and Arabs share a past in this region and thus share responsibility for telling this story fairly and truthfully.

When a national institution presents a one-sided narrative of a complex historical situation, it undermines public trust in our cultural institutions and their ability to serve all Canadians fairly. The CMHR should postpone this exhibit until a proper consultation process can be conducted with all affected communities, ensuring that any presentation of this sensitive historical period includes multiple perspectives and appropriate context.

Joseph Quesnel is the founding director of the Canadian Foundation for Universal Ethics Education. A seasoned journalist and policy analyst with over 15 years of experience, he has provided expert testimony to both the Senate and the House of Commons on public policy. He holds a degree in political science and history from McGill University and a Master of Journalism from Carleton University.