I Agree

The flap over the introduction of the term "nakba" into 3rd grade history books (by the way, this in itself is amazing for me. most Israeli high school pupils I meet seem to know only 3rd grade history so maybe there's hope here for improvement) is not the term itself (althoug I will admit that it has taken on a life of its own besides its regular meaning) but what you teach about it.

The Jerusalem Post got it right:-

...it is important that Israeli Arab children learn real historical facts, not just propaganda designed to foster hatred and rejection of the state in which they live. The way to do this, we would suggest, is not necessarily to reject all use of the term "nakba," but to define it more accurately.

The Arab catastrophe was not the fact of Israel's creation, but the Arab rejection of it. If the Arab world had accepted the UN partition plan and decided to live in peace with Israel, both Israel and Palestine would be celebrating their 60th anniversaries next year. All the wars and the refugee problem would not exist, and the unfathomable price imposed in blood and treasure for the failed Arab attempt to destroy Israel would have been saved.