Itamar Marcus again;
Jerusalem Post editorial¹ about Palestinian schoolbooks
Gabriel Baramki
September 7, 2003

I hesitated a lot before embarking on a response to Itamar Marcus’ article: “Planting seeds of the next war: the truth about the Palestinian textbooks”. However, I found it necessary to address once and for all some of the points raised in the article in the hope that we can address the Real issues and not fabrications in the future. The most meaningful gauge for the integrity of a peace process and its likelihood for success is by far the sincerity and good intention of the “peace partners” in attaining a comprehensive peace. Itamar Marcus, under the guise of an honest observer and believer in peace, has been using his poisonous attacks on Palestinian textbooks as a cover for the Israeli intentions towards peace, and their unwillingness to accept a Palestinian state, side by side with Israel, as the prerequisite to peace. Before we go into Marcus’ analysis, it is necessary to stress that deeds on the ground are more important than pronouncements to the international media about intentions. A “partner” in peace that speaks of peace and on the ground does exactly the opposite of what peace requires cannot be a trusted partner in peace. Building the “apartheid wall” on Palestinian territory, and building settlements and expanding them in the heart of the Palestinian territories, do not spell peace no matter how much one educates the children and the public to the contrary.

Palestinian schoolbooks cannot and should not be examined in the absence of an equal scrutiny of the Israeli textbooks. And while Palestinian National Authority’s experience in writing textbooks is a fairly recent one, the Israeli experience goes back to over 50 years.

The referral to Jordanian books as anti-Semitic is interesting. The same Jordanian textbooks that the Palestinian Authority is using, did not stop Israel from signing a peace agreement with Jordan and, in fact, the peace between the two countries is rather an active one. This should be a good indication that once there is intention on both sides and partners to attain peace, the textbooks cannot stand in the way. The Israeli occupation authority used the Jordanian textbooks for 30 years, and they claim that they removed the “hate education” from them before reprinting them. Unfortunately, some of the things they removed had nothing to do with hate. Displacing the word “Palestine” wherever it occurred in the textbooks by the word “Israel” no matter in what context or period in time, was so ridiculous that it became a laughing matter amongst students and teachers alike, (as an example, in the History textbook of the ninth grade about the crusades, the text “When the Crusades came to Palestine in the 11th century” became “when the Crusades came to Israel”). Other displacements were more subtle but dangerous. Learning such values as “valor”, “love of one’s land”, “sacrifice”, and similar values in reading books is important for children, and they cannot be described as “hate material”, yet many statements and poems with such values were removed. If anything, they indicated bad intentions on the part of Israel in mis-educating Palestinian children. So that is the story or myth of the Jordanian syllabus. Suffice it for now to say that the Palestinian National Authority is using the Jordanian textbooks until such time that the Palestinian textbooks are ready.

At no point have any “foreign governments” offered money to the PNA to reprint the old Jordanian books without the so-called “hate material” as Marcus claims. This is another fabrication of his imagination. If Mr. Marcus or the Israeli government, as part of their usual hate campaign, asked some “foreign governments” to do so, we are glad indeed that these foreign governments knew better and did not respond to his wishes.

As for the textbooks on religious education, Mr. Marcus would have done better to analyze and explain the texts from the Old Testament in Israeli schools, with which, I hope, he is more familiar, than with texts from the Quran that obviously he does not understand and misinterprets to suit his anti Islamic sentiments. Had he read carefully the text about “those who were charged with the Torah” and the context in which it was said, he would have realized that the referral was to those (Jews and others) who did not understand what God was saying to them, i.e. to the illiterate. They are likened to a donkey that carries books and it is a figure of speech and has nothing to do with calling Jews donkeys. But perhaps Mr. Marcus can explain better what message is given to the pupils who are taught the book of Joshua, especially about the attitude of Jews towards non-Jews, “when the trumpets sounded, the people shouted …and the wall (of Jericho) collapsed; so every man charged straight in, and they took the city. They devoted the city to the Lord and destroyed with the sword every living thing in it-men and women, young and old, cattle sheep and donkeys”². Unfortunately, we do not have an exact antonym for anti-Semitism that we can use to describe the actions of Jews to non-Jews, which is no less loathsome than anti-Semitism. In any case, I believe it is a totally useless exercise going into religious education because here in all religions, one is bound to find things to one’s liking and others that are not, and unfortunately, these are all supposed to be words of God and one cannot argue about that. Perhaps all religious education should be abolished in schools and replaced by ethics, leaving religious education per se for the religious schools or the churches, mosques and synagogues. But until people on both sides decide on this matter, it would be more useful to be more positive about each other’s religions and take them as they are.

Finally, we come to the issue of recognition of the right of Israel to exist and all the other arguments about history and Geography. This has become like a broken record that Mr. Marcus keeps repeating and I will refrain from responding to this issue, which has been dealt with by many scholars.³ I will only want to say that before Marcus opens this subject, he should indicate where he stands regarding mutual recognition. To continue talking about Judea and Samaria instead of Palestinian territories, is a non-starter and he should not expect the Palestinians to even discuss this subject. Living on stolen Palestinian property in a settlement in the occupied territories, is considered a war crime by the International Criminal Court (it is a serious violation of the 4th Geneva Convention of 1949). It would be important when we talk about recognition and borders, to use the international law and conventions and UN resolutions in their totality and not selectively. As long as the textbooks clearly refer to the geography of the country and the date of the maps, then, in the absence of an agreement by both parties who are contesting the area of Palestine, we should not embark on this subject before a political agreement is reached and the borders agreed upon for the two states- Palestine and Israel. Indeed, I am glad that Mr. Marcus had not established an “Egypt Media Watch” or a “Jordan Media Watch” before those two countries signed the peace agreement with Israel, as probably we would still be arguing and counter arguing about textbooks, while peace would still be waiting.

Gabriel Baramki is a Consultant to the Palestinian Ministry of Education and Higher Education in Ramallah.

[1] Jerusalem Post Editorial, June 29, 2003
[2] Joshua 6:20-21
[3] Fouad Moughrabi: The Politics of Palestinian Textbooks, The Palestine Monitor (www.palestinemonitor.org); Ali Abunimah: A Textbook case of Israeli Propaganda, The Jordan Time, July 4, 2002