I asked 3 different AI engines to critique a critique of Ireland’s school books concerning antisemitism. Here’s what they found.

Image created in Dall E based on the prompts in this article

There has been a document sitting in my inbox for the last couple of months, European Textbooks: Ireland Review, and I’ve been meaning to analyse it from my perspective, as one of the only ethnic Jewish teachers working in Ireland. I’ve been watching and listening to the discourse on social media and I am struck that this document is used almost without question. While I had no doubt that the report would identify some valid issues, I was struck by its sheer length. How could Irish school books be potentially so antisemitic? Here is the blurb from the IMPACT-se website:

This IMPACT-se report examines Irish school textbooks and reveals concerning misrepresentations of the Holocaust, Judaism, and Israel. Among the findings, the Holocaust is minimized, with Auschwitz incorrectly referred to as a “prisoner of war camp,” diluting its historical reality. Textbooks are often hostile towards Israel and include questions that imply Jewish values are not aligned with peace. Additionally, Judaism is portrayed as condoning violence to promote justice, contrasting with peaceful depictions of other religions. These findings underscore the need for curriculum reform to foster accurate, balanced, and respectful education. This report is the first in a new Europe-wide program assessing textbook portrayals across eight selected countries.

Everyone suffers from bias, including me. When I saw, what appears to be a conflation of criticism of Israel with antisemitism, my alarm bells went off. Rather than offer my own opinion, I decided that I’d see if I could find a neutral opinion on the report. Who better than ChatGPT?

However, I’ve heard some dissenters saying the ChatGPT is too “woke” (I hate that word!) so I decided that I’d use 3 different AI bots — ChatGPT, Claude and Perplexity. I decided, for balance, to ask two questions:

1. I want to write an article about this document. While I obviously won’t disagree with a lot of it, I do not like when Zionism is conflated with Judaism. I also am not in favour of tenuous allegations of anti-Semitism. Can you find examples of these issues and any other issues that seem to be misleading. Please also look out for disinformation.
2. Now can you give me some examples of where Irish school books do cross the line when it comes to antisemitism. Explain how they are antisemitic as if I had no understanding of it.

Some readers will argue that anti-Zionism is antisemitic but I disagree with this hence why I felt it was important to add it to my prompt. The results were, perhaps unsurprisingly similar. (The full responses from all 3 engines can be found here.)

With all that said, this is a summary of all three engine’s responses to the first prompt:

1. Conflation of Judaism and Zionism

• Key Observations Across Engines:
• ChatGPT: Critiques conflation of Jewish religious identity with Zionist political claims, particularly in discussions about Jesus and “Palestine” or the Old Testament covenant’s modern implications for Israel’s legitimacy.
• Perplexity: Notes failure to distinguish Zionism (a political movement) from Judaism (a religion), exemplified by references to “Jewish claims to indigeneity in the land” without clarifying the distinction.
• Claude: Emphasizes that equating criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism conflates Jewish identity with Israeli state policies, stifling legitimate political discourse.

Synthesis: The document struggles to separate political Zionism from Judaism as a faith and cultural identity. By labeling critiques of Israel as anti-Semitic or tying theological concepts like the covenant to Israel’s political actions, it risks misrepresenting both Zionism and Jewish religious identity, creating a conflation that is problematic for nuanced discourse.

2. Tenuous Allegations of Anti-Semitism

• Key Observations Across Engines:
• ChatGPT: Highlights that allegations of anti-Semitism (e.g., Ireland’s “obsession” with Israel) rely on anecdotal examples like graffiti and social media comments, lacking systemic evidence.
• Perplexity: Points out sweeping claims about anti-Semitism without specific data (e.g., a “notable increase” since October 2023).
• Claude: Criticizes overstated allegations, such as Ireland’s support for Palestine being framed as anti-Semitic, or parallels between Irish colonialism and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict being labeled prejudiced.

Synthesis: All engines agree that the report overgeneralizes anti-Semitism claims, often conflating political critique of Israel with anti-Jewish prejudice. Allegations require stronger evidence and must differentiate between genuine anti-Semitism and legitimate criticism of state actions.

3. Misleading Representations

• Key Observations Across Engines:
• ChatGPT: Identifies problematic dismissal of “Shrinking Palestine” maps and exaggeration of Auschwitz mislabeling as systematic Holocaust trivialization.
• Perplexity: Notes lack of specific examples to support claims that textbooks undermine Jewish indigeneity or foster anti-Israel sentiment.
• Claude: Critiques the report for demanding a specific narrative of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and selectively presenting information.

Synthesis: The document sometimes misrepresents or exaggerates issues to support its perspective. It dismisses or downplays valid criticisms of Israeli policies and historical realities, such as Palestinian territorial loss, while overstating instances of bias or mislabeling.

4. Potential Disinformation

• Key Observations Across Engines:
• ChatGPT: Flags speculative interpretations like the suggestion that the “Just War” theory justifies Palestinian violence or misrepresentation of refugee numbers.
• Perplexity: Questions whether the claim about Auschwitz being described as a “prisoner of war camp” is misleading without full context.
• Claude: Accuses the report of selectively applying historical standards, such as the critique of “Palestine” terminology during Jesus’s era.

Synthesis: All engines highlight that some claims in the document lack sufficient context, leading to potential disinformation. For example, speculative interpretations of textbook content or selective historical framing can skew narratives rather than promote balanced understanding.

5. Oversimplification of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

• Key Observations Across Engines:
• ChatGPT: Critiques the dismissal of Palestinian perspectives and lack of nuance in discussing territorial loss or refugee status.
• Perplexity: Notes biased language in framing Ireland’s stance on Israel as an “obsession” and dismissing Irish support for Palestinian rights.
• Claude: Highlights the report’s preference for a specific narrative and its failure to address the complexity of the conflict.

Synthesis: The report demands balanced narratives in textbooks but often promotes an equally one-sided view that dismisses Palestinian perspectives or oversimplifies contentious issues.

6. Methodological Concerns

• Key Observations Across Engines:
• ChatGPT: Questions whether the document projects intent onto educational materials rather than analyzing their pedagogical goals.
• Perplexity: Criticizes the report for primarily presenting Israeli perspectives without including diverse voices.
• Claude: Suggests that the methodology claims neutrality but applies UNESCO-derived standards selectively to support a predetermined narrative.

Synthesis: The methodology appears biased, focusing on defending a specific political stance rather than fostering genuine understanding. By excluding diverse perspectives and selectively applying standards, the report undermines its credibility.

7. Key Takeaways

• The report conflates Judaism and Zionism, blurring lines between religion and politics.
• Allegations of anti-Semitism are often overstated, lacking substantial evidence or context.
• It misrepresents critiques of Israel and dismisses valid concerns about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
• Some claims lack full context, leading to potential disinformation and a skewed narrative.
• The report applies selective methodology, favoring Israeli perspectives while sidelining others.

By correlating these insights, it’s clear that the document raises valid concerns but undermines its case through bias, conflations, and lack of rigorous evidence. A critical analysis should emphasize these points while advocating for balanced, accurate, and inclusive educational materials.

Of course, it’s important to note that the engines did identify some worrying antisemitic tropes that can’t be denied. Here’s what they found:

Depicting Jews as Villains in Jesus’ Story

• Example: The Grow in Love textbook (2019) portrays those who “did not like Jesus” wearing traditional Jewish religious clothing.
• Why It’s Anti-Semitic: This reinforces the harmful stereotype of collective Jewish responsibility for Jesus’ death, which has historically fueled anti-Semitic violence.

Portraying Judaism as Violent

• Example: The Inspire textbook claims Judaism condones violence to achieve justice, while other religions are depicted as inherently peaceful.
• Why It’s Anti-Semitic: This perpetuates the stereotype of Jews as aggressive or warlike, ignoring Judaism’s teachings on peace, such as Tikkun Olam (repairing the world).

Trivializing the Holocaust

• Example: Referring to Auschwitz as a “prisoner of war camp” instead of acknowledging it as a death camp targeting Jews for genocide.
• Why It’s Anti-Semitic: This diminishes the specific horror and systematic targeting of Jews in the Holocaust, aligning with denialist narratives.

Undermining Jewish Indigeneity

• Example: Textbooks question Israel’s legitimacy and downplay Jewish historical connections to the land.
• Why It’s Anti-Semitic: Denying Jewish historical ties to the region erases their cultural and religious heritage, contributing to delegitimization.

One-Sided Representation of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

• Example: Textbooks portray Israel as the sole aggressor, omitting Palestinian leadership roles or the broader historical context.
• Why It’s Anti-Semitic: This frames Jews as oppressors, fostering hostility toward Jewish people by extension.

Underrepresentation of Jewish Values

• Example: Textbooks fail to highlight Jewish moral teachings like compassion and justice, focusing disproportionately on other religions.
• Why It’s Anti-Semitic: This omission fosters the stereotype that Judaism lacks positive values or moral contributions.

Subtle Visual Bias

• Example: Pairing an image of a Palestinian boy protesting Israeli aggression with the parable of the Good Samaritan.
• Why It’s Anti-Semitic: This unfairly links Jewish identity with oppression, reinforcing negative stereotypes of Jews as lacking compassion.

There’s absolutely no doubt that the visual imagery of the people who did not like Jesus is an antisemitic trope, and this was corrected in later versions of the book. However, for much of the rest of the points, it really depends on one’s opinion on whether one should conflate criticism of Israel with antisemitism. I asked ChatGPT to balance the responses to the two prompts and write a paragraph on it. Here’s what it outputted:

While it is important to critique and identify areas where anti-Semitism or bias may be present in Irish schoolbooks, it is equally essential to approach these issues with nuance and balance. The conflation of criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism, as noted in the first response, risks stifling legitimate political discourse and oversimplifying complex geopolitical and historical issues. However, genuine examples of anti-Semitism in textbooks, such as stereotyping Jews as villains in religious narratives, misrepresenting Judaism as inherently violent, or trivializing the Holocaust, highlight serious concerns that need to be addressed to ensure inclusivity and accuracy in education. Balancing these critiques involves acknowledging and addressing overt anti-Semitic content while also ensuring that valid critiques of Israeli policies or historical complexities are not unfairly labeled as prejudiced. This approach fosters a more comprehensive and unbiased educational framework that respects all perspectives while combating harmful stereotypes.

On a personal note, I’d have to agree. It would be naive to think that there is no antisemitism in Ireland, and that sometimes it slips out inadvertently and probably without intention, like the Grow In Love illustration. I think the vast majority of school books over-simplify religions that aren’t Christian. In Ireland, only 2 chapters of the entire religious programme in Catholic schools are dedicated to learning about Judaism and Islam, and they are taught from a Catholic perspective. It reduces both faiths to stereotypes or a very limited view of what a Jew or a Muslim might be. Much of this bias is sin by omission, rather than overt antisemitism.

Overall, while I understand reports have to justify their publication, I believe that the authors need to unlink references to Israel with antisemitism. At the very least, the authors should acknowledge that some Jewish people believe that criticism of Israel equates to antisemitism and list these instances separately to more general antisemitic issues. It would certainly strengthen the report.

Have a read of the document here: