---------- Forwarded message ----------
I
would like to share
my thoughts and concerns about the Text Book Study in the light of the
recent
exchanges between Arnon and the Research Team, and my own notes to you
in the
last few months, including last night. I apologize for the delay but I
needed some time to sort out the substance in the exchanges from the
confusion in
the last few days. First I was
personally appalled by the unfortunate Ministry of Education statement
attacking Daniel and stand by him. But there are major unresolved
problems with
the Project, as Arnon has made clear, so I cannot endorse the Report as
written
What I say below repeats the points I have made over the past several
months in
personal letters to Bruce. Many –in rougher form--were in my very first
comments to the group on the eve of our meeting in the Meridian.
What are we committed to? We want educational
environments and texts which promote the core values of life and respect for
life of all, notably the other. Incitement
in all its forms undermines these values because it leads to terror, political
violence, atrocity crimes and genocide.
If we can prevent incitement we may be able to prevent much of the
above. Because incitement is man-made, it can be eradicated. Therefore our immediate objective is the eradication of incitement and
hate language. .Our long term goal is the promotion of positive
measures of life and respect for life and dignity among Israelis and
Palestinians, and yes the entire regton, where hate is endemic and violence and
butchery are epidemic.
Recommendation: Let’s keep our eye on the
ball. We want texts which promote sanctification of life and let live, not
death and martyrdom from killing the
other “The researchers “tried to
reveal the narrative that Israeli and Palestinian school textbooks are
transmitting to their children. This is a holistic approach that tries to
uncover the big picture” (Bar
Tal) latter ‘determine’” the former My position is that Narratives
which condone, excuse or apologize for terror, political violence, atrocity crimes undermine
these values and promote moral equivalence. To find out if they are
doing so, the Project looked at both the forest and the trees.
What has the Textbook Project accomplished? It has shown the feasibility of using quantitative methods (sampling, a prori defined
variables and categories) to find out if the content of texts promote or
undermine these values.
The research has demonstrated substantial qualitative
and quantitative differences between Israeli and Palestinian Texts. The evidence indicates that many passages in
Palestinian texts condone, delegitimization, non
recognition of the other and violence, Israel secular texts have made major
strides towards promoting peace and recognition of the other. Both have to make
advances.
What are the Limitations?: Questions remain concerning definitions of the variables, how they are
classified and measured and counted and what materials
are included and excluded. Arnon has shown there are biases and distortions
associated with all of the above. Are we not
missing or mismeasuring incitement –as Pearson and Spearman missed and
mismeasured IQ in English children . More fundamentally, Daniel’s statement about
a holistic” study is erases the distinction between observations and interpretation,
or worse, allowing the latter to distort the former. This is dangerous.
What did the Study not examine? It did not examine the content of the overall formal educational
environment of children—summer camps, youth movements, children’s educational
TV, and in the case of the PA or Palestine, and the parallel to the Israeli
ultra orthodox educational system.
Recommendation: The executive summary
should explicitly note these limitations and exclusions, commit to addressing
them
Problem: What modifications are necessary
before the Report can be endorsed? Do
its methods measure what they seek to measure? –Or in more technical language,
what are the validity, reliability and sensitivity and specificity of the
screening tools? Do they measure or mismeasure incitement?
The
study uses the term delegitimize to lump together statements which
dehumanize, demonize, defame and delegitimize—a term which conventionally means
denying or ignoring the existence of the other. The first four are much worse. Does
such lumping fail to “capture” the first four of the above? Does this use of a
catch all term result in loss of both sensitivity and specificity? (Would Mein
Kampf be classified as a bad case of delegitimization, --i.e. in the same
cateogorywith leaving out X on the map?)
Recommendation: Reexamine text passages
described as delegitimizing to see whether they contain elements of the first
four D’s. This reexamination requires experts more senior than the coders--whom I wish to congratulate for their dedication. .
Challenge: How should the Study deal with
statements taken from ancient texts, including the Bible and Koran?
Not scoring inflammatory
statements taken from ancient texts (including the Bible and Koran) against “infidels”
and so on is a fundamental omission. Teaching historical stories or legends –especially
from theological sources--which incite or dehumanize, demonize or delegitimize, is a classic strategem for evading scrutiny.
Recommendation:
The study should revisit these excerpts. It should
determine whether presentations --including narratives in school texts
are descriptive, normative or critical. These
texts should be critiqued in the light of core values of life, respect
for life and dignity of the other.. This recommendation applies to how
textbooks teach and contextualize
genocidal passages in the Bible and Koran.
Challenge: Do the Textbooks cite classical
texts which promote what is now called Positive Deviance? Wasatia has collected many such examples.
Recommendation: Examine the ratio of positive to negative
classical citations
Problem: Does the Textbook study detect motifs
of demonization, defamation and incitement captured by “hands on” peer reviewed
reviews?
A comparison of the
Textbook Study with the hands-on Report by Gross suggests the answer to this
question is No.
Recommendations: Do cross examination to assess agreement,
disagreement and errors of omission and commission in the study and the
Hands-on Review.
Require the study to
include a structured critical review of p Brown’s and Gross’s works. Discuss how this study confirms, refutes of modifies.
Impressions gleaned from previous studies. See what is missing in the Textbook
study which other studies capture and vice versa. Members of the SAP and others
should do this peer review.
Problem: Is it valid to automatically classify
as “negative” those actions of the other—especially violent acts-- even when these depictions are true? . E.g. Hebron Massacre in 1929 and Deir Yassin in 1948. Doing so is an example of sliding down the
slippery slope to moral equivalence.
Recommendation: Task an Israeli and
Palestinian historian—along with philosophers/theologians with knowledge on
Just War theory to review whether descriptions of “bad” events or actions—even if
they are “narratives”- are true.
Problem: Lumping Palestinian and
UO as equally negative fails to capture a fundamental qualitative yes-no
difference between the two concerning glorification and implicit imitation of
those engaged in acts aimed at willfully killing civilians—those who attack
wedding ceremonies, schools, busses, bar mitzvahs, pizza parlors as martyrs.
Many excerpts in Palestinian
texts describe perpetrators of terror as shahids, i.e worthy of
emulation. Ultra-orthodox texts describe
victims
of terror as kadosh. They do not
describe the perpetrators as kadosh. .
Recommendation: Scan the texts for use of the term martyrs and
determine how and why they are presented as models for emulation.
Problem: Errors of omission: How does the Study address the central role
of the Mufti in allying Palestinian society and the Arab world with the Nazis,
EIchman and the goals of the Holocaust (6,000,000 killed)? Here the example of Israeli
state texts on how they teach Deir Yassin, (109 killed, not including 25
captured soldiers who were executed) is an exemplary role model.
Recommendation: The Commission should endorse the use of
Professor Dajani’s textbook in Arabic on the Holocaust to rectify this
omission—although the introductions by a European political scientist and by
Asmi Bashara are very problematic.
Conclusion: There are already more than enough
findings from the Study to mandate action to promote positive messages and get
rid of the 5 D’s of incitement, and the big E-emulation. .There should be Zero
Tolerance for all of the above, without allowances to the political correctness
of moral equivalence. But my endorsement
of the Study is conditional on its correcting the major shortcomings
Arnon and I have listed. The study
needs to correct these deficiencies. I have said to one and all that
because Incitement and hate language --especially Jew hatred-are
pandemic in the region .monitoring of
incitement need to be extended to the entire educational environment
far and wide throughout the region, from Tunisia to Pakistan.
Best
wishes,
Professor Elihu D Richter MD MPH
Genocide Prevention Program
Hebrew University-Hadassah School of Public Health and Community Medicine
No comments:
Post a Comment