My initial claim:

“Clearly false statements [in the CMIP reports] are rare, though when they do occur they are far from minor.  For instance, the Center’s first report on Palestinian textbooks, issued in 1998, included the statement that: “PA TV is a division of the Palestinian Authority Ministry of Education,” which allowed the report to saddle the Palestinian educational establishment with any statement broadcast on Palestinian television.  The statement was false, however.”

CMIP response:

“The exact and complete quote of the statement is: ‘Sporadic viewing of PA TV during the months March-August 1998 revealed that many of the educational messages that appear in the school books are broadcast regularly on PA TV.’ In no way can this sentence be described as ‘saddling the Palestinian educational establishment with any broadcast on Palestinian Television.’ Information about the incorporation of television into the PA Ministry of Education was given to CMIP by PNA officials, and was accepted by us at face value.”

My rejoinder:

CMIP’s response is inadequate on several levels:

·  It does not provide the “complete” quotation of its own report.  Instead it quotes selectively to trick the reader into thinking the report noted only in passing that TV broadcasts might have similar messages to the textbooks.  The original report contained a paragraph labeled “Palestinian Authority Television.”  The report then stated: “PA TV is a division of the Palestinian Authority Ministry of Education. Sporadic viewing of PA TV during the months March – August 1998, revealed that many of the educational messages that appear in the school books are broadcast regularly on PA TV. Some of these have been included in the report” [emphasis added].  The report then went on to quote from PA TV broadcasts.  In light of the CMIP’s decision—highlighted in its original report--to include TV broadcasts while examining textbooks, my original statement is both accurate and fair.  CMIP is simply not telling the truth when it describes the quotation above as “complete.”

·  The CMIP’s original statement regarding PA TV is false, regardless of the source.  And if CMIP wishes to stand by its original statement—as seems to be the case from the passage quoted above--why has it removed  the section from a revised version of its 1998 report?

·  The claim that “PNA officials” supplied this information is curious.  I certainly met no officials in the Ministry of Education who thought they were responsible for television.  The CMIP might supply more details on the identity of the “PNA officials” (in the plural) and the nature of the statements.

My initial claim:

“In its second comprehensive report on Palestinian textbooks, issued in 2000 on the new books for the first and sixth grades, the Center claims that ‘the PA has rejected international calls’ to modify books for the other grades.  In fact, as will become clear, the plan to replace the textbooks in question was as old as the PNA itself and was proceeding according to a well-published schedule when the Center’s report was issued.”

CMIP response:

   “Although Professor Brown alluded to the use of Egyptian and Jordanian textbooks by the PNA during the period that Israel was responsible for education in areas now under PNA rule, he neglected to mention that these were reprinted after the material offensive to Jews and Israel had been removed. The PNA chose to adopt the older, un-censored, versions containing the offensive material – and it was this fact that CMIP was highlighting in its 1998 report, while querying the PNA decision, and not, as suggested by Professor Brown, holding the PNA responsible for the content of books not produced by themselves. Incidentally, these original versions are still in use today for those grades for which new Palestinian textbooks have not yet been introduced.

   “Where, then, does CMIP’s claim that the PNA rejected ‘international calls’ to modify books for the other grades come from? It refers to an official US proposal raised before the Trilateral Committee Against Incitement set up by the Wye Agreements. Under the proposal the US government was ready to provide funds for the immediate reprinting of all the old schoolbooks in use in the PNA, with their anti-Semitic and anti-Israeli rhetoric, including overt calls for Israel’s destruction removed. The proposal was rejected by the PNA.”

My rejoinder:

This response is both inaccurate and misleading:

·  The initial paragraph says that I do not mention the Israeli practice of removing material.  This is false. My original paper stated: “After 1948, the West Bank was annexed to Jordan and Gaza was administered by Egypt.  Accordingly, West Bank schools followed the Jordanian curriculum, while Gazan schools adopted the Egyptian.  In 1967, Israel occupied both areas and maintained the existing curricula for Palestinian schools.  It did attempt unsuccessfully to bring its own curriculum into Jerusalem, and it also reviewed Jordanian and Egyptian books, censoring material that it found objectionable.”

·  The claim that the CMIP was merely “querying” the decision to use the old books but not holding the PA responsible for its content is false and contradicted by the text of the first report, which stated directly: “Today it is the Palestinian Authority Ministry of Education who is solely responsible for the selection, the editing and the content of all the school books reviewed in this report.” 

·  I might add that I see no reason why the CMIP wishes to deny its early attribution of responsibility.  In fact, I have publicly described such a criticism as “fair.”  See “Short summary of research on Palestinian textbooks.”)   Indeed, CMIP’s response is characterized in this regard with another problem of misrepresentation.  CMIP says in its response that I am attempting to “to legitimize and excuse” some of changes in the 2001 books.  This claim about my purposes is as inaccurate as it is distressingly personal.  In fact, I have made clear—in both my paper and other writings—that the misleading CMIP reports have obscured a far less severe but more legitimate set of criticisms of the PA curriculum.  And I might add further that when an Egyptian newspaper published a short summary of my research, I wrote a chiding letter (a portion of which they published) pointing out that it was use of Egyptian books that had allowed charges of anti-Semitism to be levied against the Palestinians. 

·  The original 2000 CMIP report stated in the introduction: “In all grades other than first and sixth, the old schoolbooks with anti-Semitic and anti-Israeli rhetoric, including overt calls for Israel’s destruction, continue to be used. As yet, the PA has rejected international calls to modify these books.”  Not only is this claim false, it is also the only mention in a 6500-word report of any prospect of changing the books at all.  There is simply no mention of the plan to replace the textbooks, two grades at a time. No mention is made of the effort to develop a comprehensive curriculum for all grades, even though the plan was well underway, richly documented, and proceeding on schedule.  There is no way that any reader of the report would realize that the PA was replacing the books; further, the claim that “as yet, the PA has rejected international calls” would lead the reader to the false impression that the books would remain in place.  (Oddly, this represented a retreat: the CMIP’s initial 1998 report contained a short paragraph which, while containing several errors—since corrected by the CMIP--at least briefly mentioned the plan.)   CMIP seems to have known of the replacement program but still decided to make the false charge that the PA had refused to change the books.

My initial claim:

“The Curriculum Development Center completed its work in 1996 and presented a 600-page report that amounted to a stinging indictment of current educational institutions, practices, and pedagogy.  The Ministry of Education drew back from some of the radical proposals of the report in developing its own plan, which it presented in 1997 to the cabinet and the Palestinian Legislative Council.  After receiving approval from both bodies, the Ministry established a new Curriculum Development Center to write new books, which were to be introduced two grades at a time, beginning with the 2000/2001 school year.  As of this writing, the plan has proceeded on schedule, with the new curriculum and textbooks in effect in grades one, two, six, and seven.  The other grades will shift over to the new curriculum and books over the next three years.”

CMIP response:

[Immediately following the comments quoted in the previous entry above]:  “Given that the PNA are publishing their own school textbooks at the approximate rate of two grades a year, it would seem that these Egyptian and Jordanian books will be in use in PNA schools for some considerable time. Professor Brown does not refer to any of these points, and is presumably not aware of them.”

My rejoinder:

The comment that I was “presumably not aware” of “any of these points” seems to refer to two points:

·         The “international calls,” to which I have responded above; and

·         The schedule for replacement.  Here the CMIP’s claim that I do not refer to the schedule for replacement is directly and absolutely contradicted by the text of my paper.  It is the CMIP that failed to inform its readers about the replacement schedule, not I.  Indeed, CMIP material never acknowledged the schedule (even though it was well publicized in Palestinian documents) before this response to my paper; their reports studiously avoided the subject.  Having used a mendacious approach in the past, they now compound it with another statement (that I do not refer to the schedule) that can be easily verified as untrue.

My initial claim:

“The final and perhaps the largest problem with the Center’s work lies not simply with the reports themselves but in how they have been read.  The Center’s conclusions may be unsupported by the evidence it presents and undermined by the evidence it overlooks.  But it does include some qualifications and elliptical wording that usually prevent its reports from outright falsehood.  When its reports gain wider circulation, however, the buried qualifications get lost.”

CMIP response:

“Professor Brown denounces not only CMIP’s incorrect interpretation, but also the conclusions reached by the apparent misreading of CMIP’s reports by notables such as Charles Krauthammer, Berl Wein (Jerusalem Post), Senator Hilary Clinton, Senator Charles Schumer and Congressman Steve Israel who have not had the benefit of his more learned and sophisticated reading.”

My rejoinder:

The problem was not that these individuals lacked learning and sophistication; the problem was with the wording of the CMIP reports.   The fact remains that CMIP writes reports that lead readers to erroneous conclusions.  The CMIP’s website boasts about its international influence but makes no effort to disassociate itself from inaccurate comments that it has led people into making.  By contrast, the CMIP issued a detailed rebuttal of my paper.  I would suggest that the organization might be regarded as less partisan if it worked just as hard to rush out public corrections when its material was used for inaccurate statements.

My initial claim:

   “The vitriolic and often inaccurate criticisms of Palestinian textbooks should not obscure that those books do treat Israel with a remarkable awkwardness, reticence, and inconsistency. Exploring the relationship between Palestinians on the one hand and Israel, Zionism, and Jews on the other might logically be seen as central to any attempt to educate Palestinians about their past, their present, and even their geography.  But such topics are treated only at the margins. 

   “Indeed, the textbooks often take on the same kind of awkwardness adults often assume when addressing subjects they would prefer to avoid.  In explaining the concept of species, one of the new books explains that animals that are not alike cannot “marry” and have children—a rather Victorian presentation.  Discussions of sensitive political topics often show a similar reticence to sensitive topics….

   “In short, far from inciting schoolchildren, the books generally treat sensitive political questions as tangential.   There are some exceptions to this rule, but not in any sustained way. Palestinian educators have decided not to supply either a coherent narrative or a set of conceptual tools for understanding such issues.  History is presented with very different ends in mind….

   “The more recent textbooks—those for grades one, two, six, and seven, issued in 2000 and 2001—break some of the silences of the earlier books, but they still fail to develop any sustained or coherent explanation of the Palestinian present.  The issue of borders is not even raised, and the books give no clear message on the subject.”

CMIP response:

   “CMIP considers that textbooks can nurture and inflame international conflict, and that this is precisely the case with the Palestinian curricula and textbooks. Professor Brown claims the PNA is evading critical and sensitive issues, such as maps and borders, recognition of Israel’s right to exist, reconciliation and peace with Israel, not out of malice, but as a kind of embarrassed silence, resulting from lack of agreement among the Palestinians themselves on these issues. If this is so, then he offers no plausible explanation for the fact that Israel is presented as the cause for all the Palestinian problems, or why the textbooks call for the liberation of all Palestine by Jihad and martyrdom, and further glorifies Jihad and martyrdom, or why the Jews are not included in the teaching of tolerance, why holy places are presented as exclusively Muslim and Christian, and that there are obvious inaccuracies in presenting historical fact.”

My rejoinder:

   The primary differences here are those of interpretation.  Some of these issues are treated in more detail below, but readers are probably best advised to refer to my original paper and the CMIP reports that go over these matters.   I hope that they will then see that some of the CMIP claims are grossly overstated and (more to the point) ignore other aspects of the books.  It is the CMIP that is being selective in its use of evidence, not me.

  I might add that the CMIP adduces little support for its claim that “textbooks can nurture and inflame international conflict” and that “this is precisely the case” with the Palestinian books.  There is probably some truth to the CMIP’s general claim about textbooks, but it adduces no evidence.  More troubling, though, is how it pursues its argument in the Palestinian case.  Not only does it present no evidence for the link but it pursues the argument so strongly—it raises the specter of September 11 in its 2001 report on Palestinian books—that it steps into hyperbole.  I do not mean to minimize the effects of education or the offensiveness of racism.  But there are indications that that Palestinian textbooks tend to follow more than they produce broader political changes.  The Israeli practice of removing passages from books between 1967 and 1994 did not prevent the intifada; Palestinian willingness to resist Israel by violent means increased during the period.

My initial claim:

My research focused on the domestic politics of Palestinian education, though I found that I had to confront some of the issues raised by the CMIP because the organization’s reports dominated almost all English-language discussions of Palestinian textbooks.

CMIP response:

“CMIP also considers that it is not proper to evaluate the PNA curriculum from the Palestinian domestic point of view – arguably a legitimate academic exercise – but that it should be addressed from the international point of view, because of the crucial implications for the fate of the peace process between Israel and the Palestinians”

My rejoinder:

I am not certain why the CMIP views it “not proper” to view the curriculum from a domestic perspective.  Perhaps this sentence got garbled in the editing process.

My initial claim:

“However, in contrast to the alarm and alacrity with which it studied Palestinian textbooks, the Center’s work on Israeli textbooks showed a far more generous spirit and proceeded at a far more leisurely pace, taking years rather than months.  The report on Israeli books followed a very different method: rather than quoting example after example of offending passages with little historical context or explanation (a method that would have produced a very damning report indeed), the report on Israeli textbooks is nuanced and far more careful.  Incendiary quotations are explained, analyzed and contextualized in the report on Israeli books; they are listed with only brief and sensationalist explanations in the reports on Palestinian books.  In short, the Center is fair, balanced, and understanding for Israeli textbooks but tendentious on Palestinian books.”

CMIP response:

   “Obviously it takes far less time to review 14 PNA textbooks for grade one and grade six than to review 360 Israeli textbooks for twelve grades. There were 25 times more Israeli textbooks than PNA books, so it should have taken 25 times as long to review the Israeli books. Given that it actually took considerably less time, we are not sure on what basis Professor Brown makes this allegation.

   “Exactly the same method was applied to the PNA and Israeli textbooks, in spite of the fact that the respective reviews were carried out by different researchers and covered completely different sets of books (360 Israeli textbooks, and 60 PNA textbooks). All research undertaken by CMIP, including that relating to Israeli textbooks as well as PNA textbooks, is carried out according to fixed guidelines and criteria, taking into account the variety of the subject matter and quantity of textbooks available for each country. These guidelines include UNESCO criteria on the one hand, which stress the need for uniform, accurate, honest and balanced presentation, and CMIP criteria on the other, which examine whether stereotypes and prejudice, or reconciliation, tolerance and peace, are or are not present. The researchers are asked to pinpoint and present all the relevant passages, without comments and with only strict minimal background when needed for non-specialist readers.”

My rejoinder:

     My initial statement on timing—while hardly central to my critique—is still fair.  According to its website, the CMIP was founded in 1998.  The month is not specified, but it seems to have been spun off from “Palestinian Media Watch” some time in the summer of 1998 (I welcome any clarification from CMIP on this issue).  It issued its first report—based on a survey of 140 Palestinian textbooks—some time in the late summer or early fall of 1998.  (Again, I welcome any further specification from CMIP.)  It was an additional two years before the report on Israeli textbooks was issued.  Thus, CMIP’s plea that there were simply too many books to analyze quickly only applies to the Israeli books, not the Palestinian ones.

   However, my main criticism of the CMIP has to do with its methods, not its speed.  And here I find the CMIP’s claim that it followed the same method for Israeli and PA textbooks demonstrably false in three ways. 

·  The report on Israeli textbooks carefully notes the purpose, audience, and source for each book, allowing the reader to discern clear differences among the various Israeli school systems.  The analysis brings this out clearly.  The reports on Palestinian textbooks do the precise opposite: they obscure the differences among the various books (Egyptian, Jordanian, or PA).  Only in its 2001 report does the CMIP finally abandon the practice of mixing quotations from the old books and the new books together.

·  The report on Palestinian textbooks ignores almost all evidence that undermines its central claims.  The report on Israeli textbooks is written in a far more generous spirit.

·  As I explain below (see the final item), CMIP insists on including passages it claims it found in one edition of a book mentioned in the Palestinian curriculum (which is not a required text, though students are encouraged to use different portions of it in a suggested exercise).  But it excludes Israeli material that is far more central to the curriculum on the grounds that it does not constitute a textbook.

It is these practices that have misled so many readers.

   While the CMIP report on Israeli textbooks lacks the tendentiousness of the work on Palestinian books, I would still suggest that those interested in the subject consult the works of Israeli academics like Ruth Firer (Hebrew University), Daniel Bar-Tal (Tel-Aviv University), and Elie Podeh (Hebrew University) for more scholarly treatments.

My original claim:

“Critics charge that the Center’s real purpose is to launch attacks on the Palestinian National Authority, and it would be difficult to contest such a conclusion.  They point to the identity of the Center’s first director, Itamar Marcus, to support their suspicions.”

Accompanying footnote: “An Israeli resident of the West Bank settlement of Efrat, Marcus previously lobbied to keep West Bank aquifers under Israeli control.  His work on textbooks led Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu to appoint him to a joint committee with the Palestinians on incitement.  He then went on to found an organization that searches Palestinian media for anti-Israeli and anti-Jewish statements, following a similar method to that followed for textbooks.  For an example of a criticism of the Center’s work that focuses on Marcus personally, see the document submitted by the PLO to the Mitchell Commission, ‘Third Submission of the Palestine Liberation Organization to the Sharm El-Sheikh Fact-Finding Committee,’ 3 April 2001, www.nad-plo.org/eye/Response%20to%20Israeli%20Submission.5.pdf, p. 22.”

CMIP response:

“An ad hominem argument based on the identity of a researcher employed by an NGO is flimsy, irrelevant and dishonest as a means to infer its ‘real goal.’”

My rejoinder:

  CMIP is seriously misleading its readers by referring Marcus only as “a researcher employed” by CMIP.  He was the founding director of the organization and only recently left it.  He was the principal author of the CMIP’s 1998 and 2000 reports on Palestinian textbooks.  He still seems to draw on CMIP’s work (for instance, in a report he wrote for the Simon Wiesenthal Center).  I would also add that I do not believe he was a researcher, at least as I would use the term.  If I understand correctly, he does not read Arabic and thus wrote the CMIP’s reports based on the research of others.  (I welcome correction on this point if I am mistaken.)

  I would point out that I attribute the criticisms of Marcus to others.  The CMIP might respond that I cite these criticisms in a way that seems to accord them some credibility.  I should therefore make as clear as possible that my critique of the CMIP reports is based on their substance and method, not on their authors.  I do strongly suspect—from the overheated prose of the CMIP’s reports, its public behavior, and the striking pattern of its errors—that the reason it misleads people so consistently is because of its political motivations.  Nevertheless, my criticisms stand even if this suspicion is incorrect.

My original claim:

The CMIP obscures the differences between the books authored by the PA and the older Egyptian and Jordanian books.

CMIP response:

“In its 1998 report CMIP mentioned explicitly that “there were two types [of textbooks reviewed]: original PA publications and texts based on books published in Jordan and Egypt.”

My rejoinder:

   This is beside the point.  I did not claim that the CMIP never mentioned that there were different books but that it failed to compare them and misled readers by obscuring the difference.  In this regard, I would refer to almost all international discussions of the books based on the CMIP reports: they consistently attribute the Jordanian and Egyptian books to the PA and they fail to note any change in tone.  In short, the source of authorship is acknowledged in passing and its significance is not noted so that almost all readers missed the point.

   Only in the 2001 report (released after I wrote my paper) does the CMIP finally abandon its confusing practice of mixing the various sets of texts together.  I welcome the improvement in its presentation.

My original claim:

“The Center’s report does hold the PNA responsible for distributing the Egyptian and Jordanian books and therefore holds Palestinians responsible for the content.  Here it displays an odd double standard: it does not note that Israel has distributed the exact same books in East Jerusalem, removing only the cover.  The only books that the Israelis refused to distribute after 1994 were those authored by the PNA—the National Education series—even though those books were free of the content that Israel objected to.  The likely reason for this odd policy is that Palestinian sovereignty in Jerusalem—implied by using PNA-authored books—was far more problematic for Israel than anti-Semitism.”

CMIP response:

“Israel did not distribute ‘the exact same books in East Jerusalem, removing only the cover,’ but their censored version. There is no ‘odd double standard’ on the part of CMIP, but since this fact is well-known amongst researchers, it is puzzling that the information has eluded Professor Brown.”

My rejoinder:

This is only a partial response and the information it does contain is false:

·  The response is incomplete because it does not mention the failure to distribute the 1994 National Education series in East Jerusalem.  Indeed, readers of the CMIP report would probably be astounded at the contents of that series, because the books omit any mention of any territory as Palestinian other than that occupied by Israel in 1967.  And they contained neutral references to Israel.

·  Israeli censorship of Palestinian textbooks ended in 1994 with the abolition of the “Civil Administration’s” responsibility for Palestinian education; up to that time, East Jerusalem schools, under the supervision of the Israeli Municipality of Jerusalem, had used the censored books.  The end of censorship thus presented Israeli officials overseeing education in Jerusalem with a problem.  An earlier attempt to convert it to the Israeli Arab curriculum had failed.  (Another foray in that direction, made by Mayor Ehud Olmert in 1997, was abandoned after it provoked international criticism.) That left only the PA’s republished Jordanian books, but they bore the name and the symbol of the Palestinian National Authority on the cover.  So these books were distributed with only the cover censored.  My information is based on an interview with an inspector of Israeli schools in East Jerusalem conducted in November 1999.  If CMIP wishes to claim that—unbeknownst to the Israeli Ministry of Education—all researchers know that censorship continued after 1994, it is puzzling that it chooses not to cite a single reference in any language to document the point.

My original claim:

“By sharp contrast to the Egyptian and Jordanian books, the 1994 National Education series, actually authored by the PNA, verged on blandness.  The first generation of books made no mention of any Palestinian area within the 1967 borders (the second generation of books—written after the Center’s first report—reversed this policy).  Indeed, the 1994 books went to some length to avoid any controversial matter whatsoever.  An organization claiming to “monitor the impact of peace” might be expected to compare the older, non-Palestinian books with the newer, Palestinian ones.  Indeed, such a task would seem basic to its mission.  The Center goes beyond failing to live up to its name; its reports are written to obfuscate the distinction between the old and new books”

CMIP response:

 “Professor Brown acknowledges that CMIP did in fact compare them.   CMIP’s interpretation regarding the meaning and significance of these changes is different from his interpretation. Indeed, CMIP does not view these change as an improvement. It does not regard reducing references to Jews to the minimum, while at the same time attributing to them traits of trickery, greed and barbarity and insinuating that they do not keep agreements and treaties as Muslim do, as an improvement. Nor does it consider a shift from an explicit to an implicit call for the destruction of Israel to be an improvement.”

My rejoinder:

This response combines an inaccurate paraphrase of what I said with an inadequate response:

·  My original statement is perfectly accurate.  There is simply no comparison in any CMIP report between the older Jordanian and Egyptian books and the 1994 series.  Such a comparison would have undermined the organization’s conclusions.

·  Only in its 2000 report does the CMIP begin such a comparison and then it is so fleeting that most readers missed it.  It then proceeded to mix quotations from the old and new books together so that readers were misled into thinking quotations in the old books occurred in the new ones.  CMIP made no effort to correct the misimpression its own prose had created.  Indeed, it used its reports to support international campaigns to cut off funding for the new books, not mentioning that the offensive passages came from the old books.

·  The CMIP refers in its response to me to the “promising position advocated in the very first years of the PNA between 1994 and 1996” while claiming that the curriculum has not lived up to this promise.  Those who read and relied on the 1998, 2000, and 2001 reports would have been very surprised to discover that the CMIP believed the position of the PA for the first two years was “promising.”

·  Explicit anti-Semitism and calls for Israel’s destruction have been removed.  The CMIP still finds them implicit.  I am not persuaded by the CMIP’s interpretations, partly because (as I explain in the paper) I find most of its evidence irrelevant to the point in addition to its practice of ignoring contrary evidence.  But even if I were persuaded, I do not think that any fair-minded reader could read the old books—with their blatant anti-Semitism—and not find the change of tone and content startling.

·  As an illustration of how the CMIP pushes its language too far, I can cite an occasion in which it inserted a word into a translation to make it appear anti-Semitic.  The seventh grade national education book, according to the CMIP, gives the following homework:  “Mention the attitude of the Ottoman state towards the greedy ambitions of the Jews regarding Palestine.”  However, the word “greedy” is simply not in the original Arabic.  There is a single word used, atma`, which means “ambitions.” It does carry covetous overtones.  While I would translate it simply as “ambitions;” if CMIP wishes to emphasize the negative connotations, it might select the word “designs.”  But by inserting the extra word, the CMIP translation renders the language of the sentence far more stark than it appears in the original.  And the inserted word allows the CMIP to claim that the Jews are described as “greedy” but that is simply not what the text says.  The CMIP posts the page on its website at: http://www.edume.org/reports/7/pics/106.htm.  The translation is posted at: http://www.edume.org/reports/7/1.htm.

·  The CMIP continues to mislead international audiences with its campaign against the books.  The oddest aspect of this campaign—documented partly on the CMIP’s website—is its effort to bring pressure to bear in the European parliament because of the EU’s alleged support for the new books.  The CMIP began the campaign against funding for the new books by presenting reports to European parliamentarians based primarily on the old books, not the new ones they implied (incorrectly) the EU was funding.  And the CMIP continues to obscure the fact that the EU does not fund the books at all (some funding has come from member states but not the EU itself), and thus the European parliament is a strange forum for the battle.

My original claim:

“The Center goes beyond failing to live up to its name; its reports are written to obfuscate the distinction between the old and new books.  It does not simply fail to note the change, but, in one of its rare falsehoods, the Center claims that in the 1994 series, Israel does not exist. (The treatment of Palestinian history in the 1994 books is extremely brief, but Israel is indeed referred to; remarkably, the 1994 texts resorts to awkward phrasing to avoid citing Israel in some negative contexts.)”

CMIP response:

“Professor Brown often refers to ‘the 1994 books,’ and contends that ‘in one of [CMIP’s] rare falsehoods, the Center claims that in the 1994 series, Israel does not exist,’ though according to him, ‘Israel is indeed referred to.’ (Brown p. 4). CMIP has never reviewed the ‘1994 series.’ CMIP reviewed PNA textbooks on ‘National Palestinian Education’ that were published in 1995 and 1996. Footnotes 5 and 6 of Professor Brown’s report refer the reader to CMIP’s supposed mention of the 1994 series, sources which, when we checked them, turned out to relate to other topics.

My rejoinder:

This response uses an extremely misleading statement in evading the issue.  The National Education (not “National Palestinian Education” as the CMIP calls it) series was initiated in 1994.  I make perfectly clear in my paper that this is what I mean by the phrase “1994 books.”  I do not call them “National Education” each time in my paper order to avoid confusion with identically named books published for grades 1, 2, 6, and 7 in 2000 and 2001.  CMIP may have used 1995 and 1996 editions of these books, but any reader of the paper would realize what the reference to 1994 books meant.  In obfuscating the sources, the CMIP response ignores the substance of the criticism.  The 1994 books, the only ones authored by the PA before 2000, were markedly different from the older Jordanian and Egyptian books.  The CMIP has never acknowledged this and its continued refusal to make any comparison is what leads me to question the intellectual honesty of the organization. 

With regard to my footnote, CMIP should check again.  Its false statement comes in its first newsletter (as my sixth footnote indicates, contrary to the CMIP claim).  The newsletter states: “Finally, even in the new original Palestinian publications, Israel and Jewish history in Israel do not exist, and all of Israel is still portrayed in maps and in texts as Palestine.”  Since this statement was issued in September 1998, the reference to the “new original Palestinian publications” can only refer to the 1994 series.

My original claim:

“The books include many maps; all present the ambiguity of the borders of Palestine without addressing the subject directly in the text.  Absent any authoritative borders, the books dodge the issue.”

CMIP response:

   “Professor Brown contends (Brown p. 9) that ‘maps of the entire area of mandatory Palestine (including Israel) are sometimes historical or topographical in order to avoid drawing political boundaries,’ ‘Israel is thus not indicated (nor are Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and Egypt).’ This is clearly not correct…

   “Not only do maps not mention Israel, but the texts too studiously refrain from doing so, preferring instead such euphemisms as “the interior” (al-dakhel), “the green line” or “the lands of 1948” (see pp. 46-48 of the 2001 report), thus reinforcing the tendency apparent in the maps.”

My rejoinder:

This is an inaccurate and incomplete response.  I refer readers back to my original paper to understand my analysis of the issue of maps more generally.  However, I should point out some errors in the CMIP response:

·  Some maps indeed are topographical or historical.  CMIP is incorrect in its denial of this.

·  Some maps do—as the CMIP claims—show all of mandatory Palestine.  Some draw a dotted line around the West Bank and Gaza; others do not.  There are other confusing and inconsistent features of the maps, leading me to view the CMIP’s claim that the books call for the replacement of the state of Israel with the state of Palestine untenable. 

·  It is true that the books use some circumlocution to avoid mentioning Israel.  I point to this awkwardness in my paper.  But honesty should compel the CMIP to acknowledge that the new (2000 and 2001) books each begin with a foreword describing the West Bank and Gaza as “the two parts of the homeland.”

·  In the 1994 series, one book included a blank box where students were supposed to draw their own map!   This is perhaps the most telling example of the awkward attitude I find.  CMIP makes no mention of the (non-)map as part of a general pattern of ignoring contrary evidence.

My original claim:

“Any evidence that contradicts the Center’s harsh message is ignored, obscured, or dismissed, such as maps that clearly draw Palestinian governorates as covering only the West Bank and Gaza, an extended and laudatory treatment of Gandhi’s nonviolence, or a tour of Palestinian cities that includes only those under PNA rule.  Other evidence is interpreted inaccurately.  For instance, a topographical map of Palestine (inserted most likely to avoid drawing any sensitive political issues regarding borders) is presented as a denial of Israel’s existence.  Many of the selections included are presented in a highly tendentious manner: a unit on tolerance is criticized for omitting Jews, while a reading of the entire unit makes perfectly clear that its topic is tolerance within Palestinian society.”

CMIP response:

   “Professor Brown’s contention that ‘a tour of Palestinian cities’ includes ‘only those under PNA rule’ (Brown p. 4) is patently incorrect, since it includes cities such as Jaffa and Acre, internationally recognized as being under Israeli sovereignty.

    “Professor Brown’s claim that the Jews are omitted because its scope is ‘tolerance within Palestinian society’ is false. A thorough reading of the entire unit shows clearly that it also deals with tolerance from both the Muslim and historical point of view, and not only with ‘tolerance within the Palestinian society.’ This is but one of the reasons that led CMIP to translate almost the entire unit.”

My rejoinder:

My initial statements were correct.  CMIP makes two errors here:

·  With regard to the tour of Palestinian cities, it is the CMIP’s claim that is patently incorrect.  I am referring to the one in the third grade textbook for the 1994 National Education series.  CMIP did review this section in its first report, adducing it as it to support its claim that “Israel’s capital Jerusalem is said to be the capital of ‘Palestine.’”  Since Jerusalem was a matter for final status talks, this was hardly evidence of the Palestinian attitude towards peace.  More to the point, the report omitted the fact that all other locations referred to in this tour were in the West Bank and Gaza.  Jaffa and Acre were simply not mentioned.  [For some reason, the CMIP has removed this third-grade reference from the revised edition of the 1998 report currently posted on its website, but it did occur in the original report.  I should also note here that my paper should have not used the phrase “under PNA rule” because the PNA does not operate openly in East Jerusalem.  Instead I should have said “areas occupied by Israel in 1967.”]

·  The unit on tolerance occurs in a book on “national education” that focuses on Palestinian society.  My statement that the focus of the unit is on “tolerance within Palestinian society” is not false, as the very name of the book shows.  There is some coverage of Muslim-Christian relations precisely because this is the most difficult issue regarding tolerance internal to Palestinian society.

My original claim:

  “The Palestinian textbooks were such a politically attractive target that even those who were better informed as to their content criticized them.  Hillary Clinton, running for the U.S. Senate, criticized Palestinian textbooks in a way that buried her acknowledgement that the new first and sixth grade books, authored by the PNA itself, were different:  “All future aid to the Palestinian Authority must be contingent on strict compliance with their obligation to change all the textbooks in all grades—not just two at a time.”  After her election, her comments lost even this subtlety: in June 2001 she joined with her fellow senator from New York, Charles Schumer, in a letter to President George Bush, introducing the false charge (clearly based on a Center report): “A book that is required reading for Palestinian six graders actually starts off stating, ‘There is no alternative to destroying Israel.’”  As the second intifada took on diplomatic as well as violent dimensions, the Israeli government cited textbooks as evidence of Palestinian bad faith and hostile intentions.  Others held international donors responsible for not forcing changes or even for funding new sources of incitement.

   “The Center’s reports were the clear source for most of these charges, whether cited or not.  A member of the United States Congress wrote to The New York Times:

According to the Center for Monitoring the Impact of Peace, today’s sixth-grade Palestinian students are required to read the textbook “Our Country Palestine,” which has a banner on the title page of Volume I that reads, “There is no alternative to destroying Israel.”

The charge was false, though it was widely repeated and even displayed in an advertising campaign by an organization calling itself (with unintended irony) “Jews for Truth Now.”  No textbook included such a phrase.  The member of Congress and others had read the Center’s carelessly-written report in a careless manner.  The original report had actually claimed: “An old book introduced into the PA curriculum is filled with virulent anti-Semitism.”  It then claimed that there is a banner on the title page stating “There is no alternative to destroying Israel.”  The Center’s claim was misread and may have been inaccurate.  The book “Our Country Palestine” was an old geographical guide to Palestine begun in the 1940s and published in some subsequent editions.  Those looking for the supposed banner could not find it (nor could I).  Certainly the edition available to the textbook authors did not include the phrase.  Further, the claim that the book was introduced into the curriculum is highly misleading. Its author’s evacuation from Jaffa in 1948 was described, and, at the end of the unit, students are given a suggested activity of looking up the name of their town or village in the book.  To leap from this suggested activity to a charge of inculcating virulent anti-Semitism seems—to put it politely—curious indeed.

CMIP response:

  “Our Country Palestine” is indeed a reference book, which is part of the PNA curriculum.  In a PNA sixth grade textbook "Our Beautiful Language" its eighth lesson is devoted to its author, Mustapha Murad Dabbagh. The lesson begins with the list of its goals. One of the goals is to ask the pupils to write a detailed account of the importance of their town or village, and not simply "[to look] up the name of their town or village in the book " as written by Professor Brown, (Brown p. 8). Afterwards, there is a short laudatory paragraph about Dabbagh's monumental work, presented as a systematic survey of Palestine from the geographical, historical, demographic, cultural, educative, botanical and zoological points of view. Later, two and a half pages are devoted to an excerpt from Dabbagh's introduction to the first volume of his book. All this would strongly suggest that "Our Country Palestine" is indeed intended to be used as a reference book for the sixth grade….

   “CMIP has seen and consulted a copy of Volume 1 and Volume 2 of the first edition of this book that belonged to the library of one of the intermediate school in Hebron. There is indeed an edition published in 1991 by Dar al-Huda in Kafr Qara in Israel, under Israeli supervision, which omits this banner.”

My rejoinder:

I include my original argument at some length because I do not think it is challenged by the CMIP account in any way:

·  The book is not part of the PA curriculum.

·  The unit in the sixth grade book does cover Dabbagh but directs students only to look up their town and village.  The fact that they are supposed to write an account of their town or village explains why they are supposed to use Dabbagh.  CMIP claims that I am wrong here but actually supports my original claim.

·  Most important, CMIP’s report uses a starkly different standard for  its treatment for Israeli textbooks  Its report on Israeli books specifically excluded supplementary but non-textbook material, even if students were to be examined on it on the bagrut (the Israeli equivalent of the tawjihi).  CMIP’s report on Israeli books explicitly excluded “novels that are taught in literature classes and used in the matriculation exams, such as "Hirbat Hiz'a" by Israeli author Yizhar Smilansky, describing a group of Israeli soldiers who torture an Arab during the Independence War of 1948.”   See “Arabs and Palestinians in Israeli Textbooks,” 2000, http://www.edume.org/reports/5/intro.htm.  If CMIP wishes to include Dabbagh on the rather dubious grounds that a book refers students to examine some information in it then surely it must include novels on which Israeli students are to be tested on the most important academic examination of their lives.

Again, the CMIP would find its credibility enhanced if it corrected those who used its report in making inaccurate statements.  My purpose in mentioning the episode to point out how careless readings of CMIP’s carelessly-written reports have led some to make serious mistakes in public statements.  I would caution journalists and politicians not to rely on the CMIP reports precisely because they are extremely misleading.