Towards an ‘Interfaith Nationalism’? Christians and Their Relations to Muslims in the History Textbooks of the Syrian Arab Republic

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is a solid piece of research that will be a nice contribution to identity formation in the contemporary Middle East. 

There could be three things done from an editorial perspective that will make the article stronger and clearer:

1. The Assyrian Church of the East and the Oriental Orthodox churches do not ascribe to the terms "Nestorian" and "Monophysite." Those are pejorative terms. Rather the author should make clear that these are the terms ascribe to them by Constantinople.

2. The term CDA needs to be referenced earlier and in a clearer fashion. While the author quotes what CDA is, it is not clear how this is different than other kinds of analyses (e.g., literary or political discourse). A simple addition of several sentences should help.

3. It would be helpful for the author to briefly describe the number and kinds of sources to be reviewed in 2. "Materials and Methods." 

These are suggestions to help the article be clearer in its arguments. The argument and conclusions are sound and interesting. 

I have inserted these comments in the attached draft of the article to assist the author. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you for your kind remarks and valuable in-text instruction

1. I have incorporated the change you suggested (see page 2 line 4)
2. See additions in page 2 (end of the page) and page 4 at the beginning of the second paragraph
3. See the the beggining and the end of page 4

Reviewer 2 Report

This is an interesting paper that tackles an important and under-researched question through a suitable methodological approach. The paper is well-written and well-structured and I particularly appreciate how it works across Arabic and English. Some suggestions for the authors:

1.       The theoretical component of the paper is somewhat lacking. It would be great to elaborate on your conceptualisation of education and its role within larger power-structures in place, and to return to this in your conclusions to further bring out the contribution you are seeking to make or could make in relation to the Syrian case but also beyond. It would be great to see the paper move from a case study on Syria to a larger contribution.  

2.       The paper could use some further contextualisation, including a bit more about historical background as well as related cases. For example, how is this a particularly Syrian phenomenon and how does it link to dynamics in neighbouring countries like Lebanon and Jordan? Given the intersections as well as the relevance, some thinking-across these cases might enrich and further highlight the importance of this contribution. This is also important as not to exceptionalise any of these dynamics. If specific studies on education are lacking (although there are a few about Lebanon and Jordan), then insights from wider socio-cultural research could surely be relevant in this respect.

3.       Re methodology, some further clarification about how and why these specific excerpts are chosen and what this means analytically would be great.

4.       While the analysis is good, it would further help to elaborate and expand on some of the points you make in that section especially in view of highlighting the ‘so-what’.

5.       The contribution of the paper are worth situating within larger (global) critiques including modern education, nationalism and so on. While the paper is well situated in education literature, I am wondering if the authors might consider also having it speak to larger literatures, including (perhaps) sectarianism and post/decoloniality.

Author Response

Thak you for your kind remarks and useful suggestions. I tried to incorporate most of them

1. I provided an additional sentence in the literature review regarding religious education (see page 2) and I tried to expand the essays objectives' scope in page 3 (see the addition in the middle of the last paragraph). Then I have restructured my conclusions accordingly.
2. The introduction is now divided in two parts. The first one is the historical context (see page 1 and 2) and the second the theoretical part and the literature review. I have tried to hint at possible comparisons between Syria and other Middle Eastern nations both in the introduction and the conclusions as well, especially by theoretically contextualizing the objoectives within the discussion of sectarianism
3. I think that this is now addressed (see the additions in the Materials and Methods section)
4. While I am not sure if I have understood this comment well, I elaborated on the discussion section by making some new additions to my analysis and including sentences that were previously in the conclusions (see pages 10-11)
5. Sectarianism as the theoretical background of our discussion is now more clearly presented in the introduction and the conclusions. Regarding post/decoloniality I am not sure if I could make any further links to my research questions, so I skipped it to keep things simpler for the reader

Reviewer 3 Report

The article is well written and well argued. The research question is concise and qualified properly. The discussion is supported with the sources and the analysis contributes to the field. 

I believe the article can be improved by thinking about the sources in more expansive ways. What does this teach about the way the regime sees Syrian citizenry? what are the political objectives that are behind this choice? see for example this article: 

Ilan Fuchs, The construction of an ideological curriculum: The study of Emunah in the Har Hamor Yeshiva, Journal of Israeli History vol. 35 (2016), 1-18.

• I am also adding some specific comments: 

1. The introduction section is heavily packed. There should be a more robust methodological section that explains and unpacks the methodology used by the author. 

2. Are there more quotes to be found in other textbooks? perhaps older ones? the selection is not very large. Perhaps the author should use quotes of other religions such as Judaism to contrast. 

3. I would suggest adding a reference to the role of Islam and Christianity in the rise of modern Syria/Ba'athism. Michele Aflaq was born a Christian and discussed the role of Islam in Arab nationalism. 

4. The choice to limit to these specific textbooks should be explained in more detail. 

5. The citation format and bibliography should be checked again. 

Author Response

Thank you for your kind remarks and suggestions

I have now included in more succinct terms some sentences regarding how the Syrian regime sees its citizenry in the conclusions which have been largely reconstructed. I think that the expansion of my discussion (see page 10-11 and my comments on the use of the millet logic by the regime) as well addresses your comment to some extent. As for the article that you suggest I could not have free access to it even though I would love to, since I am intered in Israeli politics and I am currently learning Hebrew!

As far as the specific remarks are concerned:

1. I understand what you mean, therefore I decided to divide the introduction into a separate historical context part (it was aksed by another reviewer) and a theoretical part that contains the literautre review, some additions regarding my methodology, as well as the essay's objectives.
2. Unfortunately I cannot find at present previous versions of the textbooks in question. The 18 excerpts that have singled out for the analysis are the only ones that could be extracted depending on the key-words I chose and the research objectives I have posed in the introduction.
3. This is now addressed in the new historical context sub-section (see page 2).
4. Please see the additions I made in the Materials and Methods
5. I think it is now ok, I have checked this again.