Changes to Israeli School Books 

Are Not Enough

In her 23 July 2007 New York Times article “In Arabic Textbook, Israel Calls 1948 War Catastrophe for Arabs,” Isabel Kershner relates the criticism that Israel’s Education Ministry has received for approving a new textbook for use in the state’s Arab schools. The book is the Arabic version of one used in a third-grade course on homeland, society, and citizenship.

The conflict regards statements made in the book such as “some of the Palestinians fled and some were expelled following the War of Independence” and “many Arab-owned lands were confiscated.” It also refers to the establishment of Israel as a “catastrophe” for the Arabs.

The national supervisor of homeland, society and citizenship studies, Dalia Fenig, has supported these inclusions saying “Pedagogically, it is not right to hide facts and ignore Arab sensitivities if we want to live together and build something in common.” Standing with Fenig is the Israeli Minister of Education, Yuli Tamir, who, believing there are two populations in Israel – which she labels Jewish and Arabic – has stated, “the Arab public deserves to be allowed to express its feelings.”

Contesting these views are those with more nationalist feelings. The Minister of Strategic Affairs, Avigdor Lieberman called the change in the textbook a function of “the masochism and defeatism of the Israeli left,” and the Chairman of the National Religious Party, Zevulun Orlev, has called for the dismissal of Tamir saying her stand is “anti-Zionist and goes against the very existence of Israel as a Jewish state.”

The changes to the textbook resulted from a 2002 decision by teaching professionals to include more of the Palestinian perspective into the program of study for those students who use the Arabic text. It also includes the Zionist version of the formation of Israel, including as Kershner states, “the fact that the Arab parties rejected the 1947 United Nations partition plan for Palestine while the Jews were willing to accept it.”

Any revision to textbooks that more accurately reflects historic truth benefits us all and should be applauded, as I do these efforts. Still, many problems exist with assumptions made in Kushner’s article and with the Israeli educational system.

The majority of the students in Israel are not Arabs but rather Israeli Jews: they use a Hebrew text in which the Palestinian version of the events in 1947 is not offered. According to Kershner, Fenig states this is because “Jewish third graders were considered too young to cope with the conflicting narratives.”

How can this be? Arab Israeli third graders live as second-class citizens while they continue to witness the plight of the Palestinian refuges living under some of the harshest oppression our world has witnessed. They not only have to cope with their plight, but they are expected to sit in class peacefully and accept that the situation is not only wrong, but that the Israelis admit to it with out making any substantial efforts at amends.

When one defines people as either “Arabs or Jews” it confuses the issue: one is an ethnicity and the other is a religion. There are Arabs of many different faiths and there are Jews from most ethnic backgrounds. To promote the idea that being Israeli is synonymous with being Jewish is to support Israel as a theocracy, not a democracy.

Governments based on religion – regardless of the faith – never allow for the equality of rights, opportunity, and treatment implied in a democratic society. So far, this degree of fairness has only been achieved through secular law – the complete separation between church and state. Whether Iran or Israel, for the United States to support faith based governments is to go against our founding principles and reduces our credibility in the world.

Nor is it correct to call the occupation of Palestine in 1947 a war of independence. This implies that the Zionists – those Jews of various nationalities who believed it was their God given right to retake Palestine – were fighting against an unfair government, such as occurred between England and the colonists during our revolution in the 1700’s. This was not the case, other than Britain restricting the Zionist immigration to the area because it was deteriorating British relationships with the Arab population already living there. Rather than an honorable struggle against oppression, the occupation of Palestine was more akin to the ethnic cleansing our forefathers waged against the original inhabitants of North America: a genocide our government did not formally apologize for until the late 1990’s.

Also misleading is to use, as Kershner states, “the fact that the Arab parties rejected the 1947 United Nations partition plan for Palestine while the Jews were willing to accept it,” as justification for the occupation. The Arabs rejected this plan because it was not fair – by standards then or today. It meant the displacement of thousands of people off of land that had been in their families for hundreds of years, and it gave the Zionists – who were the new immigrants to the area - over half of Palestine when they represented only a third of the population. This would be like Mexican Americans smuggling in others from South America, and then expecting the federal government to make Californians pack up and leave: and then waging war on them when they refused. Coexistence – in either case - is a reasonable request, but having to give up one’s home so another person can have theirs is not.

Furthermore, using that UN mandate as an excuse for the occupation has several faults, including that President Truman – whose agreement allowed the plan to proceed – soon recognized his mistake and called for the U.N. partition to end, that over 50% more land was taken from the Arabs than the Zionists were allotted by the U.N, that 748,000 people lost their homes and became refuges, and that the subsequent Israeli government refused – and continues to refuse – to comply with U.N. Resolution 194 that requires repatriation of all Palestinians who wished to return to their homes and live in peace. This partition plan was only one of several ideas that had been offered over the preceding 30 years, and like the others, required agreement by both parties before being implemented.

For Israel to find peace - and reduce the threat to our world that the formation of that State has caused - moderate Jewish Israelis must condemn Zionism as religious prejudice no longer acceptable in today’s world. It is a philosophy based on arrogant ideas of divine right, the belief in the superiority of one people over another, and the desire to keep Israel “racially” pure. As with all groups such as this, they also rely on violence as their means to an end.

Secular government must be embraced, and notions of keeping Israel religiously pure or segregating the country into “two different populations” discarded. This requires that all citizens be protected under the same bill of rights, that there is no stipulation of religious affiliation for citizenship, and that bilingualism is instituted as a required component for all children regardless of their ethnicity or religion. Faith may be useful in directing our private lives, but it has no place in determining public policy.

Other countries in the Middle East need similar changes to their governments if the region wishes an end to its perpetual conflict: today, all bear fault for the continuing violence. Still, the Zionists were the original aggressors and the State they formed bears the greatest responsibility for the process of reconciliation. By taking the lead and developing a model for the other’s to follow, Israel shows its commitment to non-violence and provides those harmed in the past with an avenue to forgiveness. While healing takes time, more people than not will choose peace over war – they just have to be given the opportunity to do so.