The Holy Land Lacks Conventional "Borders" but Textbooks Not As Bad As Previously Touted

Textbooks, the creators of critical context and history, the texts used to instill knowledge into young minds by providing the truth about history and reality have apparently been raising concerns in the Holy Land for the past few decades.  The Palestinians have widely been accused of distorting history and inciting violence, but a recent study, commissioned by the Council of Religious Institutions of the Holy Land "formally debunked some of these myths, noting that there is scant evidence of “dehumanizing” and “demonizing” in Palestinian and Israeli textbooks despite the presence of examples of omissions of each other’s points of view and flaws in mapping" (Al-Monitor).  The result is that "the vast majority of maps in Palestinian and Israeli schoolbooks omit the existence of the other entity, leading to children growing up with 'an internal representation of their homeland, in which one does not include the other' (The Guardian).  

The ommissions and contradictory mapping are quite interesting when considering Colliers point of view which is that "a critical turn requires that scholars "understand how relationships emerge in historical contexts, within institutional and political forces and social norms that are often invisible to some groups"(2002).   Her point is relevant to both youth growing up in this region who have a skewed view of the lands they occupy, as well as for those scholars studying the region as outsiders, not brought up with the same formative educational norms.  Essentially, these omissions of borders and the other's points of view easily creates a strong, biased and nationalistic point of view wherein the "Other" story is not credible.  By reducing the understanding of the "other" to a few key points or repeated views and enhancing the the "us" identity, the "'nation' [becomes] a dominant operational mechanism for "making broad generalizations about massive numbers of diverse peoples with complex cultural organizations, performances, identities, and experiences"  (Ono, 198, p. 201).  By omitting the story of the other, Palestinians and Israelis are each adding to the polarization of the two sides which may fuel the 74 year conflict.  

Additionally, the most negative reactions to the report which I've found have come from Israeli or Jewish sources.  The Israeli Ministry of Education wholeheartedly denounces the studies findings.  the report does not include textual samples, but rather includes stereotypes and their position of authority potentially grants them respect and acceptance.  For example, the report states:

The inclusion of the religiously-conservative Ultra-Orthodox
system contributes to the attempt to create a picture of balance, as the Ultra-Orthodox
textbooks, while still superior to the Palestinian ones by nearly every measure, contain
significantly less peace culture education than those of the Israeli state schools. However, the proper parallel to the Israeli Ultra-Orthodox books are those of the PA Islamic schools. School books from the PA Islamic schools are rife with the grossest examples of anti-Semitism and encouragement of violence.  (Emphasis added).

Another website, the Jerusalem Post criticizes the authors for taking a typical pro-Palestine US position and cites the State Department funding as a source of bias.  To me, this accusation seems backward as Israel consistently receives US financial and political support while Palestinians are defended by other nations.  In addition, while the state department granted funds to the Council, the study was designed by Yale Professor and carried out by a group of Israelis and Palestinians who collaborated - the first study of its kind that was produced through collaborative effort. The US was not involved in the actual research and if they had been we might expect to find stronger pro-Israel findings in the report.  The report is drawing significant negative criticism from Israelis, who it would seem are in disbelief regarding results that challenge their  nationalist story of the "Other".  As we discussed in class on 2/6/13, one's identity can depend as much on oneself and what one "is" as it does on a source of opposition and what one is "not".  Perhaps the reports findings too directly contradict the Israeli identity as defined by the "other/Palestine" and this helps to explain their negativity, disbelief and denial toward the findings.  


Sources:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/feb/04/israeli-palestinian-textbooks-borders
http://blogs.jpost.com/content/report-palestinian-israeli-textbooks-overlooks-core-issue
http://www.ngo-monitor.org/data/images/File/Ministry%20of%20Strategic%20Affairs%20Response%20to%20School%20Book%20Study.pdf
http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2013/02/israeli-palestinian-textbook-study.html
http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/middle-east/israel-and-palestine/130204/israeli-palestinian-textbooks-show-bia

Ironically, a commenter writes: Surprise, surprise: any study funded by the State Department fits their bias.  (The anti-Israel bias?  See the sidebar to receive your free US-Israel Flag Pin).