Talk:Textbooks in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict

message: For the first time, Palestinian curricula and textbooks have been produced for most school subjects and levels, which shall gradually replace the old contents supplied by Egypt and Jordan, and partially censored by Israel. The new curricula and textbooks are based on the concept of a Palestinian national history. Although the new textbooks have been harshly criticized by some Israeli organizations, the analyses carried out have established in a rather sober way that in particular the Civics textbooks make endeavours towards conflict mediation and balanced thinking. Yet this cannot hide the fact that this interpretation of history is marked by Israel's concept of liberation and attainment of sovereignty. Knowing for certain that in the present situation, it is hardly possible to reach a consensus on a common interpretation of the history of the Middle East conflict, the teachers and scholars committed to PRIME's work agreed upon to produce a textbook in which both narratives are separately taken into account. The aim is to make clear, by confronting diverging interpretations of the events which partially exclude each other, how conditional both national narratives are, and thus to foster self-critical thinking and mutual dialogue. Within the project, all textbook chapters are being discussed among all team members. A wide consensus on contents should be reached, as far as possible, but in the end, both sides are responsible for their respective texts. This work demands a lot of patience and the capacity to endure tensions and to re-examine one's own identity. When Palestinians and Israelis mean the same, they generally use different words, when they use the same names, they often mean different places. What is said to be a "national catastrophe" on the one side is depicted as a "War of Independence" in the textbooks of the other side. Does the "capital Jerusalem", as illustrated in Palestinian Civics textbooks, only include the Old City and the Arab parts? And how may Israeli pupils imagine an "international resolution" of the Jerusalem issue, when their textbooks show Israeli soldiers standing in front of the Western Wall? 
http://www.gei.de/index.php?id=schulbuchprojek_israel_palestina&L=1
72.205.39.139 (talk) 05:45, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: untitled

message: Terrorism preceded occupation, just look at the number of Israelis murdered by Arabs before 1967 and before 1956.  The Palestinian education system is based on racism and hatred.  This is the root of violence.  There will never be peace in the Middle East until someone changes the education system of Arabs in Saudi Arabia, and other hostile nations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.131.184.152  (talk • contribs) 02:05, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Palestinian education is the root of terrorism

message: I propose that both this page and the Israeli textbooks page be merged into a single page called Academic bias in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This will solve some key problems, notably the one described in the section below about how the title does not match the content. It 
will also allow for other academic groups' biases to be discussed. Organ123 00:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Double Merge Proposal

message: This article gives highly undue weight to the Israeli Defense Forces and Palestinian Media Watch. It is not clear to me why we should pass on IDF claims, especially not with misleading section titles which do not make it clear that we are doing so. Nor is it clear what makes Palestinian Media Watch, a propaganda front group linked to the Likud wing of Israeli politics, a reliable source on any of these issues. Furthermore, we have not presented any defence given by Palestinians themselves. As a result, we are giving equal weight to neutral academic studies which find no incitement and tendentious partisan claims of incitement, a clear violation of policy.
In addition, please do not cite Palestinian textbooks by name and page number unless you have actually read these textbooks. I have removed all of these citations being about 99.5% sure that the editors haven't. In one case, a pro-Palestinian editor was almost community-banned for doing this once with a claim that wasn't even contentious. Eleland 19:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  My recent edits and NPOV tags 

message: Surely the POV nature of this article is obvious to all? The lead introduces the charge of antisemitism, and it is repeatedly implied throughout the text. However, on careful examination, the accusations seem to be empty. There is criticism of the Palestinian text books which could indeed be valid - but only partisans would think of it like that, since it concerns an Israeli construct "Israel's right to exist" (ie not the Palestinian expectation of a state "for all its people"). The really damaging charge seems to be based on nothing whatsoever.
It is striking (and perhaps unusual) that this article was created with a faintly "pro-Palestinian" perspective - so it's not as if we're seeing a viewpoint that's survived by inertia. Look at the history, note the speed with which a tag-team of opposing editors arrived, laid accusations against the creator, slapped the article with tags and turn what is, in essence, a stale accusation into a wholesale assault on the decency of an entire people. Note the impossibly partisan first external link and its irrelevant contribution (Hamas’ Mickey Mouse teaches children to hate and kill) and the absurd comment we've added "Important article from MFA, as well as links to several important non-governmental groups, including PMW." Note how this link and the comment have been edit-warred back in, just in the last few days.
The second link is Center for Monitoring the Impact on Peace, which we know to have been the only consistent maker of the antisemitic allegation - but its abandoned its web-site and changed its name to "The Institute for Monitoring Peace and Cultural Tolerance in School Education (IMPACT-SE)". The new organisation provides nothing for the mysterious statement referenced to the older organisation "In January 1999, the State Department reported that "The methodologies employed by UNRWA make it difficult to draw firm conclusions about the extent of anti-Semitic content in host authority textbooks used in UNRWA schools. At the same time, UNRWA's review did reveal instances of anti-Semitic characterizations and content in those host authority texts."[1] which we display so prominently - in fact, this statement is completely unverifiable (at least by web-search).
User:Deuterium started this article and then abandoned his creation after 2 days, his final edit appears to be the last semi-NPOV version. That version of the article documents the bias that does remain, but gives the impression (correct as far as I can see) that, while racism and incitement may have been a problem earlier they have been pretty much eliminated now.
All subsequent versions of the article up to the present carry out a species of ethnic libel, leaning heavily on wholesale distortion. Even the chronological order, (oldest, most partisan and most damaging claims at the top of the page) inserted in two stages by different editors, seems calculated to deceive the reader - as if we are in favor of perpetuating hatred and mistrust. This version of the article is being enforced with no apparent concern for the policies of the project (RS, V, NPOV and UNDUE). (Compare this article with the soothing one on Israeli textbooks, some of which probably have more severe problems). PRtalk 11:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The organization isn't "new", and it didn't "abandon its web-site". It changed its name, and moved to a new website. You'll find it here. As for the "mysterious statement", it is not "completely unverifiable by web-search", but easily found here. Finally, please stop using article Talk: pages to make false and pejorative statements about other editors, and as a soapbox. Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 23:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Your work digging up references is praiseworthy. However, please stop using false and pejorative accusations about false and pejorative statements about other editors as weapons to get your way in content disputes. Instead, try arguing in a rational and civil manner. Thanks. <eleland/talkedits> 01:24, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no specific "content dispute" here, and please stop making nonsensical turnspeak comments. Instead, try arguing in a rational and civil manner. Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 01:29, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it your claim, then, that PR is not, above, disputing the content in this page? <eleland/talkedits> 01:33, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure he is, in some way or other, but he hasn't actually stated what specifically he's disputing. Instead, he's given a lengthy spin on his view of the history of the article and the motivations of its editors, and soapboxed about "a species of ethnic libel", "in favor of perpetuating hatred and mistrust", etc. Ergo, no specific content dispute. Jayjg (talk) 01:37, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Creator abandoned this article 

message: The article as it stands is giving undue weight to biased sources such as Palestinian Media Watch and, of course, the Israeli Defence Force. The chronological order seems unnecessary. A logical layout would be to present truly independent sources first, followed by partisan sources from each side. The US and the EU could also be given sections to give their perspective on the issue.
There should also be some attempt at summarizing what each source says. At the moment it appears many of the accounts are directly contradictory of each other. And explanation of why that is so (textbook editions? faulty assessments? different standards?) would be useful. Factsontheground (talk) 12:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Independence of sources

message: ;Arutz 7 as quoted by JVL
After being shown the English translation of textbooks used by the Palestinian Authority (PA), Armin Laschet, a German representative in the European Union Parliament threatened to halt all EU funding of PA educational institutions "until all the Palestinian textbook passages antagonistic to Israel are removed."
One example from the books Laschet saw was a textbook on Islam that calls on high school students to beware of the Jews because they are "deceitful and disloyal." Another blamed European anti-Semitism on Jewish greed and fanaticism.
Peter Hansen, Commissioner-General of UNRWA, gave the PA response in Al-Hayat al-Jadida, "We cannot expect a people under occupation to have textbooks which idealize, praise and express love for their occupiers."
Israeli texts do not "idealize, praise and express love" for the Palestinians, but they do not malign or disseminate hatred against them either.
The PA's deputy minister for education denied the books were being used, but Yasser Arafat confirmed that they were in the PA schools. He claimed the books were old ones from the Jordanian system and that the PA lacked funds to replace them. Laschet replied that the European Union was providing the PA with 300 million Euros [roughly $300 million] "and they certainly can bear the cost of publishing new textbooks."
;Wikipedia
After being shown the English translation of textbooks used by the Palestinian Authority, Armin Laschet, a German representative in the European Union Parliament threatened to cut off all EU funding of PA educational institutions "until all the Palestinian textbook passages antagonistic to Israel are removed."
Laschet saw was a textbook on Islam that calls on high school students to beware of the Jews because they are "deceitful and disloyal." Another blamed European anti-Semitism on Jewish greed and fanaticism.[25][26]
Peter Hansen, Commissioner-General of UNRWA, gave the response for the PA in Al-Hayat al-Jadida, "We cannot expect a people under occupation to have textbooks which idealize, praise and express love for their occupiers." The statement caused outrage and fury among many circles. The American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise answered to his response: "Israeli texts do not 'idealize, praise and express love' for the Palestinians, but they do not malign or disseminate hatred against them either."[citation needed]
The PA's deputy minister for education denied the books were being used, however Yasser Arafat confirmed that they were in the PA schools. He claimed the books were old ones from the Jordanian system and that the PA lacked funds to replace them. Laschet replied that the European Union was providing the PA with 300 million Euros "and they certainly can bear the cost of publishing new textbooks."[27]
EvanHarper (talk) 21:42, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You are absolutely correct, that was gross plagiarism. I have re-written the section so as to remove the overt plagiarism. Thank you! -- Avi (talk) 01:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plagiarism 

message: All of the references to the alleged examples of anti Israeli statements appear to be to the textbooks themselves.  This would make them Primary sources, so they will need to be replaced by reliable secondary sources, or the examples removed.Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 19:50, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  2006 Israeli Defense Ministry study 

message: Is an expert in the field and an extremely well qualified source. He is the author of such works as Palestinian Politics after the Oslo Accords, published by University of California Press. The blanket claim "non-RS" does not justify the removal of a noted scholar. I am returning that material. nableezy - 22:21, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: So when his analysis is reported by secondary sources, it might just be worthy of inclusion. Ankh.Morpork 19:05, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: He is the secondary source. Youre just outside of violating the 1RR, and the tendentiousness of repeatedly removing an expert on the topic, when two other users have already objected makes this more than a foolish act. Possibly a report worthy one. nableezy - 19:27, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You provided a dead link which purports to lead to a primary study by this individual not referred to by secondary sources. Ankh.Morpork 19:52, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you really not understand what a secondary source is? nableezy - 19:54, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

text: And here is a UNRWA document citing Brown for the rest of the material. Self-revert. nableezy - 20:00, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

text: And here is Haaretz doing the same. Note they call the paper this is taken from an authoritative study exonerating the Palestinian Authority from claims it has misrepresented regional geography. nableezy - 20:01, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nathan Brown 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Marriage in the Palestinian territories which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 04:30, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Move discussion in progress

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 20:14, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Move discussion in progress

message: The article says, "Likewise, a 4th-grade Palestinian book included a story about a Palestinian who came to the rescue of a wounded Israeli soldier out of his 'obligation as a Muslim Arab,'" citing an LA Times story that initially claimed this was the case. Note that this has been corrected in the LA Times: http://www.latimes.com/news/world/worldnow/la-fg-wn-israeli-palestinian-textbooks-unbalanced-20130204,0,3549890.story. I have thus corrected the error in the Wikipedia article. Notaneditorjustaneditor (talk) 04:44, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Error corrected by LA Times, but remained in this article

message: By using:
*Any relevant info from -- or removed relevant info from - Textbooks in Israel, including sourced relevant info left out that is used in references in that article
*Any removed relevant info from this article, including sourced relevant info left out that is used in references in that article
*Anything missing from Jews, Israel and Peace in Palestinian School Textbooks - does it really need an article?
*Books and scholar.google Searches of terms like "Bias in Israeli textbooks" (I did some for another article will add later since in part of big list and housework calls.)
*Other? CarolMooreDC 22:58, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Expand article with info on Israeli textbooks

message: This division doesn't make sense. I don't think any editor here is in a position to judge whether or not an organization is "independent" or non-partisan. 
In particular, the same organization is characterized both as Israel-affiliated and as independent:
Center for Monitoring the Impact of Peace (CMIP) - 2000 is characterized as independent. The same organization - which follows criteria and protocols from UNESCO - was renamed The Institute for Monitoring Peace and Cultural Tolerance in School Education (IMPACT-SE) - and its work is characterized as Israel-affiliated.
In my opinion, the value of this article is to bring together a neutral listing of textbook studies - in chronological order (or reverse chronological order). // retracted: Perhaps the title should be changed to reflect the focus on Palestinian textbooks. I don't know if it would make sense to have a single article covering both Israeli and Palestinian textbooks, but if such articles are kept separate, it is certainly relevant to have cross-references// Dian Kjaergaard (talk) 15:19, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Classification of "independent" versus "Israel-affiliated" organizations - and State Department Human Rights Report