Really good idea --except the part about students writing-in their own comments. What can students at the ( presumed ) middle school level, even a HS level, say that can possibly be much more than unoriginal or not well informed ? Better by far to have students write their own views in papers for their classes. And much better to use the third column for some outside analysis --perhaps written by a Japanese or Australian scholar. Something with the possibility of being objective and informed. Otherwise, the idea can be seen as a good start with RC potential. >From what I have so far read on these competing narratives, the Palestinian view is so ludicrously biased that it is a joke. But I'm less than impressed with the Israeli narrative since it seeks to write the Palestinians completely out of history. True, they never were a nation, at least not since the Philistine era, but some % of people were on the scene from the time of the Canaanites on ward. Genetic studies say as much. Israelis overwhelmingly assume that any such admission necessarily means legitimating Muslim claims. But I don't see it that way at all. It may give credibility to Canaanite claims., or Philistine ( Hellenic peoples and others ) claims, but that has nothing at all to do with Muslim claims. In fact, to give credence to Canaanite claims necessarily undercuts Muslim claims. Alas, Israelis don't want to do that because they are also opposed to any kind of Canaanite view of history. But I am not , and don't mind saying so. I favor a Canaanite view --strongly. To refer again to the Canaanists of early Israeli history ( 1940s and 1950s ), Jews , mostly, who sought to interpret the history of the land objectively, their views seem to me to be on the money, essentially factually correct, but without their unrealistic political program, the most worthwhile approach. Reason the Israelis won't go this route ? The power of the Orthodox community as guardian of a literalistic interpretation of the Hebrew Bible ( OT ). For the record, a literalistic reading --except in part-- simply can't cut it if objective history is important. So we need a part literalistic, part archeological reading of the text. My humble opinion. The trick is getting the proportions right. and actually learning the relevant history. Billy ========================================================= Straits Times / Singapore Sep 27, 2010 'Palestinian' textbook controversy
JERUSALEM - THE principal of an Israeli school near Gaza has been summoned before the education ministry over a textbook giving Israel and Palestinian narratives of the conflict, a newspaper said on Monday. The textbook, 'Learning the Historical Narrative of the Other,' covers both Israeli and Palestinian views of the violence around the time of Israel's birth in 1948, the left-leaning daily reported. Each page is split into three, with the Israeli narrative on the right, the Palestinian version on the left and a blank column in the middle for students to enter their own thoughts. 'On the second day of the school year the instruction came down not to use the book because it was not approved,' said an unnamed teacher at Shaar HaNegev school near Sderot, an Israeli town once the target of near-daily rocket fire from Gaza. 'This was a knee-jerk response, almost Pavlovian, to any attempt by the educational system to tackle the Palestinian side,' the teacher said, accusing the ministry of not even bothering to ask how the material was being used. The ministry was not available for comment due to the Succot holiday, but in a statement to Haaretz it said the textbook had been 'rejected' five years ago. It was not clear why. -- AFP -- Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <[email protected]> Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org
